Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are teachers all over social media using their real names, showing their real faces, sharing that inclusion at all costs is making their jobs hell.

This isn't even an argument of inclusion or not, it's about if they need a separate school to do it

It is though. The argument is that if the ratios aren’t exactly perfect, these pre-k students won’t be in the LRE.

Many examples of LRE are actively harming the rest of the student population.

So kids whose parents are choosing to put them in a particular preschool are being harmed by having iep preschoolers included? TCS is not free so presumably if it was a hellscape of disabled 3 year olds terrorizing the rest of the student population they would vote with their feet. So your irrelevant to this discussion point seems to be just that it would be better for everyone to do away with inclusion.

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

DP. I think PP meant under enrolled for peers (I.e. typically developing students). The NT kids at IS are from TCS. So if the kids with ieps that are currently in IS are absorbed into already existing pre-K classes then that doesn’t change that it’s under-enrolled for typically developing kids. And programs like CPP are supposed to be no more than 50/50, iep students and typically developing kids.

Anonymous wrote:To start, for a toddler, playing is learning. And the IS kids playing with the TCS kids is extremely valuable for them to not only learn but also for both sides to build empathy. IS is a phenomenal program, and while my child is not in IS itself, he is at TCS and I am impressed by what I have seen by the IS teachers.

We do need to cut some things, and I’d start with our bloated administration. Duran has created a cabinet of 48 high level administrators - this is the fat that needs to be trimmed first.

Our transportation costs are out of control. We are busing students to too many options. We need to figure out a way to reduce these costs significantly.

Finally, we need to improve our approach to supporting students with special education needs. Ideally, students should be identified early, provided with targeted interventions and strategies to help them successfully navigate the general education environment, and gradually develop the skills needed for increased independence. In an effective system, this progression would lead to a natural reduction in accommodations as students demonstrate success. However, in practice, we are seeing a trend where some parents and students continue to rely on 504 Plans and IEPs even when data indicates that the student is thriving without the need for these supports.

Do I think IS is a superior program - yes. Would I like it saved - yes. Should this special program also receive busing? No - busing should only be provided for students going to their home school. There - that will lower the cost per IS student from 23k to about 19k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are teachers all over social media using their real names, showing their real faces, sharing that inclusion at all costs is making their jobs hell.

This isn't even an argument of inclusion or not, it's about if they need a separate school to do it

It is though. The argument is that if the ratios aren’t exactly perfect, these pre-k students won’t be in the LRE.

Many examples of LRE are actively harming the rest of the student population.

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:Will this open up additional spots for childcare at the children’s school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To stay on track, the county can absorb these 43 students at a cost savings in a very tight budget. There are schools with empty classroom, existing CPP programs and underenrolled VPI classes that can serve for inclusion for the students.

What is CPP and is it different from Integration Station?

+1. I’ve lost the thread in this whole virtue signaling discussion and political pontificating. Why does it not save $1m and why is it not appropriate?

And for the people who don’t support integration generally, we’re not teaching 4 year olds complex maths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To stay on track, the county can absorb these 43 students at a cost savings in a very tight budget. There are schools with empty classroom, existing CPP programs and underenrolled VPI classes that can serve for inclusion for the students.

What is CPP and is it different from Integration Station?