AAP center transportation : is sharing economy an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did the budget tool online and got to $50 million in cuts without touching AAP. I did roll back the later high school start times. I agree with that initiative in theory, but I think it was very irresponsible of the county to make that change knowing that these budget issues were looming.

The Superintendent has stated and at least a few School Board members have hinted that the proposal to roll back the later start times is off the table in terms of the budget.

As it should be. It's made a huge difference in my teens' demeanor. Our neighborhood agrees that the later start times have been fantastic. Now they need to do the same for middle schoolers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I did the budget tool online and got to $50 million in cuts without touching AAP. I did roll back the later high school start times. I agree with that initiative in theory, but I think it was very irresponsible of the county to make that change knowing that these budget issues were looming. I also cut things that I felt were least likely to alter the school experience for kids or hurt teachers - I can't recall all the things I cut, but I know there were some things like full time athletic trainers in the high schools and so forth.

What did you suggest cutting?



I hope to God that an increase in class sizes does not pass. Classes are already far too large, and students are suffering because of it. Adding just one more student may not seem to be a big deal, but it is. When a class of 32 students may have 8-15 students with LEP needs, 3-5 students with 504 plans, and 3-5 students with IEP's (some of the 504's or IEP's overlap with the LEP needs, of course ), without any second teacher or instructional assistant support, it is very challenging to meet the needs of all of those students. Secondary school teachers may have five classes that are similar to the above. That could equal 160 students for that teacher, many of whom have specialized educational needs.


Class sizes need to be REDUCED, not increased. I know that won't happen, though.

[Anonymous]

Could AAP transportation drop off at the school and not each person's house? Like with TJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I did the budget tool online and got to $50 million in cuts without touching AAP. I did roll back the later high school start times. I agree with that initiative in theory, but I think it was very irresponsible of the county to make that change knowing that these budget issues were looming. I also cut things that I felt were least likely to alter the school experience for kids or hurt teachers - I can't recall all the things I cut, but I know there were some things like full time athletic trainers in the high schools and so forth.

What did you suggest cutting?



I hope to God that an increase in class sizes does not pass. Classes are already far too large, and students are suffering because of it. Adding just one more student may not seem to be a big deal, but it is. When a class of 32 students may have 8-15 students with LEP needs, 3-5 students with 504 plans, and 3-5 students with IEP's (some of the 504's or IEP's overlap with the LEP needs, of course ), without any second teacher or instructional assistant support, it is very challenging to meet the needs of all of those students. Secondary school teachers may have five classes that are similar to the above. That could equal 160 students for that teacher, many of whom have specialized educational needs.


Class sizes need to be REDUCED, not increased. I know that won't happen, though.

I'm the PP and I can't totally recall because it was a while ago. I tried not to cut academic programs or increase class sizes by much.

To the PP about high school start times, I understand what you are saying, and I agree that later start times are a good idea. They aren't going to get changed in any event. I'm just bothered by what I see as a lack of transparency from the county when they made this expensive change last year, even though you know they knew these budget issues were looming,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question - if bussing is eliminated to centers why can't I pay a fee for the bus? It would create a number of logistical issues for me if the bus is eliminated. I would be willing to pay a fee.

Is your child at a school with local Level IV? If all the qualified kids from your child's school stays at your base school because centers in your area are eliminated, why would that bother you? I can see being concerned when some kids go to the center and so you don't have as many kids, but if they all stay I would think it would be as good as being at the center.

I'm not OP. But it seems you missed a key item in her post: Her child's base school does NOT have any AAP local level IV to offer students.

Plus there were only five kids at the base who qualified for AAP at all. That means the base school lacks enough students to form any AAP classroom even if there were level IV available. The school would end up cobbling together classes or trying to differentiate instruction for those five kids or... all the things that OP quite rightly notes don't make sense for that school.

OP, our base was just like yours: Fewer than 10 kids qualified in my child's second grade year and there was no level IV possible at the base. Not even level III (at that time) due to the nature of the school (focus was on a lot of students who needed a lot of academic help, not on trying to bring in more AAP levels for the few kids who qualified for them). The principal made the requisite pitch for us all to stay at the base and get AAP via once a week pull-out classes-- but teachers at the base school privately told parents to get our kids out to the center school.

As for the ride-sharing app, go for it, if it makes life easier. I bet you could find takers! Bear in mind too that there is a middle school audience for this app as well since there are MS AAP centers and those students also would lose bussing under the proposals now on the table.

There might even be a high school audience; kids who make an academic transfer to a high school different from their assigned base are not entitled to bussing right now, and some of those families might be seeking ride-sharing--though the group of students in that boat is far, far smaller than the groups of elementary or MS AAP center kids.

They won't put local level IV in schools where only 5 kids per grade qualify, so busing won't be eliminated for those schools. As the numbers get higher, who knows where the line will be. I really think if busing is eliminated, they shouldn't have the center as an option for those school. If they are moving away from the center model, allowing kids who can get rides to go to the center makes no sense because it will weaken the local level IV by splitting the kids between the two options. I think they will grandfather kids and those kids should be given the option of taking a bus from the base schools to the center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that in doing that budget tool, you probably eliminated things that were important to other families and/or employees, if not to you? AAP may be your pet issue, but it sure isn't mine or many others'. We all have things that are important to us and that we see as critical to our children. AAP is nowhere near the top of my list. I consider later start times for high schoolers (and hopefully middle schoolers) as one of the most important issues for FCPS to fund. Just keep in mind that your priorities are not everyone else's.

You do realize, don't you, that just calling something a 'pet project' doesn't mean that it isn't an incredibly vital and valuable part of SOMEBODY ELSE'S educational experience. Why do parents all try to turn on one another instead of pulling together? Come on, guys, it's public school. It's for all of us. You need to meet the kids where they are. If my school system provides ESOL to somebody else's kid, who successfully becomes a productive bilingual member of society -- maybe even (gasp!) doing something amazing for bridging gaps between different cultures, that's a win for us. If my school system provides AAP to somebody else's kid, who becomes jazzed about education (rather than bored & checked-out) and then accomplishes something great with his life, that's a win for us, too.

Budget cuts aren't popularity contests, where we just cut the programs that affect the fewest people and/or annoy the most people because their kids aren't in them. We're trying to come up with a way to balance the needs across the entire County. How about we all head over to the Board of Supervisors and tell them the truth: We don't want any of these cuts. We want a strong public school system for all kids, that doesn't push away the needs of a minority (like, um, AAP nerds, to coin a phrase), but instead forms a strong basis for community -- remember that idea, community? Like, we are all in one community called Fairfax County?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that in doing that budget tool, you probably eliminated things that were important to other families and/or employees, if not to you? AAP may be your pet issue, but it sure isn't mine or many others'. We all have things that are important to us and that we see as critical to our children. AAP is nowhere near the top of my list. I consider later start times for high schoolers (and hopefully middle schoolers) as one of the most important issues for FCPS to fund. Just keep in mind that your priorities are not everyone else's.

You do realize, don't you, that just calling something a 'pet project' doesn't mean that it isn't an incredibly vital and valuable part of SOMEBODY ELSE'S educational experience. Why do parents all try to turn on one another instead of pulling together? Come on, guys, it's public school. It's for all of us. You need to meet the kids where they are. If my school system provides ESOL to somebody else's kid, who successfully becomes a productive bilingual member of society -- maybe even (gasp!) doing something amazing for bridging gaps between different cultures, that's a win for us. If my school system provides AAP to somebody else's kid, who becomes jazzed about education (rather than bored & checked-out) and then accomplishes something great with his life, that's a win for us, too.

Budget cuts aren't popularity contests, where we just cut the programs that affect the fewest people and/or annoy the most people because their kids aren't in them. We're trying to come up with a way to balance the needs across the entire County. How about we all head over to the Board of Supervisors and tell them the truth: We don't want any of these cuts. We want a strong public school system for all kids, that doesn't push away the needs of a minority (like, um, AAP nerds, to coin a phrase), but instead forms a strong basis for community -- remember that idea, community? Like, we are all in one community called Fairfax County?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question - if bussing is eliminated to centers why can't I pay a fee for the bus? It would create a number of logistical issues for me if the bus is eliminated. I would be willing to pay a fee.

Is your child at a school with local Level IV? If all the qualified kids from your child's school stays at your base school because centers in your area are eliminated, why would that bother you? I can see being concerned when some kids go to the center and so you don't have as many kids, but if they all stay I would think it would be as good as being at the center.

I'm not OP. But it seems you missed a key item in her post: Her child's base school does NOT have any AAP local level IV to offer students.

Plus there were only five kids at the base who qualified for AAP at all. That means the base school lacks enough students to form any AAP classroom even if there were level IV available. The school would end up cobbling together classes or trying to differentiate instruction for those five kids or... all the things that OP quite rightly notes don't make sense for that school.

OP, our base was just like yours: Fewer than 10 kids qualified in my child's second grade year and there was no level IV possible at the base. Not even level III (at that time) due to the nature of the school (focus was on a lot of students who needed a lot of academic help, not on trying to bring in more AAP levels for the few kids who qualified for them). The principal made the requisite pitch for us all to stay at the base and get AAP via once a week pull-out classes-- but teachers at the base school privately told parents to get our kids out to the center school.

As for the ride-sharing app, go for it, if it makes life easier. I bet you could find takers! Bear in mind too that there is a middle school audience for this app as well since there are MS AAP centers and those students also would lose bussing under the proposals now on the table.

There might even be a high school audience; kids who make an academic transfer to a high school different from their assigned base are not entitled to bussing right now, and some of those families might be seeking ride-sharing--though the group of students in that boat is far, far smaller than the groups of elementary or MS AAP center kids.

They won't put local level IV in schools where only 5 kids per grade qualify, so busing won't be eliminated for those schools. As the numbers get higher, who knows where the line will be. I really think if busing is eliminated, they shouldn't have the center as an option for those school. If they are moving away from the center model, allowing kids who can get rides to go to the center makes no sense because it will weaken the local level IV by splitting the kids between the two options. I think they will grandfather kids and those kids should be given the option of taking a bus from the base schools to the center.

Unfortunately they have put LLIV into schools that have only 5 kids per grade qualify. If they are going to make this change, they need to get rid of some of the LLIV programs. You should need to have at least 20 kids regularly or something to have a LLIV program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question - if bussing is eliminated to centers why can't I pay a fee for the bus? It would create a number of logistical issues for me if the bus is eliminated. I would be willing to pay a fee.

Is your child at a school with local Level IV? If all the qualified kids from your child's school stays at your base school because centers in your area are eliminated, why would that bother you? I can see being concerned when some kids go to the center and so you don't have as many kids, but if they all stay I would think it would be as good as being at the center.

I'm not OP. But it seems you missed a key item in her post: Her child's base school does NOT have any AAP local level IV to offer students.

Plus there were only five kids at the base who qualified for AAP at all. That means the base school lacks enough students to form any AAP classroom even if there were level IV available. The school would end up cobbling together classes or trying to differentiate instruction for those five kids or... all the things that OP quite rightly notes don't make sense for that school.

OP, our base was just like yours: Fewer than 10 kids qualified in my child's second grade year and there was no level IV possible at the base. Not even level III (at that time) due to the nature of the school (focus was on a lot of students who needed a lot of academic help, not on trying to bring in more AAP levels for the few kids who qualified for them). The principal made the requisite pitch for us all to stay at the base and get AAP via once a week pull-out classes-- but teachers at the base school privately told parents to get our kids out to the center school.

As for the ride-sharing app, go for it, if it makes life easier. I bet you could find takers! Bear in mind too that there is a middle school audience for this app as well since there are MS AAP centers and those students also would lose bussing under the proposals now on the table.

There might even be a high school audience; kids who make an academic transfer to a high school different from their assigned base are not entitled to bussing right now, and some of those families might be seeking ride-sharing--though the group of students in that boat is far, far smaller than the groups of elementary or MS AAP center kids.

They won't put local level IV in schools where only 5 kids per grade qualify, so busing won't be eliminated for those schools. As the numbers get higher, who knows where the line will be. I really think if busing is eliminated, they shouldn't have the center as an option for those school. If they are moving away from the center model, allowing kids who can get rides to go to the center makes no sense because it will weaken the local level IV by splitting the kids between the two options. I think they will grandfather kids and those kids should be given the option of taking a bus from the base schools to the center.

Unfortunately they have put LLIV into schools that have only 5 kids per grade qualify. If they are going to make this change, they need to get rid of some of the LLIV programs. You should need to have at least 20 kids regularly or something to have a LLIV program.

Absolutely yes!