Patch article summarizing AAP Expansion vote

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Why do people on these boards talk PAST each other rather than listen? The PP just refuted your point, and I think she's right: as long as we remain stuck with a completely underfunded maintenance and/or CIP budget, we will continue to have a 30+ year backlog on renovations. This isn't about SB members or staff who are idiots... It's about not having enough $$ to go around. Those of you who focus on this project being rushed through or that project being delayed are just barking around the edges of the real problem.

How ironic that the SB last night went through a painful exercise in emergency measures at Haycock while delaying action at the middle school level because... there wasn't an emergency. I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but if you're going to scream and moan about how schools are IGNORED FOR YEARS, then maybe you ought to also support the SB making forward-thinking moves to deal with capacity problems it KNOWS are coming.


I think the issue at the MS level is that there are a substantial number of SB members who really want to scale back the number of AAP-identified students. It makes little sense to be opening new centers now if there's a reasonable possibility the School Board will conclude that a substantial percentage of current AAP students should really be at their base schools.

It's also possible they'll go through this exercise and it will validate the current model or support its expansion. But we can't quite tell yet.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I would put Schultz and Reed in the same boat on this particular issue, I'm afraid. Last night SB members praised the "bravery" of both Schultz & Reed for bringing up an "innovative" solution to the overcrowding at Haycock. But their solutions -- for a Haycock annex, whether at Lemon Road (Reed) or the Pimmit Center (Schultz) were both last-minute, hail-mary suggestions that should have been fully vetted and thought out. If they'd come forward with those ideas in October, perhaps they would have stood a chance. I doubt it (because Pimmit WAS discussed at Haycock as a solution at one point), but at least then we'd have full public engagement, time for reasonable discussions and trade-offs, etc. Instead, these last-minute suggestions just served to FREAK OUT Haycock parents who then felt the need to testify last night to make sure the Board didn't listen to these crazy ideas and put in place a still-painful-but-necessary compromise. I would rather have heard more last night from Cooper parents, Thoreau parents, etc. but Haycock dominated the discussion because of Reed & Shultz's need to score political points and seem "independent" rather than be helpful.


Reed and Schultz didn;t even know about this in October. Strauss and Marty Smith were cooking it up without their knowledge.

These ideas were not vetted earlier because Janie, backed by the staff blew them off and was not willing to discuss them in an adult manner. Why did the staff not come up with real, actual numbers or explanations as to why they wouldn't work? You heard a lot of people make various claims about what would be needed (Janie, Kevin Sneed, etc.) but nothing was backed up by actual documentation.

Patty tried, but no one would discuss the ideas with her.
Anonymous
Reed and Schultz didn't even know about this in October. Strauss and Marty Smith were cooking it up without their knowledge.


Paranoid, much?

I'm not a cheerleader for any SB member in particular, but be honest: Once Strauss presented her ideas about Haycock, Lemon Road, grandfathering, etc. she was remarkably public and consistent in telling anybody who would listen at every meeting that this was the plan. Parents were on these very boards RIGHT AWAY about Haycock's future. That gave Reed & Schultz as much time as they needed to think through a better idea. They waited until the last minute, didn't talk with anybody in facilities about it... They were trying to score political points, not make a real suggestion. At least Strauss met with facilities to ask about Pimmit. Schultz obviously hadn't met with them or asked any questions, and last night simply said, "We can make miracles happen if we just have the will." She wanted to wave her magic wand and wish any obstacles away. Her idea for creating a gym at Pimmit was that they had "lots of outdoor space." How nice is that when it rains? Or snows? Or does that not happen in Schultzville?
Anonymous
What happens when it rains and snows and your child is in a trailer? Pimmit would be quite doable. It just didn't suit the wishes of Janie's constituents.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

Reed and Schultz didn;t even know about this in October. Strauss and Marty Smith were cooking it up without their knowledge.

These ideas were not vetted earlier because Janie, backed by the staff blew them off and was not willing to discuss them in an adult manner. Why did the staff not come up with real, actual numbers or explanations as to why they wouldn't work? You heard a lot of people make various claims about what would be needed (Janie, Kevin Sneed, etc.) but nothing was backed up by actual documentation.

Patty tried, but no one would discuss the ideas with her.


FCPS specifically said during the FH-LR boundary study that it might look to change the Haycock AAP assignments. That should have put Reed on notice of the issue well before October.

Janie gets more cooperation from FCPS staff because she treats them with respect. Reed and Schultz haven't learned to do that yet.

I doubt Schultz paid any attention at all to Haycock until recently, when she seized upon it as an opportunity to challenge Strauss. Maybe the idea of kids getting split up among different schools resonates with her because that happened in 2010 when the School Board closed her ES (Clifton) and sent the kids to three different schools, but for the most part she came across like a Tea Party windbag looking for an excuse to take on a local official long endorsed by the Democratic Party.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:What happens when it rains and snows and your child is in a trailer? Pimmit would be quite doable. It just didn't suit the wishes of Janie's constituents.


This is FCPS. We close our schools when there is even the possibility of snow.

Pimmit was not doable on the schedule proposed and you're damn right that the suggestion that in-boundary Haycock students should get bussed to Pimmit Hills to appease a few noisy Cluster 2 families did not suit the wishes of roughly 600 of Janie's constituents with close ties to Haycock. Most Cluster 2 parents thought it was a dumb idea as well.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What happens when it rains and snows and your child is in a trailer? Pimmit would be quite doable. It just didn't suit the wishes of Janie's constituents.


This is FCPS. We close our schools when there is even the possibility of snow.

Pimmit was not doable on the schedule proposed and you're damn right that the suggestion that in-boundary Haycock students should get bussed to Pimmit Hills to appease a few noisy Cluster 2 families did not suit the wishes of roughly 600 of Janie's constituents with close ties to Haycock. Most Cluster 2 parents thought it was a dumb idea as well.



I beg to differ on the "most Cluster 2 parents" thinking it was a dumb idea. It wasn't the first choice of some, but I didn't talk to anyone who prefers not getting grandfathered to Pimmit.

Are you a Cluster 2 parent?
Anonymous
Most Cluster 2 parent posts I read expressed opposition to the annex idea. Several noted it was bad because it conceded the severity of the overcrowding at Haycock and stated that the Cluster 1 parents should have stuck with the argument that 90-100 additional students at the school next year wouldn't make a big difference.

Maybe you polled the Cluster 2 parents personally? Either way the 10-2 vote against Schultz's motion underscores that the School Board did not think it was a sound alternative.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Most Cluster 2 parent posts I read expressed opposition to the annex idea. Several noted it was bad because it conceded the severity of the overcrowding at Haycock and stated that the Cluster 1 parents should have stuck with the argument that 90-100 additional students at the school next year wouldn't make a big difference.

Maybe you polled the Cluster 2 parents personally? Either way the 10-2 vote against Schultz's motion underscores that the School Board did not think it was a sound alternative.


I did speak with many, many Cluster 2 parents personally.

I wouldn't conclude that because it failed, it wasn't a sound alternative. I would conclude the SB wasn't interested in it. It doesn't matter. It's done.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would put Schultz and Reed in the same boat on this particular issue, I'm afraid. Last night SB members praised the "bravery" of both Schultz & Reed for bringing up an "innovative" solution to the overcrowding at Haycock. But their solutions -- for a Haycock annex, whether at Lemon Road (Reed) or the Pimmit Center (Schultz) were both last-minute, hail-mary suggestions that should have been fully vetted and thought out. If they'd come forward with those ideas in October, perhaps they would have stood a chance. I doubt it (because Pimmit WAS discussed at Haycock as a solution at one point), but at least then we'd have full public engagement, time for reasonable discussions and trade-offs, etc. Instead, these last-minute suggestions just served to FREAK OUT Haycock parents who then felt the need to testify last night to make sure the Board didn't listen to these crazy ideas and put in place a still-painful-but-necessary compromise. I would rather have heard more last night from Cooper parents, Thoreau parents, etc. but Haycock dominated the discussion because of Reed & Shultz's need to score political points and seem "independent" rather than be helpful.


Reed and Schultz didn;t even know about this in October. Strauss and Marty Smith were cooking it up without their knowledge.

These ideas were not vetted earlier because Janie, backed by the staff blew them off and was not willing to discuss them in an adult manner. Why did the staff not come up with real, actual numbers or explanations as to why they wouldn't work? You heard a lot of people make various claims about what would be needed (Janie, Kevin Sneed, etc.) but nothing was backed up by actual documentation.

Patty tried, but no one would discuss the ideas with her.


It's not like some one bought a building a said here it's a new school - call it Lemon Road. Schultz knew about AAP stuff for quite some time. Her constituents attend South County which has had a Local Level iv AAP center this entire school year. Her area generated the first local level iv middle school. Note she seconded Storck's motion.

Who else would have gone? It's not Strauss' fault these other board members don't know WTF is going on in their schools and why there is disparity in instruction. Furthermore putting centers at Cooper, Thoreau, and Herndon would NOT differ from what has existed at South County since Sept 2012.

Essentially Strauss and Hynes would have put people back at their base school and it doesn't sound like others voted NO because they want some big AAP center program. If anything they think too many are identified --- so what do they do? Continue the cycle of busing with even more identified next year.

Yes: Daniel G Storck, Patricia Hynes - Vice Chairman, Ilryong Moon - Chairman, Jane K Strauss, Kathy L Smith
No: Tamara D Kaufax, Patricia S Reed, Ryan McElveen, Megan McLaughlin, Sandra S Evans, Elizabeth Schultz, Theodore Velkoff
I move that a new AAP Center be opened at South County Middle School in the fall of 2013 with rising 7th grade AAP Center eligible students residing in the South County MS attendance area. Rising 8th grade AAP Center students currently attending the Lake Braddock Secondary AAP Center may finish their program at Lake Braddock and transportation will be provided. Newly eligible 8th grade AAP Center students will be allowed to attend Lake Braddock with transportation provided.

Motion by Daniel G Storck, second by Elizabeth Schultz. [seconding a motion for a AAP center attended by her constituents].
Motion Carries
Yes: Ryan McElveen, Daniel G Storck, Patricia Hynes - Vice Chairman, Ilryong Moon - Chairman, Jane K Strauss, Sandra S Evans, Elizabeth Schultz, Kathy L Smith
No: Tamara D Kaufax, Megan McLaughlin, Theodore Velkoff
Not Present at Vote: Patricia S Reed
Anonymous
Give up on Haycock -- other schools are better --- really.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Give up on Haycock -- other schools are better --- really.


Not really, but other schools are good too.
Anonymous
Agree 19:45. Haycock is a great school. No doubt. But there are other great schools, seemingly without the drama.
Anonymous
With this behind them, Haycock will have less drama.

Anonymous wrote:Agree 19:45. Haycock is a great school. No doubt. But there are other great schools, seemingly without the drama.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Give up on Haycock -- other schools are better --- really.


yes, haycock is good because of the students. Once good chunk of them move, the school's reputation will fall
post reply Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: