Would removing busses to AAP Centers fix the bus problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an AAP teacher at a Local Level 4 and totally agree that transportation should not be given to a center if the school offers Local Level 4. Every single school that goes into our center has a Local Level 4. It is totally unnecessary to waste bus runs.

Again, these are not empty buses! The buses are mostly base school kids, with a few AAP kids who are picked up first. It makes minimal to no difference to how many buses are needed for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an AAP teacher at a Local Level 4 and totally agree that transportation should not be given to a center if the school offers Local Level 4. Every single school that goes into our center has a Local Level 4. It is totally unnecessary to waste bus runs.

Again, these are not empty buses! The buses are mostly base school kids, with a few AAP kids who are picked up first. It makes minimal to no difference to how many buses are needed for the school.

DP. We lived in an area where there was no LLIV and very few kids were selected for AAP. My son’s bus only picked up center kids and had fewer than 10 students on it all year. Most, but not all, qualified for FRM. There’s something fishy about certain schools sending so few kids to centers to be sure, but the answer is not to punish the few who have no other way to access AAP and probably couldn’t get there otherwise. I agree that if there LLIV at a school, transportation shouldn’t be provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we just remove buses altogether after grade 2 and encourage kids to bike, walk, or use the public transit system to get to school? Just like they do in many other parts of the country. Having this massive separate bus system for schools is wasteful. Can even subsidize public bus fare at much lower cost (and helps strengthen the public transit system simultaneously).

In Fairfax County? Not going to be safe. Our ES us situated on a busy road and is not connected to anywhere the students live, via sidewalks or side streets. I don’t think third graders should be riding their bikes on Lee Highway. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an AAP teacher at a Local Level 4 and totally agree that transportation should not be given to a center if the school offers Local Level 4. Every single school that goes into our center has a Local Level 4. It is totally unnecessary to waste bus runs.

+1 This seems to be a very good initial compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

A lot of schools are not doing the cluster model. We have 1 AAP class per grade. The class is predominantly Level 4 and a few Level 3. Only some schools are doing the clustering model. So yes. It is a waste to send these kids to the center when they can get the same curriculum in a designated AAP classroom at the base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an AAP teacher at a Local Level 4 and totally agree that transportation should not be given to a center if the school offers Local Level 4. Every single school that goes into our center has a Local Level 4. It is totally unnecessary to waste bus runs.

Again, these are not empty buses! The buses are mostly base school kids, with a few AAP kids who are picked up first. It makes minimal to no difference to how many buses are needed for the school.

Often, the geography doesn't work out for the bus to pick up out of bounds AAP kids and then in-bounds kids. For my kids' base and center, the AAP bus ended up with maybe 15 kids riding it total. So, an entire bus run was wasted to take 15 reasonably affluent kids to the center when the base school already had a LLIV and where the center was within reasonable walking distance for at least half of the kids.

Eliminating AAP busing to kids who have a LLIV but opt for the center would free up at least 5 bus routs from my kids' center alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

If there are students below grade level, or even at grade level, why are they being taught AAP level curriculum? I imagine it is very difficult for those students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

A lot of schools are not doing the cluster model. We have 1 AAP class per grade. The class is predominantly Level 4 and a few Level 3. Only some schools are doing the clustering model. So yes. It is a waste to send these kids to the center when they can get the same curriculum in a designated AAP classroom at the base.

So the County is supposed to make a decision that schools with the Cluster model need to bus kids who want the full AAP experience to Centers but kids with schools with the AAP class should provide their own transportation to a Center if they want to change schools? My preference would be that every school have a LIV class that teaches the same curriculum and to not bus. I am not a huge fan of the Center model but I understand the need for LIV for kids who are ahead. The should have a curriculum that challenges them. I also think that it should be easier to move kids in and out of the class based on performance and not be a permanent placement.

It would be nice if the County actually worked towards having programs that were somewhat uniform across the board and not run differently at every school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

If there are students below grade level, or even at grade level, why are they being taught AAP level curriculum? I imagine it is very difficult for those students.

The county is hoping to implement a program where AAP curriculum is being implemented at the Gen Ed level under the guise of “rigor”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids wouldn’t be able to attend AAP centers unless their parents have the resources to drive them there?

That’s klassy.

Isn’t that what language immersion students do?

Yes. The difference, I am guessing, is that the State requires a program for gifted kids and not LI. So LI is totally voluntary, like swapping schools for IB or AP classes, while AAP is FCPSs answer to a State mandate. Voluntary school swaps are on the parents while State mandates are on the County.

Not every school has Local Level IV and some school’s don’t want it. Our school just added LLIV and there are lots of unhappy folks.

Local Level IV programs are not the same as LIV at the Center. Our base school uses a cluster model where the LIV are in the Gen Ed class and the AAP curriculum is taught to all the kids. Except that there are kids who are below grade level in that class so the class can’t move at the speed or in depth the way a LIV class at the Center can. The program is very different and doesn’t do what AAP is supposed to do for the selected kids.

If there are students below grade level, or even at grade level, why are they being taught AAP level curriculum? I imagine it is very difficult for those students.

The county is hoping to implement a program where AAP curriculum is being implemented at the Gen Ed level under the guise of “rigor”.

I’m an ES teacher and each year we are required to provide a certain number of lessons from the AAP curriculum (Jacob’s Ladder, M3, Socratic Seminar, etc). Since it’s AAP material it can be very frustrating for many (if not most) of the students. I find it a bit frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AAP kid in your neighborhood may be the only kid who gets on the bus there, but after that the bus will pick up kids who live in the AAP school's boundaries. By the time the bus arrives at the school it will be full of kids. Removing the AAP stops would not make a difference in the number of buses needed. Your neighbor's kid did not have a bus to themselves.

Yes and it takes that one bus out of service for about an hour when it could have been used for two separate runs to a base school. It's wasteful. If parents are going to opt in to AAP at a center when it's offered at their base school, they should be responsible for transportation or there needs to be a consolidated run from the base school like PP suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an AAP teacher at a Local Level 4 and totally agree that transportation should not be given to a center if the school offers Local Level 4. Every single school that goes into our center has a Local Level 4. It is totally unnecessary to waste bus runs.

Again, these are not empty buses! The buses are mostly base school kids, with a few AAP kids who are picked up first. It makes minimal to no difference to how many buses are needed for the school.

DP. We lived in an area where there was no LLIV and very few kids were selected for AAP. My son’s bus only picked up center kids and had fewer than 10 students on it all year. Most, but not all, qualified for FRM. There’s something fishy about certain schools sending so few kids to centers to be sure, but the answer is not to punish the few who have no other way to access AAP and probably couldn’t get there otherwise. I agree that if there LLIV at a school, transportation shouldn’t be provided.

When I was a kid, all the magnet kids would take their regular bus to our base school and then hop on a bus together to their magnet school(s). It makes so much more sense than to send a bus around a large area to pick up onesy twosy kids from neighborhoods. And actually, I think some private school kids took public school busses and were bussed to their private schools. There must have been some agreement between Catholics and the public school system. I think this makes the most sense for FCPS and was actually really surprised that's not how it was done here (my kids are LLIV I didn't want to deal with the hassle of sending them to the center, frankly).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, no. There are two bus runs for elementary schools. Do you understand how gigantic the school district is? Your neighbor is not the cause of the bus problems. The cause is"economies of scale", IOW, not enough buses.

You don't sound very smart. OP's neighbor is not the only child in this situation. Yes, there are early and late start ES's, but there are also separate busses that will pick up AAP kids from their neighborhoods. The better solution would be for all AAP Centers to have late starts so that kids could get bussed to their home school and ALL the Center kids could hop on a second bus to the Center from their home school.This would free up SO MANY busses.

Isn't this how the TJ busses work?

There are designated elementary schools that the TJ busses pick up at-you pick the closest one to home or you can pick the closest bus depot to your place of employment.