New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK my husband says his understanding is that if they do away with AAP centers, there will be no Level IV anywhere. I'm lost.

Your husband is wrong.

I think people get confused and think that only centers are Level IV and anything at the base school is level III, which is not the case. The local level IV curriculum is supposed to be of the same caliber as the center program. If it's different, it's an implementation issue rather than an issue of having a different curriculum because they are different levels.

The intended curriculum at LLIV is the same as the Level IV Center. The peer groups are different.

And interestingly, this is particularly frightening to parents of kids who aren't really gifted because they are hoping their above average kids will somehow be made smarter being exposed to truly gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting . . . Hm, I wonder who will fill up all that empty center space. . .

I have a VERY good idea of where this is going. And I don't like it, considering our school is a center school.

likely a boundary change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK my husband says his understanding is that if they do away with AAP centers, there will be no Level IV anywhere. I'm lost.

Your husband is wrong.

I think people get confused and think that only centers are Level IV and anything at the base school is level III, which is not the case. The local level IV curriculum is supposed to be of the same caliber as the center program. If it's different, it's an implementation issue rather than an issue of having a different curriculum because they are different levels.

The intended curriculum at LLIV is the same as the Level IV Center. The peer groups are different.

The peer group was the original, and still most important, part of Level IV. The curriculum is a nice bonus, although many people have gotten too focused on the curriculum. So Local Level IV just isn't the same.

But if you do away with centers and force those kids to stay at their base school, they will have a peer group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK my husband says his understanding is that if they do away with AAP centers, there will be no Level IV anywhere. I'm lost.

Your husband is wrong.

I think people get confused and think that only centers are Level IV and anything at the base school is level III, which is not the case. The local level IV curriculum is supposed to be of the same caliber as the center program. If it's different, it's an implementation issue rather than an issue of having a different curriculum because they are different levels.

The intended curriculum at LLIV is the same as the Level IV Center. The peer groups are different.

The peer group was the original, and still most important, part of Level IV. The curriculum is a nice bonus, although many people have gotten too focused on the curriculum. So Local Level IV just isn't the same.

But if you do away with centers and force those kids to stay at their base school, they will have a peer group.

Depends on the school. Some peer groups will be large (over 30 students per grade). Others will be small (1 or 2 students per grade).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LLIV can't fill a class each grade level either. There is a "lottery" for the extra spaces that is not an actual lottery. High SES school in a good pyramid. The politics behind the lottery are ugly.

+1. We must be neighbors! This is my kids LLIV ES. The politics of pupil placement made the school environment toxic. Until the principal gave up and stopped placing kids altogether. Then the AAP class had 16 kids and the Gen Ed classes had 29. Which also created a nasty "the AAP kids get all the resources "environment. Seriously, everyone pushing for LLIV so that you go back to a "regular, neighborhood school" needs be careful what they wish for. Turns out lots of people (parents and kids) get unhappy when some kids get "chosen" for the "special" class and others don't.

I'm curious about this. What politics could be at play? Why wouldn't the class just be filled with level III kids??

Turns out that building a single AAP class is a very Goldilocks thing. When you add level III, you can get more than a full class and some level III kids don't make the cut and the principal has to choose who. Or that even with level III there aren't enough kids and you still have to subjectively choose the remainders. And you know her child was only chosen because she is a PTA officer/ does this that or the other for the school / etc. As a PP said-- every parent thinks her kid should fill out the class. And is deeply upset when Larla isn't chosen by the principal. Often, much more upset than when Larla isn't selected for level IV to begin with. And very nasty to Larla's now former BFF who is in the class, and will be at the same school but in a separate, "better" class for the next 4 years. My eldest DC got a great education staying at his affluent ES LLIV program (95% of the qualified kids stayed)-- and don't have to change schools and stayed in our neighborhood, with kindergarten friends. DC went on to a very competitive center MS and more than held their own. But watching the AAP vs GE parents each year was nauseating. You really don't want this atmosphere at your neighborhood school.

Wait so principal placed kids who are not level IV follow the level IV class every year???? So if you are level III or below and get principal placed for 3rd grade, that is your class for 3-6th? Each year there is not a new principal placed selection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally, the Centers are stronger, and while I wouldn't call them "Level V," there is a strong sense among many that the ES Center kids are much better prepared (for Algebra, for example) than the ES LLIV kids. When you've increased the % of kids in AAP to such high levels, then you're making the AAP teachers differentiate much more than they used to... when there are also Level III kids mixed into LLIV classrooms (or others just to "fill out" a class), that may also require more differentiation. So, again, anecdotally, many believe the Centers are stronger. Supposedly, the curriculums are the same, but in practice there may be a stronger peer group in Centers.

Just repeating what I've been told. Don't shoot the messenger.

Key words bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK my husband says his understanding is that if they do away with AAP centers, there will be no Level IV anywhere. I'm lost.

Your husband is wrong.

I think people get confused and think that only centers are Level IV and anything at the base school is level III, which is not the case. The local level IV curriculum is supposed to be of the same caliber as the center program. If it's different, it's an implementation issue rather than an issue of having a different curriculum because they are different levels.

The intended curriculum at LLIV is the same as the Level IV Center. The peer groups are different.

The peer group was the original, and still most important, part of Level IV. The curriculum is a nice bonus, although many people have gotten too focused on the curriculum. So Local Level IV just isn't the same.

But if you do away with centers and force those kids to stay at their base school, they will have a peer group.

2 kids make a peer group.

Depends on the school. Some peer groups will be large (over 30 students per grade). Others will be small (1 or 2 students per grade).

[Anonymous]

The biggest problem with eliminating centers is the redistricting that would be required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with eliminating centers is the redistricting that would be required.

I'm slow. I keep seeing this. Can someone elaborate on this please? Why can't kids just go back to their base school? Why is there a need for redistricting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with eliminating centers is the redistricting that would be required.

I'm slow. I keep seeing this. Can someone elaborate on this please? Why can't kids just go back to their base school? Why is there a need for redistricting?

fear mongering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with eliminating centers is the redistricting that would be required.

I'm slow. I keep seeing this. Can someone elaborate on this please? Why can't kids just go back to their base school? Why is there a need for redistricting?

fear mongering

I will use Louise Archer as an example because I'm familiar with the school. If they removed all of the Level IV kids who weren't in-boundary for LA General Education, the school would be severely under-capacity. Like 100s of students.

[Anonymous]

Louise Archer is a good example. It has about 60 kids per grade for K-2, then about 130 kids 3-6 (after the earlier redistricting).

The school is good at about 700 kids (it was up to close to 900 a few years ago). Now, after eliminating level IV, it will have 60*7, which 420 kids, or about 300 kids under capacity.

Meanwhile, flint hill, Vienna, Cunningham Park and Wolftrap will have to deal with an extra 300 kids. So, the boundaries will be redrawn. Louise archer will get children from FLES, Vienna, Marshall Road, and maybe Wolftrap.

[Anonymous]

I'm slow. I keep seeing this. Can someone elaborate on this please? Why can't kids just go back to their base school? Why is there a need for redistricting?

My kids have been in 2 different FCPS elementaries that started a LLIV. These are pretty strong schools that had traditionally sent 10-20 kids per grade to the Center. Both schools ended up being over capacity once the LLIV opened. Now the school has an extra 40-80 kids that have to be placed in the base school somewhere. Trailers came in. Buses are now at and over capacity.

Both of these schools now have the issue of principal placed kids filling out the LLIV classroom each year. The schools handled this very differently at the 2 schools. Parents at neither school were particularly happy with the process.

Both schools now also have an issue of vicious cliques developing among the Level IV kids because they are always in the same class together every year.

LLIV is not the panacea many people seem to think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with eliminating centers is the redistricting that would be required.

First of all, its difficult to see all centers being eliminated, because as others have noted, some schools have only a few kids qualify and could not meet the needs of these kids in a LLIV. They're also more likely to be Title 1 schools, or at least schools in less affluent districts and there is no way FCPS is going to do anything that allows low income kids to even appear to get less than full gifted services because of the inequity issue. If you look at what school board members have said in the past, most are on record supporting centers where needed, LLIV where there are more kids who qualify.

As for redistricting, a lot of that is going to go on anyway given the high growth in parts of the county. In the Tysons area, for example, Westbriar became a center 2 years ago and is being expanded to a capacity of 900 kids. School officials easily expect this school to get as high as 1,000 (that's K-6 on a tiny 2-lane residential road with hallways that even post renovation will remain better suited to a school of 450). It is very easy to see Westbriar becoming a LLIV and no longer allowing kids to be bused from Stenwood and distant Freedom Hill and instead being full of kids from new developments in Tysons. Westbriar is already getting kids from apartment buildings across Leesburg Pike who are arguably closer to Spring Hill. Particularly, given that a new Tysons elementary school isn't due to be built until 2020-something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Louise Archer is a good example. It has about 60 kids per grade for K-2, then about 130 kids 3-6 (after the earlier redistricting).

The school is good at about 700 kids (it was up to close to 900 a few years ago). Now, after eliminating level IV, it will have 60*7, which 420 kids, or about 300 kids under capacity.

Meanwhile, flint hill, Vienna, Cunningham Park and Wolftrap will have to deal with an extra 300 kids. So, the boundaries will be redrawn. Louise archer will get children from FLES, Vienna, Marshall Road, and maybe Wolftrap.

I thought Louise Archer has a lots of trailers. Is that not the case anymore? Wouldn't reducing the numbers at the school, rude the need for those trailers?