Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

I’m not on board with the term “normal kids” but I agree with much of this. And this is (part of) why Trump won.

Sorry but this is patently ridiculous. Trump did not win in jurisdictions that have invested more in SPED. Exactly the opposite is true.

People can certainly disagree about the appropriate level of funding for SPED. But blaming SPED for the election outcome ignores actual facts.

Not ridiculous at all. It’s part of why they want to dismantle dept of education

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

I’m not on board with the term “normal kids” but I agree with much of this. And this is (part of) why Trump won.

Sorry but this is patently ridiculous. Trump did not win in jurisdictions that have invested more in SPED. Exactly the opposite is true.

People can certainly disagree about the appropriate level of funding for SPED. But blaming SPED for the election outcome ignores actual facts.

The number of people who support vouchers and school choice is at an all time high. And when gen ed classrooms are filled with kids who speak no English and kids with major intellectual/behavioral issues, it’s not hard so see why.

Mainstreaming everyone makes people feel good, but it’s absolutely harming educational outcomes for kids with higher abilities.

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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

I’m not on board with the term “normal kids” but I agree with much of this. And this is (part of) why Trump won.

Sorry but this is patently ridiculous. Trump did not win in jurisdictions that have invested more in SPED. Exactly the opposite is true.

People can certainly disagree about the appropriate level of funding for SPED. But blaming SPED for the election outcome ignores actual facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

I’m not on board with the term “normal kids” but I agree with much of this. And this is (part of) why Trump won.

Sorry but this is patently ridiculous. Trump did not win in jurisdictions that have invested more in SPED. Exactly the opposite is true.

People can certainly disagree about the appropriate level of funding for SPED. But blaming SPED for the election outcome ignores actual facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

I’m not on board with the term “normal kids” but I agree with much of this. And this is (part of) why Trump won.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are proposing to end the Integration Station program, an inclusive special education preschool program that has served Arlington, VA for over 25 years. In its current form, it is cohoused in a private facility run by The Children’s School, a co-op started by APS teachers and staff, to provide inclusive opportunities for APS students receiving special education services.

APS recently paid for a private study by a private firm to look at how to reduce costs and the firm believes that disbanding IS will save APS $1 million. The reality is that a good chunk of those funds would need to be accounted for anyways, since these students are entitled to receiving a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under federal law (IDEA).

The problems that leadership have yet to address are: (1) do they have enough space to house these students elsewhere? (2) With current CPP programs under-enrolled with community peers, how would they find peers for additional CPP classes to provide the appropriate least restrictive environment (LRE) to these students without violating their IEPs?

Preschool? Federal laws? Those are both not domain of k-12 education in 2025. APS has. $35M shortfall, this is what is cut.

Agreed. K-12 must be the focus.

And the laws you cite don’t apply before the child is actually in K.

Sadly, I agree with cutting it.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you even feel horrible for those "community peers" who sit there and waste a dozen years, i.e., their most important formative years, watching paint drip and dry in class? Leave it up to sped advocates to rename, reclassify, and exterminate the word "normal" in everything academic.

And it's a worse option for who? Sorry to sound utilitarian but the kids aren't learning anything, teachers are stressed, parents are complaining, and the school systems suck because of the abuse of sped entitlement in general education. Again, why can't we just say "education" for a "normal" school situation? A large number of teachers, parents, and kids are fed up with the chaos, anarchy, and violence that's pervasive in classrooms.

The goal of education shouldn't be equality of outcomes (i.e., a race to the bottom) but equality of instruction (i.e., tracking) so that each and every child can reach their ceiling. Every kid is important, not just yours. And we shouldn't limit the number of native-born potential doctors, scientists, and engineers by not teaching to normal kids who have the potential to learn but aren't being taught. It's embarrassing that we're importing the equivalence of "double A" talent (MLB analogy) from other countries to populate our high skill economy because those people aren't talented enough to get jobs in their own country and we're not developing our own.

You should really not be so self-centered and stop single issue politicking for only your own problems. Especially when your solutions are about "fitting in" instead of optimal academic outcomes for everyone

"The law" is a silly thing to keep harping on when it's that very thing dragging everybody down. Laws are meant to be changed and, seeing that sped parents only care about their kids' outcomes over everyone else, you don't need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out. The only thing that might prevent this is school vouchers, which sped parents won't use to send their kids to sped schools that can cater to their kids, but other parents will use to escape the insanity. I'd rather they just save the public schools.

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:

If this is true, you should be posting it on listservs and Facebook under your real name so it can be verified. I can't treat an anon posting on DCUM as anything other than an unsubstantiated rumor.

Dear gentle reader: oh the irony when you’ve posted anonymously yourself.

That is your prerogative and this is mine. What would I benefit by making a stink of this as an unfounded rumor? Dr. Mann just sent out a message to IS families yesterday and the TCS board sent out their own messaging to TCS families as well.

If you don’t believe me, come to the next APS School Board meeting this coming Thursday, the 27th yourself. 7:00. I’ll be there, in red, alongside the rest of the IS and TCS community.

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!