FCPS Proposal to close down AAP Centers at Greenbriar West ES and Carson MS

[Anonymous]

I think this is where things have been heading for a long time.

Haycock should have done this long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

This may be true in your part of the county. In other parts of the county, there are Local Level IV programs in schools where less than 15 total students, across all grades, have been found Center eligible. There is not critical mass for these students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

According to the power point they are looking at LLIV "at base schools who send students to overcrowded AAP Centers at both elementary and middle school centers." It doesn't seem on be for all Center schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is where things have been heading for a long time.

Haycock should have done this long ago.

Same with Colvin Run and Churchill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

EXACTLY. Well said.

[Anonymous]

I think the only reason they've taken so long to start this transition is that they're wondering why they spent millions renovating and expanding the center schools to accomodate the ever-expanding numbers of AAP kids each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

According to the power point they are looking at LLIV "at base schools who send students to overcrowded AAP Centers at both elementary and middle school centers." It doesn't seem on be for all Center schools.

According to the report (see page 4):

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9KJP2T628D4A/$file/FPAC%20Annual%20Report%20School%20Year%202013-2014.pdf

FPAC recommends FCPS
consider a pilot to discontinue AAP centers and replace them with school-based Level IV
centers, for example, at each elementary school currently feeding into the GBW center
(Virginia Run 94%, Cub Run 93%, Poplar Tree 61%, Brookfield 96% and Greenbriar East
105%). From the facilities perspective, this would allow FCPS to measure savings in
transportation costs and emissions, impacts on student time in travel, and efficiency in space
utilization. Educators may also want to consider measuring the impacts on student
achievement among both AAP students and non-AAP students in the affected pilot schools,
especially among students who are more likely to self-select out of center-based AAP. If
successful, this pilot approach could serve as a best practice model for the future county-wide.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

This may be true in your part of the county. In other parts of the county, there are Local Level IV programs in schools where less than 15 total students, across all grades, have been found Center eligible. There is not critical mass for these students.

Then that means there is something fundamentally wrong and biased with the selection process, in that in some schools it selects the top fraction of a percent vs. something like up to a quarter or more of the kids at other schools (that's what you would need for it to average out to 15% of kids in AAP across the system). There may be disparities in intelligence and ability based on SES, but they're not that large. And day to day experience with AAP kids at one of the larger centers suggests that most of them aren't amazingly bright (above average, sure, but nothing to write home about). Which means that you could pull in a lot of kids from GenEd in those schools with few identified Level 4 kids to achieve that vaunted critical mass. The fact that GMU or somebody else rubber stamped it with a seal of approval doesn't change the reality of those kids' abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

This may be true in your part of the county. In other parts of the county, there are Local Level IV programs in schools where less than 15 total students, across all grades, have been found Center eligible. There is not critical mass for these students.

Then that means there is something fundamentally wrong and biased with the selection process, in that in some schools it selects the top fraction of a percent vs. something like up to a quarter or more of the kids at other schools (that's what you would need for it to average out to 15% of kids in AAP across the system). There may be disparities in intelligence and ability based on SES, but they're not that large. And day to day experience with AAP kids at one of the larger centers suggests that most of them aren't amazingly bright (above average, sure, but nothing to write home about). Which means that you could pull in a lot of kids from GenEd in those schools with few identified Level 4 kids to achieve that vaunted critical mass. The fact that GMU or somebody else rubber stamped it with a seal of approval doesn't change the reality of those kids' abilities.

There are certain parts of the county where you could not "pull in a lot of kids from GenEd in those schools with few identified Level 4 kids to achieve that vaunted critical mass" and (as usual) what works for one part of the county does not necessarily work for the entire county. It's just very, very big.

See: Level IV Demographic Data 2012-2013 School Year - Elementary School
http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/docs/sb%20follow%20up%20responses/fy%202014/SBfollow-up14-2-3-4.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

+1 Busing those kids all over the county does not work when the population is so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

[Anonymous]

Why don't they just have advanced classes in each elementary school