FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Oh, please ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

Because then you get rid of a lot of the programs that these communities need. I swear you people are going to try to drown the little good that is left in these communities just so you can soak neighbors in a couple particular zip codes.

Not following your logic. The programs don't go anywhere. The program capacity would go up to something closer to the Design Capacity.

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

AAP is NOT special education. By saying that, you show great ignorance about both AAP and Special Ed.

AAP teachers do not receive higher pay nor have more stringent continuing ed requirements - only initial requirements.

I support keeping the centers: our base schools - both elementary and middle -
are woefully under supportive of true AAP students and DC would be extremely bored or get in trouble due to boredom (like I did).

Your kid would be just fine with AAP flexible groupings. And what FCPS really needs to do, is go back to having an actual (tiny) GT program.
AAP is not a gifted program, to start.

Lady you can argue this all day long but AAP is staying in its current format. That's not changing this go around. It may in the distant future but not now. So we the boundary proposal has to account for that.

As for materials yes AAP teachers have additional materials like Jacob's ladder, Caesar's English, higher level math, etc. Again, asking a gen teacher try to group AAP kids in addition to everything else is too much to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for the state to step in and take over FCPS. Forget about trying to keep schools from failing. The comprehensive boundary review effort has demonstrated beyond doubt that the entire district has failed.

Get out of here. Seems like what you really want is a voucher charter school situation because that is exactly what will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the state to step in and take over FCPS. Forget about trying to keep schools from failing. The comprehensive boundary review effort has demonstrated beyond doubt that the entire district has failed.

Get out of here. Seems like what you really want is a voucher charter school situation because that is exactly what will happen.

DP. As late as 2023, I would’ve been on your side. The school board has quickly and unfortunately converted me into one of those parents who would prefer a voucher charter school model.

I want all Fairfax kids to have a great education, but I need to look out for my kids first. If it’s either let the school board use my kids as pawns in a socially equity experiment or have them go to a charter school (which may be to the detriment of lower SES kids), I unfortunately would go with the latter.

It’s a real shame because I’ve always been a public school supporter, but this school board has taken things too far, and it’s driven, and will continue to drive, families like mine out of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

Oh, my. I have three kids - one was in AAP. So as you can imagine, I got quite a giggle from your patronizing, smug, and absurd post. Why? Because ALL of my kids attended an elementary school that used flexible groupings. My two children who were in Gen Ed were switching classes for math, language arts, social studies, and science! And they managed to do so like champs, even at the tender age of eight - gasp!!

All the kids knew all the teachers in each grade - on average, there were about four/five. No one was traumatized by switching from Mr. T's math class to Ms. Q's language arts, etc. OTC, my AAP kid had to stay in his class with the same teacher and the same kids all year!

With flexible groupings - to include AAP - ALL kids will get to cycle into and out of the grouping most appropriate for them at any given time. No one will have to wait an entire year to either reapply to AAP or move into a different classroom.

So, to recap, it seems it is YOU who knows virtually nothing about schools in this area, or children in general. But thank you for your post, it was so comical I'm still laughing.
-PP

Yes, sound educational practices should always be derived from YOUR experience!

The bolded is a such research/guided reading late 90s/mid aughts educational drivel.

Glad we can make each other laugh during these times!

[Anonymous]

This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

My cynical side says June. They have done nothing yet but bounce numbers around and apparently they weren’t even able to get that presentation done on time as that meeting was postponed.

They seem to think they are building a case for redistricting, but without defining academic access, there is no case for redistricting. The boards lack of definition around the term academic access is what is causing the above arguments in the first place.

On some level, arguing over what they mean keeps us busy while they are rearranging our children’s lives. I say this as a parent of a kid who may be moved in the middle of high school.

On another level, to claim transparency while not being able to provide a definition for the problem is disingenuous at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

Because then you get rid of a lot of the programs that these communities need. I swear you people are going to try to drown the little good that is left in these communities just so you can soak neighbors in a couple particular zip codes.

Not following your logic. The programs don't go anywhere. The program capacity would go up to something closer to the Design Capacity.

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

Because then you get rid of a lot of the programs that these communities need. I swear you people are going to try to drown the little good that is left in these communities just so you can soak neighbors in a couple particular zip codes.

Not following your logic. The programs don't go anywhere. The program capacity would go up to something closer to the Design Capacity.

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

People arguing for design capacity have no clue what they are talking about. While program capacity can fluctuate, that is a truer number of what the school can hold than design capacity, which is typically an inflated number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Why? Its a change no parents want and its not feasible. No need to waste time and money beating a dead horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Why? Its a change no parents want and its not feasible. No need to waste time and money beating a dead horse.

I teach 6th. I prefer in ES. I do wish all 6th grades could departmentalize and do grading like secondary to help prepare them. The standards based grading is not effective for 6th graders.