January 22, 2026 School Board Meeting
The January 22, 2026 School Board meeting began with brief opening remarks and recognitions. Following this was public comment.
Public Comment
Ten members of the public spoke during the public comment portion, with comments focused primarily on proposed changes to the Grace Hopper Center. Concerns were raised about proposed changes late in construction; addition of Langston Center programming was questioned, and impacts of lack of clarity and planning on Arlington Tech students. Another speaker questioned operational details, asked whether two-academy model was still planned and raised concerns about administrative structure and staffing.
Other speakers criticized the lack of community engagement, transparency and the decision-making process. Said school communities were not meaningfully consulted, and requested a pause before further decisions are made, framing the issue as a trust-building failure.
There was also a speaker discussing the equity impacts and need for transition planning.
There was a teacher who spoke on the harms of excessive device use and EdTech in the classroom. The speaker argued that the problems associated with educational technology are fundamental and structural, not solvable through professional development sessions or minor implementation changes. They emphasized that excessive screen use undermines student attention, social connection, and learning capacity, describing EdTech companies as operating under an “attention harvesting” business model rather than an educational one
The speaker urged APS to adopt a “less is more” approach to devices, particularly for younger students, and explicitly called for eliminating one-to-one device programs at least in grades K–8. They stressed that real change requires altering the physical environment—such as keeping devices on carts or in closets rather than in backpacks—so that screens are used only when truly necessary
They concluded by calling for a return to physical books and paper, stating that research on the negative effects of screen-oriented classrooms is “unambiguous,” and warning that without structural limits on device access, APS would continue to fail students despite good intentions.
Consent Agenda
The meeting then transitioned to approval of the consent agenda. During the consent agenda, the School Board adopted revisions to the following policies. Related PIPs were also approved; the updated policies will be posted on BoardDocs:
1. Policy I-7.3 – Communication
2. Policy I-11.1 – Family and Community Engagement
3. Policy I-11.61 – Locally Awarded Verified Credits
4. Policy J-5.3.3.1 – Options and Transfers
5. Policy J-8.7 – Safety of Students and Child Abuse and Neglect / Child Protective Services
6. Policy J-15.31 – Reporting Students Enrolled in Programs
7. Policy K-2.33 – Media Relations
HR Monitoring Report
A Human Resources monitoring report came next: tied to recruitment, retention, and staffing capacity. The most substantive fiscal discussion occurred during the HR report, where SB members asked specific questions about staffing levels, substitute coverage, retention strategies, and budget alignment. These questions centered on whether current investments are adequate and appropriately targeted to workforce stability and instructional continuity.
SB members probed how staffing realities should inform upcoming budget decisions and whether existing funds are being used efficiently to improve retention and reduce vacancies, as noted below:
Key School Board Budget Questions & Staff Responses
1. Are current staffing and substitute levels sufficient, and why do vacancies persist despite an adequate substitute pool?
SB Question: Board member Turner noted that APS appears to have enough substitutes “in the pool,” yet vacancies and coverage gaps persist, and asked why this disconnect remains and whether it reflects a structural or budgetary issue. (“We have enough subs in the pool now if people are working to fill our vacancies, yet it’s not happening…”)
APS acknowledged that while the substitute pool has grown, availability and willingness to accept assignments vary by school, role, and working conditions. The issue was framed less as a raw funding shortage and more as a deployment and retention challenge, suggesting that additional budget dollars alone may not fully resolve coverage gaps without complementary workforce strategies.
2. Should retention strategies be more explicitly reflected in the budget?
SB Question: SB member Turner also explicitly raised whether the discussion around staffing challenges and substitute utilization should prompt the board to revisit or adjust its version of the budget, particularly to strengthen retention-focused investments. (“I really wanted to ask whether you have in place any kind of mentoring around new hires… that you feel are helpful for improving retention.”)
APS agreed that retention is an ongoing area requiring attention and indicated that current initiatives (mentoring, alternative licensure pathways, and internal advancement programs) are intended to stabilize staffing over time. While no immediate budget amendment was proposed, the response implicitly acknowledged that future budget decisions should align more clearly with workforce sustainability goals.
3. What mentoring or support structures exist for new hires, and are they adequately resourced?
SB Question: Ms. Turner also asked whether APS has formal mentoring structures for new hires at scale, across roles and schools, and whether such supports are effective in improving retention—implicitly questioning whether these efforts are sufficiently funded
APS described existing mentoring and support mechanisms for new employees, particularly teachers entering through alternative pathways. These supports were presented as strategic investments already embedded in the current budget, though the exchange suggested room for deeper evaluation of their reach, consistency, and cost-effectiveness.
Takeaways for Budget & Policy Context
SB concern is shifting from headcount to sustainability: Questions focused less on total staffing numbers and more on whether current spending translates into stable, reliable workforce coverage.
Retention is emerging as a budget lens, not just an HR issue—board members signaled interest in aligning future budgets more explicitly with workforce stability outcomes.
Operational efficiency vs. new funding: Staff responses emphasized optimization of existing programs, but board comments suggested openness to revisiting budget priorities if current strategies fall short.
Grace Hopper Center/CTE
After the HR monitoring discussion concluded, the board moved into a programmatic presentation by Ms. Terry Murphy related to secondary pathways, including programming connected to Grace Hopper Center and career/technical education. It included explanation of program goals, student populations served, and alignment with research. Notably, this presentation included the multilingual / non-traditional pathway programming, which would make Grace Hopper a flexible site for non-traditional programs:
increase opportunities for English learners to participate in career/technical (CT) programs while also receiving academic and language support not currently offered within CTE
It also seeks to move the current Langston school to Grace Hopper, as well.
SB members asked the following questions:
1.”Can you clarify whether this is still envisioned as two separate academies, each with its own administrator, or if that model has changed?”
APS explained that the proposal is not intended to dismantle existing academies, but to co-locate additional programming (e.g., the current Langston school) within the Grace Hopper Center. They emphasized that the goal is to expand access rather than merge or eliminate programs. However, staff did not clearly restate whether there would be separate administrators for each academy, leaving ambiguity around governance and leadership structure.
2. “Can you walk us through exactly how the space at the Grace Hopper Center would be used under this proposal?”
APS described the Grace Hopper Center as a flexible, shared facility designed to support multiple programs. They indicated that instructional spaces, labs, and common areas would be scheduled to accommodate different student groups. The response focused on design intent and flexibility, rather than a detailed room-by-room or schedule-based explanation.
3. “How will this change affect students who are currently enrolled or planning to enroll in Arlington Tech programs?”
APS stated that current Arlington Tech students would not be displaced and that existing programming would continue. They emphasized continuity and reassured the board that students already enrolled would be able to complete their programs. The response framed changes as additive rather than disruptive.
4. “What is the proposed timeline for implementing these changes?”
APS indicated that implementation would occur in phases, aligned with program readiness and enrollment processes, rather than as an immediate, all-at-once change. They did not provide a specific start date or decision deadline, instead referencing future planning steps.
5. “Can you clarify what engagement has occurred with the Arlington Tech and Career Center communities prior to bringing this forward?”
APS referenced internal planning discussions and stated that engagement would continue as the proposal develops. They acknowledged the importance of community input but did not enumerate specific meetings, timelines, or stakeholder groups already engaged.
Following the Grace Hopper Center presentation, there were SB announcements, with SB members sharing reflections on leadership, values, and service, with the following specific remarks:
“Serving on the school board is an honor, and it is also a very serious responsibility.”
“Every decision that we make has a real impact on students, on families, and on the people who dedicate their lives to public education.”
“We are living in a moment in our lifetime when courage and integrity are more important than ever.”
“It also requires truthful dialogue even when conversations are uncomfortable, because honesty is essential to progress and trust.”
The meeting adjourned at 11:23 PM.
APE Analysis of HR Monitoring Report: Actionable Follow-Ups
Given that we are entering budget season, APE notes the following unresolved / budget implications from the HR discussion:
No data was provided on cost per covered vacancy vs. uncovered vacancy
No analysis of whether pay rates, incentives, or working conditions are budget-aligned with demand
Leaves unresolved whether targeted budget reallocations (e.g., differential pay, incentives for hard-to-staff schools) are needed
No breakdown of per-employee cost of mentoring programs
Unclear whether mentoring funding is sufficient, overstretched, or unevenly distributed
No clarity on return on investment (ROI) for current retention programs
No comparison of cost of turnover vs. cost of retention initiatives
No discussion of whether additional funding or reallocation would measurably improve retention outcomes
The following budget-related items were clearly suggested by board questions but not formally assigned or answered. APS could perform the following analyses and provide them to the SB to help inform the budget process:
Quantify the Staffing Gap
Provide data on vacancy rates by school, role, and duration
Compare budgeted staffing vs. actual coverage
Analyze Cost Effectiveness
Cost of turnover (recruitment, training, lost instructional time)
Cost and outcomes of current retention programs
Comparative cost of targeted incentives vs. chronic vacancies
Evaluate Substitute Deployment
Are pay rates competitive by region and role?
Are there budget barriers to differential or incentive pay?
Assess Mentoring at Scale
Participation rates systemwide
Outcomes tied to retention and performance
Whether mentoring funding is adequate, fragmented, or misaligned
Budget Alignment Review
Explicitly map HR strategy → budget line items → measurable outcomes
Identify where reallocations may yield higher retention impact
