Anonymous wrote:

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

This wouldn’t solve the staffing problem. We would not fill vacancies. Our students are still entitled to an education under IDEA, so they aren’t going anywhere, nor are the other students receiving special education services in the county. There is a cap in Virginia for special education caseloads; it would be illegal to fill classes overcapacity. And again, if a class is filled with special education students, and less than 50% community peers, it would be a self-contained class and a worse option than what IS offers.

Dr. Mann specifically said our classes would convert to CPP. No mention of co-teaching models with existing VPI/Montessori classes. VPI is also under-enrolled right now, so it wouldn’t even be feasible to suggest APS expand co-teaching models with additional co-taught classes with VPI. It is a great alternative idea but unfortunately their enrollment numbers would not be able to make that work at this time!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For context as of January IS total enrollment was 43

1 mill on 43 students? Interesting....

IS teachers would be surplussed into those vacancies. I get you’re upset about the program ending but I think you are throwing up roadblocks that don’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:For context as of January IS total enrollment was 43

Anonymous wrote:

To those opposed to eliminating IS:

What would you propose instead?

Raising K-12 class sizes even more?

We’re arguing that this isn’t going to save APS money. It would eliminate an exceptional program to disperse us around the county for a worse option. So the $1 million would still be spent. But instead of spending it in one site, it would be spent in classes around the county.

K-12 students aren’t going anywhere. But neither are students receiving early intervention services with APS. APS is mandated to serve them too. So our students matter just as much as K-12.

Also, from a cost-benefit analysis: if our students make significant progress in their current placement, then they are more likely to attend general education in K-12. If our students were to be moved self-contained and make significantly less progress, we would need to send them to special education classes in K-12 potentially. So if you are worried about K-12, APS would not be expanding general education classes with lower enrollment in a few years, but having to also look for room for self-contained K-12 rooms. IN ADDITION to all the rooms IS classes would be taking space in! Which we aren’t even sure APS has room for those!

Anonymous wrote:

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

This wouldn’t solve the staffing problem. We would not fill vacancies. Our students are still entitled to an education under IDEA, so they aren’t going anywhere, nor are the other students receiving special education services in the county. There is a cap in Virginia for special education caseloads; it would be illegal to fill classes overcapacity. And again, if a class is filled with special education students, and less than 50% community peers, it would be a self-contained class and a worse option than what IS offers.

Dr. Mann specifically said our classes would convert to CPP. No mention of co-teaching models with existing VPI/Montessori classes. VPI is also under-enrolled right now, so it wouldn’t even be feasible to suggest APS expand co-teaching models with additional co-taught classes with VPI. It is a great alternative idea but unfortunately their enrollment numbers would not be able to make that work at this time!

To those opposed to eliminating IS:

What would you propose instead?

Raising K-12 class sizes even more?

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

So… We aren’t sure there is space, but you’re also concerned the program is under-enrolled?

Look, there’s what’s ideal, and then there’s real life. I’d love to keep the IS program as-is, but if it means making K-12 class sizes even bigger (they’re already huge in some schools!), then no, this pre-k program needs to be dissolved and the students need to be absorbed into already-existing pre-k classes. (No increase in overhead, as they already have teachers. And, you already suggested they’re under-enrolled.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry your program is on the chopping block. But I’m not understanding why the school-based options will not serve your needs. Unfortunately we are looking at a lot less ideal options for everyone across the board and I’m not sure this is worth further teaching staff cuts or higher class sizes for older kids.

The school-based options pose a few challenges:
(1) APS leadership has yet to identify which sites the classes would relocate to. Which means we have no idea, nor does Dr. Mann, if there is actually enough capacity across APS schools to accommodate the number of students currently attending the program.
(2) If APS manages to relocate all the classes, the CPP program is already under-enrolled for peers needed. APS cannot guarantee that it will have community peers for all these classes. If students who previously attended or would have attended IS no longer are with their typically developing peers, then they would be in a self-contained environment. The move would be regressive since these students would no longer have access to or benefit from exposure to these peers.
(3) The Mini-MIPA (the preschool autism class) and self-contained 3-5 class would be the greatest programs to suffer. These are students who are not quite ready for a full-day of integration in a general education environment, but have access to these opportunities during their day in the IS program by pushing into the general education TCS classrooms.

Moreover, the budget study that APS paid bakertilly claims it would save $1 million. However, that number isn’t accurate when accounting for overhead that would still need to be covered regardless - such as staff salaries, benefits, and transportation. APS and the study also do not specify how much federal funds are provided per student to attend. At least currently, under IDEA, schools should receive direct funding per student with special education services. Even if the Department of Education is disbanded, this law would still be in effect.

So… We aren’t sure there is space, but you’re also concerned the program is under-enrolled?

Look, there’s what’s ideal, and then there’s real life. I’d love to keep the IS program as-is, but if it means making K-12 class sizes even bigger (they’re already huge in some schools!), then no, this pre-k program needs to be dissolved and the students need to be absorbed into already-existing pre-k classes. (No increase in overhead, as they already have teachers. And, you already suggested they’re under-enrolled.)

Anonymous wrote:

Are the IS kids integrated with TCS all day or for a portion of the day?

Toddlers attend 5 hours and 3-5 year old preschoolers attend 7:50-2:40. Same hours as any other APS early childhood program. For IS, it is a fully integrated program for all rooms except the Mini-MIPA (preschool autism class) and self-contained 3-5 class; those classes would suffer from the cut especially since they push in and out of the general education classes throughout their day (something not really implemented anywhere else in APS to the same extent).