Least run down/overcrowded schools in Vienna area?

[Anonymous]

This thread has pretty much jumped the shark when it comes to discussing the ES in Vienna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

[Anonymous]

Please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has pretty much jumped the shark when it comes to discussing the ES in Vienna.

OP was already told to look at Ashburn type neighborhoods if she wants newer. The middle and high schools were just renovated and most of the elementaries that needed renovating were done as well.Archer is being renovated now. Whether it will be new enough for OP? Who knows. There isn’t that much to say about public school buildings. It was a strange topic to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has pretty much jumped the shark when it comes to discussing the ES in Vienna.

OP was already told to look at Ashburn type neighborhoods if she wants newer. The middle and high schools were just renovated and most of the elementaries that needed renovating were done as well.Archer is being renovated now. Whether it will be new enough for OP? Who knows. There isn’t that much to say about public school buildings. It was a strange topic to begin with.

This is false information.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why you think it's false. The CIP does not show any Madison based schools in planning, permitting, or construction other than Archer which is currently under construction. There is no immediate plan to upgrade any of the schools nearby unless you are talking about Mosaic or Dunn Loring which are adjacent to Vienna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why you think it's false. The CIP does not show any Madison based schools in planning, permitting, or construction other than Archer which is currently under construction. There is no immediate plan to upgrade any of the schools nearby unless you are talking about Mosaic or Dunn Loring which are adjacent to Vienna.

To begin with Madison recently got a new wing but most of the school hasn’t been “renovated” for about 20 years. And a lot of Vienna goes to Kilmer, which just got a modular but also hasn’t been renovated for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

There was never a GT program in FCPS that limited participation to the “very few truly gifted kids.”

It once was smaller, and was rigid in ways that kept out some of the brightest students in the county (for example, and without going into all the details, some of the screening tests inadvertently discriminated against students who were early readers).

The program may be too large now, and the avenues for appeal may have provided wealthier families seeking to have their kids placed in AAP with unfair advantages, but it was never as well-oiled a machine as you’re pretending. Any time a public school system tries to provide differentiated instruction, some people are going to be unhappy (and, ironically, attempts to make the program more “inclusive” can end up further upsetting other parents).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

There was never a GT program in FCPS that limited participation to the “very few truly gifted kids.”

It once was smaller, and was rigid in ways that kept out some of the brightest students in the county (for example, and without going into all the details, some of the screening tests inadvertently discriminated against students who were early readers).

The program may be too large now, and the avenues for appeal may have provided wealthier families seeking to have their kids placed in AAP with unfair advantages, but it was never as well-oiled a machine as you’re pretending. Any time a public school system tries to provide differentiated instruction, some people are going to be unhappy (and, ironically, attempts to make the program more “inclusive” can end up further upsetting other parents).

I beg to differ. I am a product of FCPS and there was indeed a very selective, very small GT program and no one gave it much thought either way. FCPS has done a major disservice to ALL of its students by allowing AAP to encompass such huge numbers of basically ordinary students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

There was never a GT program in FCPS that limited participation to the “very few truly gifted kids.”

It once was smaller, and was rigid in ways that kept out some of the brightest students in the county (for example, and without going into all the details, some of the screening tests inadvertently discriminated against students who were early readers).

The program may be too large now, and the avenues for appeal may have provided wealthier families seeking to have their kids placed in AAP with unfair advantages, but it was never as well-oiled a machine as you’re pretending. Any time a public school system tries to provide differentiated instruction, some people are going to be unhappy (and, ironically, attempts to make the program more “inclusive” can end up further upsetting other parents).

I beg to differ. I am a product of FCPS and there was indeed a very selective, very small GT program and no one gave it much thought either way. FCPS has done a major disservice to ALL of its students by allowing AAP to encompass such huge numbers of basically ordinary students.

I can assure you that people gave it plenty of thought at the time. You just choose to see it through rose-colored glasses now because you think it compares favorably with the current AAP program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

There was never a GT program in FCPS that limited participation to the “very few truly gifted kids.”

It once was smaller, and was rigid in ways that kept out some of the brightest students in the county (for example, and without going into all the details, some of the screening tests inadvertently discriminated against students who were early readers).

The program may be too large now, and the avenues for appeal may have provided wealthier families seeking to have their kids placed in AAP with unfair advantages, but it was never as well-oiled a machine as you’re pretending. Any time a public school system tries to provide differentiated instruction, some people are going to be unhappy (and, ironically, attempts to make the program more “inclusive” can end up further upsetting other parents).

I beg to differ. I am a product of FCPS and there was indeed a very selective, very small GT program and no one gave it much thought either way. FCPS has done a major disservice to ALL of its students by allowing AAP to encompass such huge numbers of basically ordinary students.

I can assure you that people gave it plenty of thought at the time. You just choose to see it through rose-colored glasses now because you think it compares favorably with the current AAP program.

Agree. There seems to be a contingent of people who maybe were designated as gifted themselves at some point who resent that the advanced programming is now accessible to the merely bright. People are always grossly oversimplfying the issues. The current system may not be perfect, but I can only imagine the chaos of of having no Level IV and just a small percentage in gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why you think it's false. The CIP does not show any Madison based schools in planning, permitting, or construction other than Archer which is currently under construction. There is no immediate plan to upgrade any of the schools nearby unless you are talking about Mosaic or Dunn Loring which are adjacent to Vienna.

To begin with Madison recently got a new wing but most of the school hasn’t been “renovated” for about 20 years. And a lot of Vienna goes to Kilmer, which just got a modular but also hasn’t been renovated for years.

Neither of these are being renovated any time soon. Nothing is being renovated in the next ten years in the Madison pyramid. OP needs to look elsewhere for new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I do wonder, though, if it is more likely in LIV for children to become (or to already be) more preoccupied with achieving and competition with peers. Ideally, AAP should provide enrichment and opportunities for academic and intellectual growth rather than nurturing an obsession with being the best, the smartest, etc. (Well, ideally for me, at least.)

It's possible that the latter is inevitable just because of the orientation of certain parents.

Yes. That ship has sailed. AAP kids are told as soon as they are accepted into AAP that they are "special" and "smarter" than Gen Ed. It's absolutely absurd, considering the vast majority of all these kids overlap somewhere in the middle. FCPS has done no one any favors by sorting them into two groups by the third grade. It's a broken system.

My point was more that *some* parents may focus intensely on this but not all parents. I certainly wouldn't. I know others out there who just want their kid to be challenged and engaged but do not care for competition. I think it's easy to say it's AAP that causes or reinforces this but I'm skeptical that this is true. If there was no AAP do you really think things would be different?

If there was no AAP, but instead a very, very selective GT program (as there used to be), then yes - I absolutely think things would be different. The vast majority of kids would be in Gen Ed (which could be beefed up), and the very few truly gifted kids would be in GT. This is how it was when I was in school and there was no resentment because everyone understood that a few kids actually needed a special program - but that everyone else was more or less "the same." The current AAP model makes it seem as if half of the kids are "gifted" and the other half are not. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as we can all see these same kids in the same classes (and colleges) once they hit high school.

There was never a GT program in FCPS that limited participation to the “very few truly gifted kids.”

It once was smaller, and was rigid in ways that kept out some of the brightest students in the county (for example, and without going into all the details, some of the screening tests inadvertently discriminated against students who were early readers).

The program may be too large now, and the avenues for appeal may have provided wealthier families seeking to have their kids placed in AAP with unfair advantages, but it was never as well-oiled a machine as you’re pretending. Any time a public school system tries to provide differentiated instruction, some people are going to be unhappy (and, ironically, attempts to make the program more “inclusive” can end up further upsetting other parents).

I beg to differ. I am a product of FCPS and there was indeed a very selective, very small GT program and no one gave it much thought either way. FCPS has done a major disservice to ALL of its students by allowing AAP to encompass such huge numbers of basically ordinary students.

I can assure you that people gave it plenty of thought at the time. You just choose to see it through rose-colored glasses now because you think it compares favorably with the current AAP program.

Agree. There seems to be a contingent of people who maybe were designated as gifted themselves at some point who resent that the advanced programming is now accessible to the merely bright. People are always grossly oversimplfying the issues. The current system may not be perfect, but I can only imagine the chaos of of having no Level IV and just a small percentage in gifted.

And therein lies the issue: the "merely bright" are found in all groups of students, not just in AAP. So what AAP does is take a huge amount of these kids, leaving behind another huge amount - for no real reason. Whereas a GT program would only take the few ACTUALLY gifted students, leaving the "merely bright" as the majority.