Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

I'm wondering how you think it's possible that the Gen Ed population has not been failed by the vast expansion of AAP. Gen Ed classes have been depleted over the past few years due to so many average children being placed (often times through appeals) into AAP. Of course no one wants to pretend everyone is "the same". But to say that the masses of AAP children are, indeed, all gifted, is simply wishful thinking. If it were a program for highly gifted kids (as originally intended), the kids who actually need a specialized learning environment, then most parents would be supporters of the program, whether or not their child was in it. I think everyone agrees there should be a gifted program, but perhaps we could limit it to kids who are, in reality, gifted. Surely you're not arguing that every child currently in AAP needs a different learning environment? Because, frankly, this is the fuzziest logic yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

AMEN to this post...I actually had one GE parent insinuate that my DC would not be in AAP if it weren't for the low standards-how the heck do they presume to know my kid's CoGAT and GBRS? Really huge chip on their shoulder...and again, this thread is way off topic because of the AAP haters in the crowd..

This thread isn't off-topic at all. The issue is overcrowding at AAP centers, specifically Longfellow. The reason there is overcrowding there in the first place is due to the over-admittance of kids to AAP. It's a pretty simple connection to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

AMEN to this post...I actually had one GE parent insinuate that my DC would not be in AAP if it weren't for the low standards-how the heck do they presume to know my kid's CoGAT and GBRS? Really huge chip on their shoulder...and again, this thread is way off topic because of the AAP haters in the crowd..

This thread isn't off-topic at all. The issue is overcrowding at AAP centers, specifically Longfellow. The reason there is overcrowding there in the first place is due to the over-admittance of kids to AAP. It's a pretty simple connection to make.

It's not the appeal of Vern Williams? People move into the Longfellow boundary specifically for Vern Williams.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand that mentality - moving to a school in the hopes that ones child will get a certain teacher. I will say that the math teachers my DC had at Longfellow were excellent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

AMEN to this post...I actually had one GE parent insinuate that my DC would not be in AAP if it weren't for the low standards-how the heck do they presume to know my kid's CoGAT and GBRS? Really huge chip on their shoulder...and again, this thread is way off topic because of the AAP haters in the crowd..

This thread isn't off-topic at all. The issue is overcrowding at AAP centers, specifically Longfellow. The reason there is overcrowding there in the first place is due to the over-admittance of kids to AAP. It's a pretty simple connection to make.

Just not true. First of all, Longfellow is still under capacity, so I don't even know why you are saying it's so overcrowded. Perhaps you have just heard the "sky is falling" predictions -- FCPS data is notoriously unreliable and often manipulated to advance an agenda -- in this case the goal of starting center at Cooper. Yes, LMS is a very large middle school, no doubt, but it was built & renovated to accommodate 1350 kids. Perhaps you know that a lot of those kids are in AAP? But the vast majority of them would attend Longfellow whether they were in AAP or GE, as it is their base MS. Whether they were "over-admitted" to AAP -- complete speculation on your part anyway -- really makes little difference to the enrollment at LMS. The smallest population at LMS are the kids attending for AAP from other base middle schools, and anyone familiar with this group of kids, many of whom are the top math kids, top science olympiad, many headed for TJ -- they are not the poster children for your theory that AAP has let in a bunch of average kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

AMEN to this post...I actually had one GE parent insinuate that my DC would not be in AAP if it weren't for the low standards-how the heck do they presume to know my kid's CoGAT and GBRS? Really huge chip on their shoulder...and again, this thread is way off topic because of the AAP haters in the crowd..

This thread isn't off-topic at all. The issue is overcrowding at AAP centers, specifically Longfellow. The reason there is overcrowding there in the first place is due to the over-admittance of kids to AAP. It's a pretty simple connection to make.

Just not true. First of all, Longfellow is still under capacity, so I don't even know why you are saying it's so overcrowded. Perhaps you have just heard the "sky is falling" predictions -- FCPS data is notoriously unreliable and often manipulated to advance an agenda -- in this case the goal of starting center at Cooper. Yes, LMS is a very large middle school, no doubt, but it was built & renovated to accommodate 1350 kids. Perhaps you know that a lot of those kids are in AAP? But the vast majority of them would attend Longfellow whether they were in AAP or GE, as it is their base MS. Whether they were "over-admitted" to AAP -- complete speculation on your part anyway -- really makes little difference to the enrollment at LMS. The smallest population at LMS are the kids attending for AAP from other base middle schools, and anyone familiar with this group of kids, many of whom are the top math kids, top science olympiad, many headed for TJ -- they are not the poster children for your theory that AAP has let in a bunch of average kids.

Then why is the subject of this thread, "Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans"? I'm one of the Cooper parents who would very much prefer not having a center at Cooper, but according to some (rumors?) here on DCUM, Cooper will indeed be starting a center to "help alleviate overcrowding at Longfellow's AAP center". So, which is it? What is the truth here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From where I'm sitting it seems the anti-AAP posters are trying vey hard to drown out voices that disagree with them. BTW, see the other thread on this board right now on which a number of posters have posted similar observations that middle school honors classes seem to be significantly less challenging than AAP.

You're kidding, right? Every time a parent of a Gen Ed student (or of both GE and AAP students) has an opinion regarding AAP, s/he is completely dismissed by those who only have AAP kids and who feel AAP is the end-all, be-all. It's amazing to me that FCPS bends over backwards to accomodate all the parents who insist their child be in this program. If the admissions criteria were raised, we wouldn't be having the problem of over-crowding and likely most current AAP students would instead be in Gen Ed. If FCPS spent a fraction of the energy, money, and time on Gen Ed students that they've been spending on AAP issues like testing, identification, over-crowding, etc., imagine what a great General Ed. program we would have. But instead, they're completely cowed by aggressive, pushy parents who insist on the status quo (not particularly high admittance criteria) so that their average kids can be in the program. The whole system is corrupt and is failing the majority of kids in FCPS, the Gen Ed population. Not to mention the highly gifted kids who aren't even in a gifted program.

I don't know how many more times you can repeat this same mantra that the AAP program is responsible for so many of the school system's problems but the only takers are parents with a similar axe to grind, presumably parents of kids I can only assume you would describe as what, below average? I don't know why you believe it is responsible for all overcrowding; it's not at all clear that it is failing the GE population -- there are many arguments to the contrary; the budget for AAP is actually quite small and pales in comparison to GE and certainly to Special Ed, which serves far fewer children, probably compared to a number of other programs, especially in relation to kids served. Also, stop with the constant implication that every defender of AAP has "average children"? Believe it or not, there are many families around here with multiple kids with 130 and 140+ test scores (yes, uncoached), high GBRS, etc -- their crime is to accept the placement their child's teachers and the school system said was appropriate? Many moved here because they knew our child(ren) were candidates. I can assure you that many of these parents believe the system has been corrupted, if at all, by political correctness and trying to please parents like yourself, even when it's not educationally sound.

What's your end goal anyway -- you really think that you'd prefer an "average" student population? Or you just want to pretend everyone's the same? Do you not want to acknowledge that the AAP program in FCPS has long been considered a model system, which attracts and retains some of the brightest children and their families to come to FCPS? You could drive out many of the truly "highly gifted" but if not you still might not really be happy with the resulting model . . . Based on your post's fuzzy logic and unfounded accusations, I suppose that the program just makes you so crazy for personal reasons that you just want it gone, and you'll blame anything and everything on it, reason and reality be damned.

I'm wondering how you think it's possible that the Gen Ed population has not been failed by the vast expansion of AAP. Gen Ed classes have been depleted over the past few years due to so many average children being placed (often times through appeals) into AAP. Of course no one wants to pretend everyone is "the same". But to say that the masses of AAP children are, indeed, all gifted, is simply wishful thinking. If it were a program for highly gifted kids (as originally intended), the kids who actually need a specialized learning environment, then most parents would be supporters of the program, whether or not their child was in it. I think everyone agrees there should be a gifted program, but perhaps we could limit it to kids who are, in reality, gifted. Surely you're not arguing that every child currently in AAP needs a different learning environment? Because, frankly, this is the fuzziest logic yet.

Since you're the one making the assertion that the GE population has been failed -- I think YOU should actually explain why. Sounds like you are arguing they've been failed just because their numbers are smaller? I don't get your point.

I also don't think many kids are getting in on appeal anyway -- the vast majority are in on the first round, I believe. Either way, the committee is charged with reviewing all of the student's info just like in the first round, and since none of us are on the selection committee, I think it's pretty presumptuous to believe that you know there are kids getting in that don't belong there. So you know a few kids you raised an eyebrow about & believe are no smarter than your kid? Of course we all do that. Did you have access to all their test scores, their grades, their GBRS? If not then who are you to say, and why does it bug you even if they did "push" their kid ahead -- if you are comfortable that your child is in the right program for them, can't you stop there? If you're not, maybe you should consider whether your child needs something else. Either way, I don't see the system wide tragedy you're describing. Would I too be happier with a more advanced AAP program for the "truly gifted" -- yes -- but I think we both know your real goal is to get rid of the whole program, not just limit it to kids like mine that would make a higher cut, and all this criticism is meant to undermine the whole program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Then why is the subject of this thread, "Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans"? I'm one of the Cooper parents who would very much prefer not having a center at Cooper, but according to some (rumors?) here on DCUM, Cooper will indeed be starting a center to "help alleviate overcrowding at Longfellow's AAP center". So, which is it? What is the truth here?

"The truth" depends on who you ask & which outcome they want -- like any other issue! The person starting this thread is probably a LMS base parent, probably GE, who resents the AAP kids and wants to blame them for the school being so big, and s/he wants to make it seem a necessity to send them to their base schools. I think the truth is that LMS is a very big school and always will be, and though it's not over capacity yet, it will eventually be over capacity mostly because of growth in its base population, AND there are some vocal voices who really want a center at Cooper for lots of reasons. LMS principal can't stand thought of having trailers again; CMS principal wants the prestige of center; anti-AAP movement is toward all school based programs rather than center; CMS is small relative to LMS . . . (but that doesn't mean it can handle having all the AAP kids from LMS & Kilmer dumped on it . . .)

[Anonymous]

I don't know how many times one can state that the bigger issue is at Kilmer, which gets Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls and is already overcrowded. Longfellow is slightly below capacity this year and projected to be overcrowded in another year or two.

I agree that the FCPS projections seem unreliable and subject to manipulation, but there's no question that the placement of Cooper AAP students at Kilmer and Longfellow contributes to a growing enrollment gap among the schools. Cooper has over 100 fewer students than it had five years ago and now has the lowest enrollment of any MS in the county, while Kilmer has roughly 250 more students and Longfellow has roughly 170 more students than they had five years ago. That is not a sustainable trend, so at the end of the day the question is whether AAP assignments change, base boundaries change, AAP admissions criteria are tightened, or additions are built.

[Anonymous]

Longfellow is current at capacity. Yes according to the dashboard it is 15 students under capacity but come on- that is basically at capacity. The projected 5 year enrollment is to grow by 219, so it is expected to be over capacity shortly.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/dashboard/enrollment/msenroll13-14.html

Cooper is currently 141 under capacity and projected to grow by 4 students, so it is expected to remain under capacity for the foreseeable future.

However, Kilmer is currently 140 over capacity and projected to grow by 215. So Kilmer's over crowding is what should be driving the push for an AAP center at Cooper. Cooper has the population to have a robust AAP program within its current boundaries and it has the building capacity to hold the additional students.

Overshadowing all of this is the expected growth of Tyson's. Cooper cannot remain under capacity when its neighboring schools are over capacity. If anything, the school board should be looking at long term ways to increase capacity at all schools in the Tysons area as well as build new schools. My suggestion is to build up so that the field space can be kept. If the 100,000 projected new residents becomes a reality, this area of the county should look to urban schools as a guide- not sprawling suburban campuses.

[Anonymous]

The unrenovated Cooper appears to be the only school that would be bricks and mortar overcapacity if all AAP was at the base schools. Do any other middle schools in northern Fairfax County have a modular as a long term capacity solution? Cooper is 141 under.

The dashboard shows:
Longfellow transfer in AAP 103
Cooper transfer out AAP 326=103 from Mclean zipcodes to Longfellow + 226 from Great Falls/Vienna/Reston/Herndon area to Kilmer
Kilmer transfer in AAP 244=226 from Cooper
Jackson transfer in AAP 83
Thoreau transfer out AAP 101=83 to Jackson and 18 to Kilmer
Herndon transfer out AAP 42
Hughes transfer in AAP 44

[Anonymous]

I think the solution is to move up Cooper's renovation and plan to add capacity to it also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The unrenovated Cooper appears to be the only school that would be bricks and mortar overcapacity if all AAP was at the base schools. Do any other middle schools in northern Fairfax County have a modular as a long term capacity solution? Cooper is 141 under.

The dashboard shows:
Longfellow transfer in AAP 103
Cooper transfer out AAP 326=103 from Mclean zipcodes to Longfellow + 226 from Great Falls/Vienna/Reston/Herndon area to Kilmer
Kilmer transfer in AAP 244=226 from Cooper
Jackson transfer in AAP 83
Thoreau transfer out AAP 101=83 to Jackson and 18 to Kilmer
Herndon transfer out AAP 42
Hughes transfer in AAP 44

I wonder whether the dashboard numbers are correct (as reported by FCPS, not by you).

I ask because they show Longfellow as having 555 AAP students with 103 out-of-boundary transfers. That leaves 452 students whose base schools are Longfellow and McLean. The dashboard numbers also show 326 transfers out of Cooper for AAP, and the Cooper/Langley boundaries overlap. It seems odd to me that the McLean pyramid would have that many more AAP students than the Langley pyramid, unless there are currently a large number of AAP-eligible students in the Langley pyramid who decide to stay at Cooper rather than go to Kilmer or Longfellow. [You can't do a similar analysis for Kilmer, because it's a split feeder to Marshall and Madison, and gets some Cooper/Langley students for AAP].

[Anonymous]

One thing that is misleading in 10:40 figures is the looming current 4th grade AAP #'s that will increase all those transfer in/out #'s unless something is done quick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

PP here-I believe I already stated that I wasn't qualified to comment on Kilmer, so the above snotty comment wasn't necessary.

I really don't get why the school board feels it makes sense to have AAP in all middle achools. In Cluster 1, it makes most sense for Longfellow to be THE center for middle school. They clearly have the teaching resources and extracurricular infrastructure already in place as well as the renovated building. It would also solve the problems of critical mass and AAP vs Non AAP populations. If transportation is the issue do limited or no bussing. I would gladly drive my kid for an advanced education in an established center-and I'm sure others feel the same, since clearly the main issue here is money (or lack thereof in FCPS) driving these decisions.

It doesn't make sense when Cooper is under capacity because they send AAP students to Longfeloow and Longfellow is over capacity becasue of those same students. There are plenty of AAP students in the Cooper district for a robust AAp program. I would also send half the expereince AAP teachers at Longfellow to Cooper so they can benefit from the experienced teacher resources. The extracurricular stuff could easily be done at Cooper now. I don't know why they don't do it currently. The issue isn't money (as it wouldn't save all that much), it is space and the fact that the over large AAP population at Longfellow adversely affects the Gen- Ed population at Longfellow.

Therein lies the problem-none of the Longfellow teachers would be willing to come over to Cooper to get a new center up and running-if there were, I'm sure parents at Churchill and Spring Hill would feel differently about allowing their kids to be a "guinea pig" for a new center. It takes time and energy as well as appropriate, qualified center teachers to lead a new center-and despite all of the recent talk on the subject, Cooper seems to be doing nothing in the meantime to make itself more attractive to kids currently at the Churchill Road Center or Spring Hill local level IV.

I sure as heck don't want my 5th grader to be part of the pseudo-center at Cooper they keep talking about creating, and I doubt many would-and given property taxes I pay to live in the Langley pyramid, it should be my choice to do what's best for my kid.

First of all, don't forget about Colvin Run which also feeds into Cooper, Longfellow, and Cooper.

As a current Cooper parent, I am very happy that Cooper is "doing nothing to make itself more attractive" to the AAP population. Cooper, as it is right now, is a wonderful school and doesn't need to make itself more appealing for a select group of students. Why would they? I agree with a PP who said Cooper should remain a Gen Ed school, taking Gen Ed kids from Longfellow as well. I think making Longfellow an AAP only center is a great idea. Let's not forget why there is overcrowding in the AAP centers in the first place: FCPS has admitted far too many kids into the program in recent years. It's not Cooper's fault that there are fewer and fewer Gen Ed kids; it's FCPS! Why should Cooper have to absorb the AAP overflow when the Gen Ed population has gotten the short end of the stick for years? Why on earth should Gen Ed kids have to bend over backwards to accomodate a "special" program at Cooper? We [b]also live in the Langley pyramid and we also pay exorbitant property taxes; frankly, the one benefit we parents of Gen Ed kids have is a middle school that has NO AAP! Long may that last[/b].

Excuse me, but many of these "AAP" kids are YOUR neighborhood kids! They should be welcomed in Cooper. It is after all their neighborhood school. Many of them don't want to be in Kilmer but in order to stay on the AAP track they have no other choice.