Thoreau AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau is not an AAP Center like Jackson or Kilmer so the core courses at Thoreau are not "AAP" in any official sense. I understand that Thoreau groups Level IV-eligible students together in some classes, but it still is not an AAP Center, which may explain some of the ambiguity in the forms. AAP students with Thoreau as their base school have the option to attend the well-established AAP Center at Jackson if they are looking for strong AAP instruction in their core courses, as well as a large AAP peer group.

The nomenclature is largely a fig leaf to maintain the fiction that the AAP center at Jackson will be vibrant after FCPS redistricted many of the higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Jackson to Thoreau. Most expect the LLIV program at Thoreau to grow in size and prestige, which is exactly what you’d expect when you move wealthier students to one school and concentrate poverty at another.

Which is why it was a stupid decision on top of letting Thoreau have their own AAP center. The AAP center was put at Jackson to lift up the school. Only this board would decide to both redistrict the wealthy out of Jackson and dilute the center with the LLIV program at Thoreau all while saying they support lower income families. They are such hypocrites.

Keys-Gamarra, Palchik, and Hynes all need to go. Keys-Gamarra, in particular, is an idiot and a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only the base school kids assigned to Jackson were redistricted. All of the AAP kids from the affected Oakton/Vienna schools are still assigned to the Jackson AAP Center, which will continue to be strong due to the outstanding teachers, rigorous academics, and large AAP peer group. Thoreau does not have "their own AAP center." Thoreau groups some Level IV-eligible students together in core classes, but it is not a Level IV Center supported as such by FCPS. With regard to academics, academic extracurricular opportunities, critical mass of AAP students, TJ placement, and other factors, the Center designation matters.

Unfortunately for LJ, it's basically the same program where they segregate kids for core classes. It pulls from 3 schools just like LJ does, so it's only different in name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the base school kids assigned to Jackson were redistricted. All of the AAP kids from the affected Oakton/Vienna schools are still assigned to the Jackson AAP Center, which will continue to be strong due to the outstanding teachers, rigorous academics, and large AAP peer group. Thoreau does not have "their own AAP center." Thoreau groups some Level IV-eligible students together in core classes, but it is not a Level IV Center supported as such by FCPS. With regard to academics, academic extracurricular opportunities, critical mass of AAP students, TJ placement, and other factors, the Center designation matters.

Unfortunately for LJ, it's basically the same program where they segregate kids for core classes. It pulls from 3 schools just like LJ does, so it's only different in name.

Sorry, it pulls from schools that feed into 3 high schools just like Jackson does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau is not an AAP Center like Jackson or Kilmer so the core courses at Thoreau are not "AAP" in any official sense. I understand that Thoreau groups Level IV-eligible students together in some classes, but it still is not an AAP Center, which may explain some of the ambiguity in the forms. AAP students with Thoreau as their base school have the option to attend the well-established AAP Center at Jackson if they are looking for strong AAP instruction in their core courses, as well as a large AAP peer group.

The nomenclature is largely a fig leaf to maintain the fiction that the AAP center at Jackson will be vibrant after FCPS redistricted many of the higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Jackson to Thoreau. Most expect the LLIV program at Thoreau to grow in size and prestige, which is exactly what you’d expect when you move wealthier students to one school and concentrate poverty at another.

Which is why it was a stupid decision on top of letting Thoreau have their own AAP center. The AAP center was put at Jackson to lift up the school. Only this board would decide to both redistrict the wealthy out of Jackson and dilute the center with the LLIV program at Thoreau all while saying they support lower income families. They are such hypocrites.

Keys-Gamarra, Palchik, and Hynes all need to go. Keys-Gamarra, in particular, is an idiot and a hypocrite.

You forgot McElveen who provided the distraction for the redistricting with his resolution for the fed to fix gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im sure we all made the best decisions we could BUT I didn’t base ours on friends or following the masses, though. I don’t want my kid making big decisions for those reasons ever!

To each his/her own! My kid is headed to Madison for sure (no TJ) so it was an easy decision for us. Thoreau!

[Anonymous]

I think the SB did what was correct. They stopped the practice of gerrymandering-which I thought was something liberals were against! But maybe they are only against political boundaries being gerrymandered. I thought gerrymandering -in every aspect -went out of fashion in the 60s. But, what do I know?!

[Anonymous]

March 9th is the deadline to notify Thoreau/Jackson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the SB did what was correct. They stopped the practice of gerrymandering-which I thought was something liberals were against! But maybe they are only against political boundaries being gerrymandered. I thought gerrymandering -in every aspect -went out of fashion in the 60s. But, what do I know?!

Apparently, not much. The existing boundaries weren’t especially gerrymandered. They simply reflected the fact that the middle schools in that part of the county generally don’t feed to a single high school (ever since TJ became a magnet) and that there’s no middle school near the heart of Oakton.

If you look at the new boundaries, the catchment area for Thoreau is now much bigger than the Jackson area, and Thoreau now feeds to 3 high schools, whereas the Jackson area just includes part of the Falls Church area. The justification is that Jackson needs the extra space for AAP kids, but the AAP program at Jackson is going to shrink considerably, despite the efforts of some here to proclaim its superiority to LLIV at Thoreau. It’s really “social engineering” in reverse: giving the wealthier families more options while ensuring the lower-income students get the short end of the stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the SB did what was correct. They stopped the practice of gerrymandering-which I thought was something liberals were against! But maybe they are only against political boundaries being gerrymandered. I thought gerrymandering -in every aspect -went out of fashion in the 60s. But, what do I know?!

I thought rightwingers were for gerrymandering?! Now you’re against it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SB did what was correct. They stopped the practice of gerrymandering-which I thought was something liberals were against! But maybe they are only against political boundaries being gerrymandered. I thought gerrymandering -in every aspect -went out of fashion in the 60s. But, what do I know?!

Apparently, not much. The existing boundaries weren’t especially gerrymandered. They simply reflected the fact that the middle schools in that part of the county generally don’t feed to a single high school (ever since TJ became a magnet) and that there’s no middle school near the heart of Oakton.

If you look at the new boundaries, the catchment area for Thoreau is now much bigger than the Jackson area, and Thoreau now feeds to 3 high schools, whereas the Jackson area just includes part of the Falls Church area. The justification is that Jackson needs the extra space for AAP kids, but the AAP program at Jackson is going to shrink considerably, despite the efforts of some here to proclaim its superiority to LLIV at Thoreau. It’s really “social engineering” in reverse: giving the wealthier families more options while ensuring the lower-income students get the short end of the stick.

They are both forms of social engineering. Zoning is a form of social engineering. Zoning limits the types of homes and businesses in the area and Oakton is primarily on septic which is why other than near the metro there are only single family homes. That is a form of social engineering to limit that area to single family homes which cost more. School boundaries and magnets are also a form of social engineering. The magnet was created to bring up the test scores at Luther Jackson and bring in more of those single family homes into the pyramid. The boundary for Jackson verses Thoreau for non-AAP kids isn't that much different to say one was gerrymandered over the other. Thoreau's main feeder is still Madison and Jackson's is still Falls Church. Oakton never had its own middle school feeder.

[Anonymous]

Thoreau's school profile on the FCPS website (http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13) says about half of the kids are already in LLIV. So with the influx of new kids, some of whom will presumably choose LLIV, will that make the gen ed students a minority at the school? I'm confused as to how so many students can be deemed IV AAP based on some of the earlier threads discussing the raw numbers of AAP kids staying at Thoreau vs LJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau's school profile on the FCPS website (http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13) says about half of the kids are already in LLIV. So with the influx of new kids, some of whom will presumably choose LLIV, will that make the gen ed students a minority at the school? I'm confused as to how so many students can be deemed IV AAP based on some of the earlier threads discussing the raw numbers of AAP kids staying at Thoreau vs LJ.

It just means 46% of the students are receiving some LLIV services. It doesn’t mean they tested into the AAP program. If you add the numbers in those columns up, you’ll see some kids are double-counted and the total is about 162%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau's school profile on the FCPS website (http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13) says about half of the kids are already in LLIV. So with the influx of new kids, some of whom will presumably choose LLIV, will that make the gen ed students a minority at the school? I'm confused as to how so many students can be deemed IV AAP based on some of the earlier threads discussing the raw numbers of AAP kids staying at Thoreau vs LJ.

It just means 46% of the students are receiving some LLIV services. It doesn’t mean they tested into the AAP program. If you add the numbers in those columns up, you’ll see some kids are double-counted and the total is about 162%.

It says 422 children last year received LLIV services. It then has another line for LL I,II, and III services. What else does that mean other than the AAP program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau's school profile on the FCPS website (http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13) says about half of the kids are already in LLIV. So with the influx of new kids, some of whom will presumably choose LLIV, will that make the gen ed students a minority at the school? I'm confused as to how so many students can be deemed IV AAP based on some of the earlier threads discussing the raw numbers of AAP kids staying at Thoreau vs LJ.

It just means 46% of the students are receiving some LLIV services. It doesn’t mean they tested into the AAP program. If you add the numbers in those columns up, you’ll see some kids are double-counted and the total is about 162%.

It says 422 children last year received LLIV services. It then has another line for LL I,II, and III services. What else does that mean other than the AAP program?

Is Thoreau counting students not in AAP taking honors? Technically, that is level IV I guess in MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SB did what was correct. They stopped the practice of gerrymandering-which I thought was something liberals were against! But maybe they are only against political boundaries being gerrymandered. I thought gerrymandering -in every aspect -went out of fashion in the 60s. But, what do I know?!

I thought rightwingers were for gerrymandering?! Now you’re against it?

I’m independent, but whatever. The Oakton/Marshall Road/Mosby Woods kids were/are further away from LJ than the kids who live in Vienna Woods. It was a gerrymandered island to pick up a wealthier area to fudge the numbers. If they want to take folks from Marshall Road and Cunningham Park who live CLOSER to LJ, be my guest. But to literally drive by closer-in communities was just dumb. And the definition of gerrymandering.