AAP Work Session Scheduled for Jan. 14, 3:30 pm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is an outright lie -- schools DO NOT get more money for AAP students. They get money per pupil. Period.

The amount of misinformation on these boards staggers the mind.

I always thought the kids in Title I schools with fewer students per classroom were the most expensive to educate.

But, the misinformation bandied about cuts both ways. The suggestion that scaling back AAP in Fairfax would lead to a mass exodus to other jurisdictions is equally suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone notice the attachment created by Janie Strauss, which notes the difficulties the school has suffered due to the overcrowding? I was surprised she wasn't supporting grandfathering all the AAP, but after reading the attachment I can see why. The difference is around 120 children.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/93UT3471E98F/$file/Haycock%20Critical%20Issues%20Att%20A%20from%20Strauss.pdf

It's not 120 children. That's rising 4, 5, 6 and she is supporting grandfathering rising 6th. The number is really about 90.

Also, some of that stuff is exaggerated to make her point, FWIW.

Ms. Strauss' attachment is NOT an exaggeration. Go see the school during the day. Sadly, if FCPS had done the right thing and opened a center in Cluster 2 2-3 years ago when Louise Archer and Haycock were already brimming over, they would have been able to grandfather all the students and this mess could've been avoided. As painful as it is, Ms. Strauss' amendment is as close to 'no harm' as anyone will get on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is an outright lie -- schools DO NOT get more money for AAP students. They get money per pupil. Period.

The amount of misinformation on these boards staggers the mind.

I always thought the kids in Title I schools with fewer students per classroom were the most expensive to educate.

But, the misinformation bandied about cuts both ways. The suggestion that scaling back AAP in Fairfax would lead to a mass exodus to other jurisdictions is equally suspect.

Yes, kids in Title 1 schools have fewer students in class - more like 20 per class - explaining why Bailey's is so 'overcrowded.' Haycock on the other hand is the most overcrowded school with 25-30 per class. If they scale back the eligibility for AAP, it will just go back to the way it was before and properly fit. The AAP program has grown 300% over 10 years while the county has gown like around 20% - that should tell you something...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Haycock solution is to take the AAP Center out of the school. That way the AAP teachers can relocate to an AAP Center at another school, and then the remaining general ed kids will still access elements of the AAP curriculum. The gifted kids will have a strong cohort at a newly located AAP Center with the experienced AAP Center teachers. It really is the best for everyone.

Um, except that not only does Haycock want the center, but it's one of the most successful centers in the county. That's why they have this overcrowding problem... They're a victim of their own success, as somebody at the School Board meeting said last night. Somebody even said to the principal last night that they'd be approaching her after this mess is all over to talk about "best practices" at AAP Centers. No one wants to move the AAP Center out of Haycock.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Gen Ed parents whine endlessly about the center. What makes you think they want to keep it?

Because I have had kids in GenED and the AAP program there! No one whines about the center - they are concerned about the huge imbalance between the center and gen ed classes and all sorts of issues that go with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think they'll look back in a year and see that removing 90 kids did not really help Haycock very much. It will still be overcrowded and they'll start targeting the next group. When will Fairfax County Public Schools actually start to PLAN rather than just reacting? It was incredibly frustrating to watch that discussion. They keep making the same mistakes over and over again!! They spoke about how they want a balance of AAP and non-AAP, yet they create a new AAP center in a school of 300 kids. It will be 50% AAP in no time and then the Lemon Road families will be upset. The overcrowding discussions were unbelievable. FCPS has no idea what it's doing.

Whatever happens at Haycock, happens and I don't think the board is willing to think creatively about how to come up with the best policy solution for that community. What frustrates me is that they never actually solve any of the problems. They react once the probelm becomes a "crisis." I get it that much of the board is "new" but that's no excuse for the staff. How is it that facilities has no idea how many trailers are at the various middle schools and how they are used? How is it that projections are so wildly wrong and change by hundreds of students from year to year with no explanation? It's outrageous to me.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think they'll look back and see that, in fact, removing 90 kids during the renovation period helped get the school through the renovation period without making the school unlivable, but also helped immediately create an excellent Cluster 2 center. And it's not just 90 kids: the creation of a Lemon Road center will also move Cluster 2 AAP 3rd graders out of Haycock this fall, and then in 2014-15 the "grandfathered" 6th grade class will have graduated. So that's another 90 or so students over two years. Plus the creation of LLIV at Franklin Sherman should provide additional relief at Haycock. This is the solution that both principals from Lemon Road and Haycock have backed, and for good reason: it's forward-thinking and disrupts as few families as possible during a difficult situation. Another parent here called the situation "a perfect storm." That seems about right.

The most frustrating part of last night's discussion as far as I was concerned was watching Elizabeth Schultz. Rather than listen to the suggestions of both these principals -- who ought to know better than anyone what the "right" solution is for their communities -- she basically said that, well, kids are resilient, she moved around to many, many schools as a kid and turned out fine, and the most important thing was to "keep the cohort together." She seemed to want to needlessly move Cluster 1 families to Lemon Road during the construction period, despite the fact that they will not be continuing with their Cluster 2 friends in middle school or high school. Talk about short-term, reactionary solutions! Both principals felt there would be "critical mass" at both Lemon Road and Haycock next year, and that Haycock could continue with the renovation safely by adopting Janie Strauss' amendment. Ms. Schultz simply ignored them. It was so painful listening to her. She obviously thinks she knows best, and anyone else's opinion is irrelevant. Such arrogance. Be careful of these FEC veterans, guys. Thank goodness Dranesville didn't elect Louise Epstein or we'd be dealing with more of the same. Sheesh!

Yes, thank god that dreanesville has Janie Strauss, a 20yr school board veteran who would never let a school in her jurisdiction get to this level of crisis without convincing her colleagues to deal with the issue. Obviously she has done a great job for Haycock throughout the years.

Clearly you are not a parent at Haycock if you think Ms. Strauss has done a good job advocating for that school over the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Clearly you are not a parent at Haycock if you think Ms. Strauss has done a good job advocating for that school over the last 10 years.

I don't think she's done a good job on Haycock overall. I think she's done a good job generally as the Dranesville representative, and is doing a good job right now where Haycock is concerned.

I felt like Louise Epstein, had she been elected to replace Janie, would have advocated only for the AAP community. Maybe that's what some of you want. Nobody else matters to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Patty was trying to solve the problem. Maybe it wasn't a solution people liked but she was trying to find one. She was listening to all of the Haycock parents' complaining about overcrowding and how awful the renovation was going to be. She was trying to give them a little extra indoor space and some breathing room for the renovation, while at the same time solving her constituents' problem. It was not a perfect solution, but she was trying. Did you expect her to blow off her constituents' concerns?

Shame on Janie for not engaging in any creative problem solving. Janie knew what she wanted to do and she shoved it through rather than trying to find something that could work for everyone.

Oh and by the way, Janie knew about the proposal before last Friday, so why didn't she mention it to her constituents if she's oh so good at public engagement?

Oh, Louise, you are still in la-la-land. Patty has shown up at WHICH Haycock renovation meetings? Which PTA meetings? Oh, that's right: she hasn't been at any of them.

Parroting the angriest and most vengeful parent suggestions (if Cluster 2 kids have to go to Lemon Road then you will ALL go to Lemon Road, ha, ha, ha) is not statesmanship. It's not good policy. But it makes people feel like you're an advocate... without actually having to do the tough stuff of politics. You know, compromise.

The right solution is a compromise. It hasn't been shoved down anybody's throat. There is no solution that works for everyone. Sorry, Louise, keep pitching those dreamworld suggestions... but we see right through you.

You're right. A compromise would have been a good solution. Where exactly have the base parents compromised? The Cluster 2 parents agreed to having the rising 3rd graders go to LR and now they are being asked to give again and send all of the kids there? Why should Cluster 2 parents be the ONLY ones giving? What are the other Haycock parents giving? It's not a compromise when only one side gives.

Well the thing is Haycock families have been compromising over the last 5 years as more and more out-of-Haycock students have come to the AAP center there and the school has been more and more overcrowded. Haycock neighborhood children will have spent up to 5 of their 7 years at Haycock in trailers rather than in the building so out-of-neighborhood students can be there, etc. I think that is plenty of compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It is an effort to cleanse Haycock. AAP centers cross cluster lines. They always have and they still do. Haycock knew it was overcrowded and didn't want it's own boundaries adjusted, and then figured out that if they created a cluster war, they could get rid of most of their diversity in one blow.

Excuse me, but the parents did NOT come up with this idea. The FCPS administration and school board members did. I am offended by your comment. Haycock parents are quite welcoming and during the last boundary study fought TO grandfather students. I am quite sure that had this all come up a few years ago when it shoudl have, parents would have completely approved of grandfathering cluster 2 students because the school was not nearly as overcrowded nor facing a renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Patty was trying to solve the problem. Maybe it wasn't a solution people liked but she was trying to find one. She was listening to all of the Haycock parents' complaining about overcrowding and how awful the renovation was going to be. She was trying to give them a little extra indoor space and some breathing room for the renovation, while at the same time solving her constituents' problem. It was not a perfect solution, but she was trying. Did you expect her to blow off her constituents' concerns?

Shame on Janie for not engaging in any creative problem solving. Janie knew what she wanted to do and she shoved it through rather than trying to find something that could work for everyone.

Oh and by the way, Janie knew about the proposal before last Friday, so why didn't she mention it to her constituents if she's oh so good at public engagement?

Oh, Louise, you are still in la-la-land. Patty has shown up at WHICH Haycock renovation meetings? Which PTA meetings? Oh, that's right: she hasn't been at any of them.

Parroting the angriest and most vengeful parent suggestions (if Cluster 2 kids have to go to Lemon Road then you will ALL go to Lemon Road, ha, ha, ha) is not statesmanship. It's not good policy. But it makes people feel like you're an advocate... without actually having to do the tough stuff of politics. You know, compromise.

The right solution is a compromise. It hasn't been shoved down anybody's throat. There is no solution that works for everyone. Sorry, Louise, keep pitching those dreamworld suggestions... but we see right through you.

You're right. A compromise would have been a good solution. Where exactly have the base parents compromised? The Cluster 2 parents agreed to having the rising 3rd graders go to LR and now they are being asked to give again and send all of the kids there? Why should Cluster 2 parents be the ONLY ones giving? What are the other Haycock parents giving? It's not a compromise when only one side gives.

Well the thing is Haycock families have been compromising over the last 5 years as more and more out-of-Haycock students have come to the AAP center there and the school has been more and more overcrowded. Haycock neighborhood children will have spent up to 5 of their 7 years at Haycock in trailers rather than in the building so out-of-neighborhood students can be there, etc. I think that is plenty of compromise.

Your post demonstrates a big part of the reason this is so contentious. You clearly think the neighborhood kids have more of a "right" to be at Haycock than the AAP center kids. You seem to forget that our kids are in trailers, too. They were sent there by FCPS, too. We're never going to agree and I don't want to argue the same points endlessly. I just wanted to note that I think this is part of the reason the two sides will never agree. There is a fundamental disagreement over the "right" of the AAP kids to be there. It's sad. I really thought we were part of the community. It breaks my heart to have my child villified by her school community simply because she is taking up a seat in a classroom that FCPS offered to her and thought would be the appropriate place for her to be educated. She had no local level IV option, by the way.

You guys are going to win. I hope it makes you happy so I don't have to listen to you complain anymore. I hope you enjoy the renovation so that the long suffering Haycock parents can finally be happy. I hope you guys realize that now that you've gone on and on about how having our kids leave is going to give you relief, there is no place for complaint next year when that's not actually true. Also, please don't complain when your renovation is done and you still have a mod. We tried to help everyone at Haycock by thinking of alternatives that would actually create relief but were told that we are simply selfish. You're geting what you asked for. Enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's usually the county pushing kids out. This time it was initiated and perpetuated by parents. The cluster 2 kids were targeted in an attempt to solve a problem that was caused by the population growth of the base school population. That's why this is different and why it is so hurtful.

You could not be more wrong. Parents had NOTHING to do with this proposal that was brought to Haycock in October. Everyone in that room was just as shocked. You should direct your ire at Marty Smith and the other cluster superintendents who clearly have not been doing their jobs. Nor did they do a good job when they presented this to the communtiy. yes, the Haycock community clearly has been growing. And the community has been telling this to FCPS for at least 7 years, but Dean Tisdadt's and Janie sTrauss' refusal to listen has resulted in this. In addition, if you look at enrollment, 3-4 years ago, only a handful of AAP students were comign from cluster 2. Now it's 2 classfuls. It is a combination of that, not just one population over the other. And again, the parents did not come up with this plan unlike the plans presented by Ms. Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It is an effort to cleanse Haycock. AAP centers cross cluster lines. They always have and they still do. Haycock knew it was overcrowded and didn't want it's own boundaries adjusted, and then figured out that if they created a cluster war, they could get rid of most of their diversity in one blow.

Excuse me, but the parents did NOT come up with this idea. The FCPS administration and school board members did. I am offended by your comment. Haycock parents are quite welcoming and during the last boundary study fought TO grandfather students. I am quite sure that had this all come up a few years ago when it shoudl have, parents would have completely approved of grandfathering cluster 2 students because the school was not nearly as overcrowded nor facing a renovation.

Say whatever makes you feel better, but honestly, "welcoming" is not a word I would use to describe the Haycock community. When I have volunteered there in the past, parents have visibly turned the other way out of the conversation when they found out I was an AAP family (and it was not me bragging but a simple response to a question as to which class my child was in). Parents, even Haycock base AAP parents, go out of the way to note that their child is in boundary.

There were parents fighting grandfathering when Kent Gardens was kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's usually the county pushing kids out. This time it was initiated and perpetuated by parents. The cluster 2 kids were targeted in an attempt to solve a problem that was caused by the population growth of the base school population. That's why this is different and why it is so hurtful.

You could not be more wrong. Parents had NOTHING to do with this proposal that was brought to Haycock in October. Everyone in that room was just as shocked. You should direct your ire at Marty Smith and the other cluster superintendents who clearly have not been doing their jobs. Nor did they do a good job when they presented this to the communtiy. yes, the Haycock community clearly has been growing. And the community has been telling this to FCPS for at least 7 years, but Dean Tisdadt's and Janie sTrauss' refusal to listen has resulted in this. In addition, if you look at enrollment, 3-4 years ago, only a handful of AAP students were comign from cluster 2. Now it's 2 classfuls. It is a combination of that, not just one population over the other. And again, the parents did not come up with this plan unlike the plans presented by Ms. Reed.

In the spring of 2011, there was a meeting with parents and Carol Horn on rolling out the AAP curriculum in the McLean schools. At that meeting, there were very vocal parents asking why there are cluster 2 kids at Haycock. Do you want me to name them?

Later, there was a meeting with Marty Smith about the renovation and overcrowding (the notes are available on line). The same questions were asked. Clearly, Haycock base parents had singled out the Cluster 2 kids long before October.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Sorry. It was spring of 2012. It seems like such a long time ago, but it was only a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your post demonstrates a big part of the reason this is so contentious. You clearly think the neighborhood kids have more of a "right" to be at Haycock than the AAP center kids. You seem to forget that our kids are in trailers, too. They were sent there by FCPS, too. We're never going to agree and I don't want to argue the same points endlessly. I just wanted to note that I think this is part of the reason the two sides will never agree. There is a fundamental disagreement over the "right" of the AAP kids to be there. It's sad. I really thought we were part of the community. It breaks my heart to have my child villified by her school community simply because she is taking up a seat in a classroom that FCPS offered to her and thought would be the appropriate place for her to be educated. She had no local level IV option, by the way.

You guys are going to win. I hope it makes you happy so I don't have to listen to you complain anymore. I hope you enjoy the renovation so that the long suffering Haycock parents can finally be happy. I hope you guys realize that now that you've gone on and on about how having our kids leave is going to give you relief, there is no place for complaint next year when that's not actually true. Also, please don't complain when your renovation is done and you still have a mod. We tried to help everyone at Haycock by thinking of alternatives that would actually create relief but were told that we are simply selfish. You're geting what you asked for. Enjoy it.

Do you get paid extra to post the same BS for the hundredth time? Because you've posted the exact same thing 99 times before.

No one is buying your effort to claim the moral high ground here. It's just an excuse to try and get in parting shots. But, guess what - Haycock is going to be an even better school once it is renovated and there is relief from the current, severe overcrowding. I'm sorry that this prospect pains you so much, but you'll survive.

[Anonymous]

I must get paid by whoever is paying you because I would dare say you have posted the same thing 99 times.

I regret that you call it BS. I have not chosen to resort to such insults.