Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

Then educational outcomes will continue to worsen. Yay Arlington.

Maybe but only because the kids on grade level and slightly ahead of grade level will get more attention from teachers and their scores and grades will improve. The kids who are behind might even get smaller classes and more attention and they might improve. Or they might not but it's not like things are going to get better with the classroom set up the way it is now.

Kids who are 2-3 grades behind are not going to do worse if they are in a different class. The kids who are on track might do better. Why are we holding them back?

I love how all the people who want to group by ability are confident their kids will be in the high ability group. If you want this model, consider moving to Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

Then educational outcomes will continue to worsen. Yay Arlington.

Maybe but only because the kids on grade level and slightly ahead of grade level will get more attention from teachers and their scores and grades will improve. The kids who are behind might even get smaller classes and more attention and they might improve. Or they might not but it's not like things are going to get better with the classroom set up the way it is now.

Kids who are 2-3 grades behind are not going to do worse if they are in a different class. The kids who are on track might do better. Why are we holding them back?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

When APS has the ability to 1) accurately identify abilities, 2) accurately identify knowledge and ability gaps, and 3) address those knowledge and ability gaps, then we can have a conversation about ability grouping.

You don't think they can identify kids who are grade levels behind and kids who are on grade level? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

When APS has the ability to 1) accurately identify abilities, 2) accurately identify knowledge and ability gaps, and 3) address those knowledge and ability gaps, then we can have a conversation about ability grouping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

Then educational outcomes will continue to worsen. Yay Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

And we don’t all want the ATS heavy homework tuck in your shirt model

They don’t even tuck in shirts anymore.

Why? I’m not the one who thinks public schools and Durán are awful

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

And we don’t all want the ATS heavy homework tuck in your shirt model

They don’t even tuck in shirts anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Ability grouping is very unlikely to happen in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

While I agree that it won’t produce successful outcomes for EVERY student, using the ATS model in all schools makes the most sense. Especially when used in classrooms grouped by ability, it will benefit more kids than any other method.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Well I hope you are lobbying for increasing government funding!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

And we don’t all want the ATS heavy homework tuck in your shirt model

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what happens when your student is put in special ed setting but starts to fall behind due to slower pacing. Are you okay with that? When is that time going to be made up?

PP suggested increased funding and resources for higher-need classrooms. Smaller class sizes, more tutoring, summer school, etc.

But the fact remains, slow forward progress is better than no progress at all. It certainly beats sitting in a classroom and having to move on to the next topic despite not understanding the material that’s already been presented.

Increased funding and resources from where?

You’re very combative for someone who has no ideas of their own!


I know you think I’m MAGA, but you’re wrong. I’ve always supported fully funded schools. In addition to increased government funding, we can shift things around in our budget. Slash certain central office positions to start. I’d also — gasp — get rid of option programs if I could. Completely eliminate Montessori, Spanish immersion, HB, and whatever Campbell is. Keep Arlington Tech for the trade school route (because there is no shame in trade work!), but eliminate the fluff programs they’ve added (Vet, PT… these aren’t real programs unless you go to an actual college). Get rid of ATS but use their model at all of our elementary schools.

We would find a ton of money just by shifting things around.

Take a breath PP.
How is it combative to ask a question?

Outside of bussing eliminating option schools doesn’t save money. Dropping IB would likely save more money

Options are actually more efficient because every seat in every classroom is used. Unlike neighborhood schools where capacity utilization is much harder.

No

Especially for elementary, every school should follow the ATS model. It’s the only one that produces good results regardless of income level.

And doing it everywhere minimizes bussing.

They can’t, because parental participation is necessary for the ATS model and not all parents want that.