2020 School Board Candidate Answers to SEPTA Questionnaire – Question 6

Back to List of Questions

Question 6

What are your views on APS’s site-based management model and what changes, if any, would you make to it? 

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

Cristina Diaz-Torres 

I believe in collaborative governance in education that gives teachers, administrators, support staff, parents/caregivers and stakeholders a seat at the table. In order for this work to be effective, the entire decision-making team should operate with clear, accurate data and shared high expectations for students. In a review of school 90-day progressive plans, goals for students with disabilities range from excellent (e.g. detailed action items focused on addressing disparities) to lackluster (e.g. a passing mention of implementing ATSS). This inconsistency is unacceptable and goes back to the need to cultivate a district-wide belief that all students have a right to succeed — regardless of their background, race, ability, or family context — and the need to have clear lines of accountability to maintain those high expectations. 

Steven Krieger

As I’ve noted above in my response to question #2, site-based management has resulted in significant variations in service delivery between school buildings. And while APS has recently gone through the consolidation of the Office of Special Education (OSE) under the Department of Teaching and Learning, and changes in key leadership positions in order to correct some of this variation, under the current structure, OSE is still unable to effectively support delivery of processes, procedures, and compliance district-wide, let alone provide guidance on instruction and courses of action to schools.

Currently, programmatic initiatives and instructional support for differentiated instruction is being initiated and implemented at the school level. Given the less effective site-based management model in APS, OSE is not currently structured to provide instructional support or best practices to schools. Instructional initiatives are primarily led through the Department of Teaching and Learning; however, there is no requirement for schools to implement initiatives, and no method for evaluating effectiveness.

It cannot be overstated- in order for APS to develop a consistent, high quality special education program in everyschool, further close the opportunity gaps, and prepare all students for post-secondary success, it must begin to operate as a school system, rather than a system of schools. This model must be changed to accommodate best practices and a more equitable delivery of services. There must be more consistency throughout schools. Striking a balance between school level decision making and the cohesiveness and standardization required to ensure high quality service delivery in all schools is a must to deliver the equity and inclusion to all students that APS envisions to truly be an excellent school system.

APS is currently experiencing major changes in leadership, including the hiring of our new Superintendent, and solidifying the role of Director(s) of Special Education. Bridget Loft and Aaron Gregory, our new Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning, and Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer, have only just begun their tenure in these roles.

These changes in key leadership positions provide APS an opportunity to establish a strategic direction for the Office of Special Education in conjunction with the Office of Equity and Excellence in order to optimize its organizational structure to support the needed strategic initiatives.

Sandy Munnell

I have more questions than answers at this time. But maybe you can connect them.

1. Why is it easier to get services at one school versus another? (Put another way, why is the perception that special education services are easier to obtain at one school vice another?)

Why did it take more than a year for my daughter to realize that she was getting nothing but a lot of good intentions? Why did she pay out of pocket for speech testing? Because she didn’t understand the process of getting her son tested. She didn’t invoke the words: “I want a child study.” It took me who knows someone in Arlington special education to inform her that she needed those magic words.

Why did a friend of mine have to change from his home middle school to another middle school for his Down’s Syndrome child to be included in academic classes for most of his schedule? His child speaks two languages and has a demonstrated capacity to learn with support. Why would one middle school say, “Life Skills only” and the other say, “Come on in!” We can do better.

When parents hear of these examples, it is no wonder that there is a strong sense of mistrust by parents, concerned that they are not being heard and the needs of their child are not being met.

2. Why aren’t the delivery of the services consistent from school to school?

Why did we feel under siege when we showed up for our IEP meeting with our speech consultant? Here we were, mom, dad, grandma, speech therapist consultant. Across the table were the LEA, support coordinator, sped teacher, speech teacher, psychologist, sped coordinator, gen ed teacher and one more; I can’t remember. The important piece: we were outnumbered. Our consultant wasn’t entirely dismissed, but we were reminded several times that APS has to do their own testing and it would override her testing. Which it did, despite a very clear need for speech services. Fearful that her son would be mistreated, my daughter didn’t complain outwardly but now pays for private services. But this reminded me of why I didn’t seek special education services for my child, the fear of lower expectations by her teachers.

Yet friends report that they have not encountered this at their school, quite the opposite in fact. So I will offer two perspectives:

Principals are allowed to use their resources (teachers, classrooms, time) as they determine. This has to change. What we need is a floor: a floor consists of all the basic elements which must be in place at each school and administered in the same way. After that, the principal and their community determine how to reach their own ceiling.

Schools need to build capacity so that they can deliver the services our students need. School administrators must know that the school board’s priority is to support inclusion, to deploy their staff to follow the county-wide implementation resources as provided. Example, the current SSC role is used differently depending on assignments from the principal. While this is a means to make use of all personnel within their school, it does take away from the intent of the role to support the classroom directly.

David Priddy

The site-based management model, otherwise known as Principal Autonomy, needs to be changed with the hiring of  the new superintendent. As the 2019 Program Evaluation states, APS needs “ . . . to operate as a school system,   rather than a system of schools.” The hiring of the new Superintendent is an optimal time to trigger the re-structuring of that model. With that re-structuring, APS should analyze which schools have a good track record of inclusion and use those methods throughout APS. The former Patrick Henry Elementary School (Henry) comes to mind.   Henry was a good example of a Title I Blue Ribbon school that practiced inclusion. What staffing procedures did they follow to make inclusion successful?  What culture changes occurred at Henry that made it work?  These are the types of examples  we need to move forward positively to move away from the site-based model.

Terron Sims

For decades, APS has functioned as a system of schools, not as a school system. Over the years, I have had meetings and conversations with senior APS instructional experts about their frustrations in attempting to implement tools and instructions to schools. Their level of success is hit or miss. If a principal is not receptive, no matter the quality of the instruction, said principal does not have to implement it. APS principals are rated based upon standards that they set for themselves, not standards that the superintendent and the school board have set for them. This is the nucleus to all of the frustration that community advocates and activists have faced for decades. 

I am pleased to know that APS is moving in the direction of truly becoming a school system, but with changing long standing traditions and procedures, it is not going to be easy. While in the early stages of becoming a school system, policy standards, especially around instruction and services application, must exist with utility metrics applied to all APS actions. 

S. Symone Walker

Site-based management throughout APS has resulted in a “system of schools” instead of a cohesive school system. While some aspects of site based management are acceptable, it should not be done with regards to curriculum and instruction, as this only exacerbates gaps in equity.  For example, students at some schools receive an excellent education with high quality, evidence-based curriculum, and others do not. Similarly, some students receive better resources allocation based on the Principal’s budget, while others do not. Site based management should be limited to unique site-based issues.  I would remove curriculum decisions from individual Principals and centralize it. I would also remove special education delivery decisions vis-a-vis resources and instructional models from individual schools and centralize it.  The equity divide is playing out more starkly now with the distance learning curriculum, which is not centralized, particularly with regards to students with disabilities who are being impacted the most by the school closures. Each student’s experience and individualized instruction, if any, varies greatly depending on their school and even further, their teacher.