Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of years ago, Duran gave all of the central office staff (that don’t work in schools) paid vacation for Christmas break and Spring break, in addition to the leave they already accrue (about three weeks). No other school district in the area does this. I am curious as to why the cost of that is not included in this report.

Probably because it didn’t change their salaries and isn’t paid out when they leave.

But it absolutely costs us in terms of FTEs required to do the job or potential productivity lost.

It’s also a way to keep or attract people to work in some of the harder to fill HR jobs, the report notes that we have vacancies there. I understand why school-based staff is annoyed by it but cutting it makes us less competitive with other districts that allow more WFH than we do and doesn’t save any money (outside of whatever is paid out at retirement or annual leave when employment ends. It’s nothing but doesn’t close any gaps)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of years ago, Duran gave all of the central office staff (that don’t work in schools) paid vacation for Christmas break and Spring break, in addition to the leave they already accrue (about three weeks). No other school district in the area does this. I am curious as to why the cost of that is not included in this report.

Probably because it didn’t change their salaries and isn’t paid out when they leave.

But it absolutely costs us in terms of FTEs required to do the job or potential productivity lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of years ago, Duran gave all of the central office staff (that don’t work in schools) paid vacation for Christmas break and Spring break, in addition to the leave they already accrue (about three weeks). No other school district in the area does this. I am curious as to why the cost of that is not included in this report.

Probably because it didn’t change their salaries and isn’t paid out when they leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with APS security rather than SROs. Though I agree police would have been much more highly trained, I would expect they were costing Arlington tax payers more on the whole while staffing our schools. Regardless of how we got here, it's frustrating that cost of security is now falling on the schools and contributing to APS budget strain since ACPD is so understaffed. SROs wouldn't come back even if the community was 100% unified behind it.

As for the Baker-Tilly report, I've read the whole thing and there may be a handful of savings opportunities. That said, most of those cuts are not actionable due to preexisting pips or a gross misunderstanding of how schools operate. They have charts showing how bloated APS is at the top, but none of the recommendations touch on the top-heaviness of the organization. On top of that, the administrators have a much better union than the teachers, custodians, and bus drivers, so TLDR the most vulnerable staff are most vulnerable to painful cuts. I expect those are cuts that are also likely to affect students' experience.

Yes, student-facing roles like library assistants and exemplary projects teachers being cut also means that lost planning time will need to be made up somehow.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of $ going to “security” assistants. SROs were less expensive, and more effective.

Anonymous wrote:A couple of years ago, Duran gave all of the central office staff (that don’t work in schools) paid vacation for Christmas break and Spring break, in addition to the leave they already accrue (about three weeks). No other school district in the area does this. I am curious as to why the cost of that is not included in this report.

Anonymous wrote:I'm good with cutting extras like the aquatics program and outdoor lab. Cutting library assistants and making schools share vice principals are horrible.

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with APS security rather than SROs. Though I agree police would have been much more highly trained, I would expect they were costing Arlington tax payers more on the whole while staffing our schools. Regardless of how we got here, it's frustrating that cost of security is now falling on the schools and contributing to APS budget strain since ACPD is so understaffed. SROs wouldn't come back even if the community was 100% unified behind it.

As for the Baker-Tilly report, I've read the whole thing and there may be a handful of savings opportunities. That said, most of those cuts are not actionable due to preexisting pips or a gross misunderstanding of how schools operate. They have charts showing how bloated APS is at the top, but none of the recommendations touch on the top-heaviness of the organization. On top of that, the administrators have a much better union than the teachers, custodians, and bus drivers, so TLDR the most vulnerable staff are most vulnerable to painful cuts. I expect those are cuts that are also likely to affect students' experience.

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with APS security rather than SROs. Though I agree police would have been much more highly trained, I would expect they were costing Arlington tax payers more on the whole while staffing our schools. Regardless of how we got here, it's frustrating that cost of security is now falling on the schools and contributing to APS budget strain since ACPD is so understaffed. SROs wouldn't come back even if the community was 100% unified behind it.

As for the Baker-Tilly report, I've read the whole thing and there may be a handful of savings opportunities. That said, most of those cuts are not actionable due to preexisting pips or a gross misunderstanding of how schools operate. They have charts showing how bloated APS is at the top, but none of the recommendations touch on the top-heaviness of the organization. On top of that, the administrators have a much better union than the teachers, custodians, and bus drivers, so TLDR the most vulnerable staff are most vulnerable to painful cuts. I expect those are cuts that are also likely to affect students' experience.