2020 School Board Candidate Answers to SEPTA Questionnaire – Question 5

Back to List of Questions

Question 5

What is your knowledge of and opinion of the wide-spread accessibility issues in  APS facilities and what specific recommendations to have to remedy this? 

Answers are listed in alphabetical order by the candidates’ last names.

Cristina Diaz-Torres 

I am aware of the widespread issues in accessibility for students with disabilities, particularly students in wheelchairs and students with hearing or visual impairments. I strongly believe that we need to do everything necessary to ensure compliance with the ADA and, in fact, should aspire to comply with principles of Universal Design at all times. Given the forthcoming economic crisis, we cannot afford to continue to deprioritize accessibility on the front end at a significantly higher expense later on. 

As a Board Member, I will (1) advocate for systematically revisiting our process of value-based engineering to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are prioritized throughout the process of schematic design and are not deprioritized due to cost cutting and (2) encourage additional training for staff (including central office staff) about the needs of students with disabilities, the principles of Universal Design, and how to create environments that are accessible to all students. 

Steven Krieger

Unfortunately, accessibility issues have been longstanding in APS, particularly when new or redesigned schools open.

A variety of design elements at these schools have rightly been criticized for failures to address accessibility needs of students, staff and the community. It is unacceptable that we spend tens of millions of dollars on capital projects that fail to adhere to the measures established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This results in consequences that are not only inequitable and embarrassing, but costly. For instance, the School Board in 2018 had to approve an extra

$250,000 in spending at Alice West Fleet Elementary School to ensure entrances at the adjacent TJMS were accessible. And in February 2020 school staff laid out a proposal to spend

$500,000 to rectify additional accessibility problems at Fleet including (1) installing an elevator from the garage to the main entrance, (2) adding accessible parking spaces; (3) building inclusive playground equipment; and (4) implementing video intercoms.

Can you imagine the impact APS could have on the lives of students with disabilities if the money that was used to correct these issues went to more substantive curriculum or staffing needs for these students? While the money is problematic, the most offensive aspect is not the dollar figure, but what appears to be a basic lack of understanding about what is needed and how decisions impact special needs students at the schools.

Another accessibility issue is due to lack of a system of compliance and accountability throughout APS. As an example, Transportation staff is not sufficiently trained as to their obligations to uphold the rights of students with disabilities on the buses. In fact, only recently has OSE provided students’ medical information on regular and specialized APS buses. While knowledge and information about who is on the bus and their individual needs is the correct initial step, it’s only the beginning. The bus drivers need, and have requested, training on how to respond to a student with disabilities that requires services while riding the bus. However, APS has yet to provide this training, so this is another example of parents having to perform tasks for the betterment of their children, but that should be done by APS as a standard practice. Training bus drivers about the needs of students with disabilities is not an optional “best practice.” APS is actively not complying with 34 CFR §300.34(c)(16) of the IDEA regulations.

APS wouldn’t need to train as many bus drivers if APS was willing to transport more SWD on regular buses with accommodations, than to run nearly empty specialized buses — plus having this integration is beneficial for all students and saves money that could be used elsewhere to benefit students with disabilities.

As an attorney, it should go without saying that in the future APS must make better decisions related to APS’ legal requirements. I would have expected that someone on the construction team with knowledge, if not expertise, of the needs of special needs students would have reviewed the plans and designs, but perhaps that did not happen. Similarly, I wouldn’t think that education and training on the APS legal obligations would be necessary, but apparently, it is.

This is another example of where APS collaboration with SEPTA and Arlington Special Education Advisory Committee (ASEAC) would have been beneficial.

Sandy Munnell

My knowledge of the accessibility issues in APS facilities is limited to what I have read about Fleet ES and the new HB Woodlawn. I am baffled how those problems didn’t manifest themselves until occupancy was granted. Clearly not having sufficient access to the building from the underground parking deck, or children in wheelchairs left under stairwells during fire drills are not acceptable. Leadership at the school level needs to take center stage with common sense solutions. For example, why isn’t one room on each floor a designated safe space during a fire drill or shelter-in-place drill, and a supervisor assigned to the space to monitor the children?

As a School Board Member, I would require the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities to show that every step necessary was taken to ensure ADA compliance for any new facilities under construction. This would also include hiring an appropriate outside consultant who can review architecture plans for ADA compliance. I support the Assisantt Superintendent of Facilities most recent budget request to scan all documents regarding our facilities such as floor plans, maintenance manuals, system design plans as these documents are currently paper based and frequently missing in action. A database from these scans should be created so that the information is searchable and easy keep it up to date.

David Priddy

Building on my answer to question #1, we need to use the lessons learned from the construction of Fleet to move forward positively in our upcoming projects (Reed, Ed Center, etc.).   The solution for future projects requires implementation of my plan for equity in APS. Part of my equity plan is to have cultural competence training for all of APS including third-party vendors. If our facilities division and the architect that APS hired had cultural competence training, understanding those needs would have kept the Universal Design Standards in the project instead of ‘value engineering’ them out of the project. With that training, all

parties would have been able to see through the lens of needs for all studentsand staff when designing the building.

Additionally, the lessons learned will apply for existing APS schools as well. For instance, once we iron out the correct ‘shelter in place’ procedures for Fleet, we can apply those procedures to Barrett and The Heights (I mention those two schools because I have spoken with parents who state that ‘shelter in place’ is an issue there) and throughout APS. We can use these findings to commit to best practices at all APS schools.

Terron Sims

Having served on the Superintendent’s Executive Committee for several years, I have had conversations with senior APS staff and school board members about the construction of our schools and have observed and participated in the process of building new schools. To say that I am not pleased with APS’ school build process is an understatement, especially being that I am an engineer by education and have designed systems and structures for the ARMY. 

The recent situation with the final build with Fleet Elementary School and the issues with The Heights (HB Woodlawn) are inexcusable. ADA accessibility policy has legally existed since 1990. A community like Arlington ought to be appalled and ashamed of itself that it has built schools that are not ADA compliant. Add to that the fact that APS disregarded all of the transportation department’s SPED recommendations for The Heights, it gives one a better understanding as to APS’ true priorities when it comes to school design.

I had the opportunity to tour Fleet last fall, and without being aware that the school board had knowingly voted to remove ADA required elements, I spotted several, beginning when I attempted to park. The Fleet situation was allowed to occur because systemically (and historically), once APS receives its bond dollars from the county, the county steps away and does not participate in the design or construction of the school, other than the zoning and permit departments performing their basic duties. But, even then, their level of participation is minimal. It goes back to standards and enforcement. An ADA specialist representing Arlington County Government and a representative from the fire department and transportation ought to play a formal role in school construction to ensure that all ADA policies are implemented from the first charette to the last day of construction. 

S. Symone Walker

My understanding is limited to the physical accessibility issues at Fleet Elementary and the Shriver Program.  The Fleet accessibility issues are finally being addressed, but I am unsure about what the remedy was (or is) at Schriver. Quite frankly, I was stunned and horrified to learn about the accessibility issues at Fleet.  I cannot understand why APS would build a new school without using a universal design model for disabled students.  I suspect that there are similar issues districtwide that have not received a comparable level of publicity, mainly because of the buildings aren’t new, and there was no public recitation of incidents.  The accessibility audit I mentioned above in question #2 should reveal where our other vulnerabilities are, or might be, and recommendations for remediation.