AAP Work Session Scheduled for Jan. 14, 3:30 pm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems there's not much point now debating what is essentially now been decided.

It's not over yet. They could surprise us all and grandfather everyone.

Okay, that'll probably happen. Keep debating then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems there's not much point now debating what is essentially now been decided.

It's not over yet. They could surprise us all and grandfather everyone.

Then the Board would be accepting the fact that the renovation may not occur, as the school doesn't have enough room for the extra modulars required. If they did do the renovation, students wouldn't have outside recess for two years. I don't understand how the desires of 90 out-of-boundry families is so much greater than the 800 plus other families that attend the school. I think they should just open a Local Level IV site at Haycock and move the rest out.

+800. Literally!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems there's not much point now debating what is essentially now been decided.

It's not over yet. They could surprise us all and grandfather everyone.

Okay, that'll probably happen. Keep debating then.

Did you know that you are the reason we have all gotten so many emails from Haycock in the past few days about being sensitive to the situation and understanding that a lot of emotions are involved and remaining a united community. You're an ass. And the whole of Haycock is embarrassed by you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a cluster 2 parent, it seems like the AAP program is a cluster f**k.

The only cluster f**k is the Cooper facility compared to the Kilmer or Longfellow facility.

How about the glory of Jackson MS? Prison camp like space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, many of those folks are Louise Archer families not Haycock families, so your picture proves nothing. If you knew the actual kids that will be moved, you would know that it's a very diverse group.

Honestly, the notion that the goal of base parents is to reduce the current diversity at Haycock is so laughable it's not worth debating, unless you define diversity in terms of the number of area clusters represented at the school. But the Cluster 2 parents who make that silly argument don't exactly look like the United Nations.

Are you basing that on the parents you've seen testify or what? Honestly, I'm a cluster 2 group and I know a lot of the affected parents personally. It is a very diverse group. No, those aren't necessarily the parents that have spoken before the board, but the cluster 2 students are diverse. Perhaps some of the parents of different ethnicities and backgrounds haven't been comfortable being in the lead, but they are around and part of the advocacy group. Please don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems there's not much point now debating what is essentially now been decided.

It's not over yet. They could surprise us all and grandfather everyone.

Then the Board would be accepting the fact that the renovation may not occur, as the school doesn't have enough room for the extra modulars required. If they did do the renovation, students wouldn't have outside recess for two years. I don't understand how the desires of 90 out-of-boundry families is so much greater than the 800 plus other families that attend the school. I think they should just open a Local Level IV site at Haycock and move the rest out.

+800. Literally!

Nope. Not literally.

[Anonymous]

Every time there is a realignment of AAP assignments to relieve overcrowding, the AAP parents make light of the overcrowding and claim the new program won't be any good. It happened at Longfellow, it happened at Kilmer, and it's happening now at Haycock. Same arguments, same emotions. It will blow over.

[Anonymous]

It's usually the county pushing kids out. This time it was initiated and perpetuated by parents. The cluster 2 kids were targeted in an attempt to solve a problem that was caused by the population growth of the base school population. That's why this is different and why it is so hurtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, many of those folks are Louise Archer families not Haycock families, so your picture proves nothing. If you knew the actual kids that will be moved, you would know that it's a very diverse group.

Honestly, the notion that the goal of base parents is to reduce the current diversity at Haycock is so laughable it's not worth debating, unless you define diversity in terms of the number of area clusters represented at the school. But the Cluster 2 parents who make that silly argument don't exactly look like the United Nations.

Are you basing that on the parents you've seen testify or what? Honestly, I'm a cluster 2 group and I know a lot of the affected parents personally. It is a very diverse group. No, those aren't necessarily the parents that have spoken before the board, but the cluster 2 students are diverse. Perhaps some of the parents of different ethnicities and backgrounds haven't been comfortable being in the lead, but they are around and part of the advocacy group. Please don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about.

Please don't make ridiculous arguments that have absolutely no basis in fact.

[Anonymous]

The only diversity that matters in AAP apparently are African Americans and maybe Hispanics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's usually the county pushing kids out. This time it was initiated and perpetuated by parents. The cluster 2 kids were targeted in an attempt to solve a problem that was caused by the population growth of the base school population. That's why this is different and why it is so hurtful.

It's not really different. While FCPS may not have predicted the extent of the population growth at Haycock, FCPS Staff has taken the position for some time that overcrowding at Haycock would be addressed, if necessary, through changes in AAP assignments, rather than by changing Haycock's base boundaries. This came up, for example, during last year's Freedom Hill/Lemon Road redistricting. Some Lemon Road parents in the McLean pyramid asked FCPS to consider sending some "base" Haycock students to Lemon Road, in addition to Freedom Hill students, so that the Marshall/McLean split at Lemon Road would remain about the same. FCPS rejected that out-of-hand and said the solution to overcrowding at Haycock would be to change the AAP assignments. That was, perhaps, a disappointment for the Lemon Road/Longfellow/McLean parents, since it means that their kids now attend a school where the large majority of their kids' classmates go on to Kilmer/Marshall, but it seems to be working out OK.

And, when it finally becomes clear that some change to boundaries is going to be made, parents rarely agree on the solution. Some parents at both Longfellow and Kilmer supported the movement of AAP kids from Longfellow to Kilmer, and then from Kilmer to Jackson, while many out-of-boundary AAP parents insisted that overcrowding was not a serious issue at those school. If you look at the current Fairfax HS boundary study, you'd find that some parents who want to stay at Fairfax have already identified other neighborhoods that they believe should be reassigned to different schools instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time there is a realignment of AAP assignments to relieve overcrowding, the AAP parents make light of the overcrowding and claim the new program won't be any good. It happened at Longfellow, it happened at Kilmer, and it's happening now at Haycock. Same arguments, same emotions. It will blow over.

I'll keep that in mind when they do a base boundary change at haycock and you're all freaking out. I'll pull up this thread and say, "No worries. It will blow over." See how you like it to have your concerns completely dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time there is a realignment of AAP assignments to relieve overcrowding, the AAP parents make light of the overcrowding and claim the new program won't be any good. It happened at Longfellow, it happened at Kilmer, and it's happening now at Haycock. Same arguments, same emotions. It will blow over.

I'll keep that in mind when they do a base boundary change at haycock and you're all freaking out. I'll pull up this thread and say, "No worries. It will blow over." See how you like it to have your concerns completely dismissed.

You don't want empathy, of which there is plenty here. We all know this is a difficult situation.

You just want a specific outcome that presently doesn't appear to be in the cards. Neither you nor anyone else always gets what she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except that for us Cluster 2 families, there is no compromise, only an unwanted solution that IS being shoved down our throats. We were told in the fall that Haycock is overcrowded and that the solution was to punt our kids, many of whom only arrived there in the last year or two, to Lemon Road. Then the base parents got ugly, and Strauss turned a deaf ear to us and refused -- until recently -- to even respond to us.

What I hope the Board focuses on is how to create new AAP centers for next year that are as good as the existing ones, and on how to prevent further overcrowding at our schools so that another group of students does not have to be jerked around the way ours have been. Can we please do some planning instead of just reacting?

Time to stop sulking and start preparing. Yours are still first-world problems.

Really? Talk about first world problems! You should have seen the materials prepared by the anti-grandfathering group. Oh, the horror! There are blue tape lines down the hallway and no sinks in the art room!

Exactly.
Suzie has to wait in line to wash her paint covered hands. Let's uproot 90 kids so she can get to the sink faster.

Please have your facts right before posting. There are several overcrowding issues at Haycock including some kids have to eat lunch at 10:30 and stay hungry till 4 PM (until they are picked up). Can you imaging your child going through it. As PP mentioned, either decision will impact all families involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except that for us Cluster 2 families, there is no compromise, only an unwanted solution that IS being shoved down our throats. We were told in the fall that Haycock is overcrowded and that the solution was to punt our kids, many of whom only arrived there in the last year or two, to Lemon Road. Then the base parents got ugly, and Strauss turned a deaf ear to us and refused -- until recently -- to even respond to us.

What I hope the Board focuses on is how to create new AAP centers for next year that are as good as the existing ones, and on how to prevent further overcrowding at our schools so that another group of students does not have to be jerked around the way ours have been. Can we please do some planning instead of just reacting?

Time to stop sulking and start preparing. Yours are still first-world problems.

Really? Talk about first world problems! You should have seen the materials prepared by the anti-grandfathering group. Oh, the horror! There are blue tape lines down the hallway and no sinks in the art room!

Exactly.
Suzie has to wait in line to wash her paint covered hands. Let's uproot 90 kids so she can get to the sink faster.

Please have your facts right before posting. There are several overcrowding issues at Haycock including some kids have to eat lunch at 10:30 and stay hungry till 4 PM (until they are picked up). Can you imaging your child going through it. As PP mentioned, either decision will impact all families involved.

Which grade level is eating at 10:30am?
And are they not allowed an afternoon snack like all other classes?
My dd's class eats at 11. She has a snack I the afternoon, and has never complained.