FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How could you be a public school supporter if the prospect of having your kids attend school with actual general public kids drives you away? Sounds like you were a fan of public school with a touch of economic segregation. Maybe pay for private instead of having the taxpayer pay for you.

Good news for you is that we pay far more taxes than average, so you’re basically just trying to mooch off of us with your last sentence.

I am for educating the county’s kids, I am not for using my kids as pawns offered up on the sacrificial equitable altar that is One Fairfax.

When you say “actual general public kids,” you of course realize that is not about the kids but about the school board interfering with our choice of school pyramid, without any compelling reason to do so. You’re just trying to make it an us vs. them proposition. You’ll bleed UMC support for public schools - a critical block that has historically supported public schools. You’ll have to live with whatever ensues.

Unless you're in a multi-million dollar mansion in Great Falls/McLean, the property taxes paid by most homes in top pyramids are not significantly higher at all than the lowest pyramids. We are at <4/10 schools and paid over 8k. A same model house in Woodson for example paid a little over 9k. A difference on the order of 1-2k annually is peanuts. The whole tax argument, on average, is overstated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How could you be a public school supporter if the prospect of having your kids attend school with actual general public kids drives you away? Sounds like you were a fan of public school with a touch of economic segregation. Maybe pay for private instead of having the taxpayer pay for you.

Good news for you is that we pay far more taxes than average, so you’re basically just trying to mooch off of us with your last sentence.

I am for educating the county’s kids, I am not for using my kids as pawns offered up on the sacrificial equitable altar that is One Fairfax.

When you say “actual general public kids,” you of course realize that is not about the kids but about the school board interfering with our choice of school pyramid, without any compelling reason to do so. You’re just trying to make it an us vs. them proposition. You’ll bleed UMC support for public schools - a critical block that has historically supported public schools. You’ll have to live with whatever ensues.

Unless you're in a multi-million dollar mansion in Great Falls/McLean, the property taxes paid by most homes in top pyramids are not significantly higher at all than the lowest pyramids. We are at <4/10 schools and paid over 8k. A same model house in Woodson for example paid a little over 9k. A difference on the order of 1-2k annually is peanuts. The whole tax argument, on average, is overstated.

Funny that you throw out 8k, then pretend it’s a gotcha. That’s like playing a two of clubs and a seven of diamonds in seven card stud.

I assure you the tax differentials are not overstated.

[Anonymous]

Unless you're in a multi-million dollar mansion in Great Falls/McLean, the property taxes paid by most homes in top pyramids are not significantly higher at all than the lowest pyramids. We are at <4/10 schools and paid over 8k. A same model house in Woodson for example paid a little over 9k. A difference on the order of 1-2k annually is peanuts. The whole tax argument, on average, is overstated.

Peanuts to you may be caviar to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Current CIP Data (not including current construction projects at a couple of HS or TJ):

The average Program Capacity to Design Capacity in FCPS HS is 98%, with a number being at 100%. Lewis on the other hand, sticks out with a Program Capacity (1886) to Design Capacity (2139) of only 88%. Why is this? Only South Lakes is close at 92% (2499/2717).

Why does Mount Vernon have a Design Capacity (2451) to Program Capacity (2447) of 100% despite the fact that its enrollment has dropped to 1839? That is only 75% of either DC or PC. If Program Capacity is recalculated every year, why are we paying for so much extra Program Capacity at Mount Vernon? The enrollment there has been dropping for a while. Same question could be asked of Annandale, Herndon, Madison, South County, West Potomac, and Lewis. I don't think the argument could be all about having extra resources for struggling schools - that wouldn't explain Madison and South County. And I don't think increasing the number of teachers to handle ESL necessarily increases the Program Capacity.

Deltas between Program Capacity and Enrollment:

Annandale: 345
Herndon: 519
Madison: 290
Mount Vernon: 608
South County: 291
West Potomac: 246
Lewis: 245

And at the same time, these schools have enrollments that EXCEED Program Capacity:

Falls Church: -180
McLean: -200
Edison: -149 (why is the relatively new STEM academy here and not Lewis?)
Centreville: -195
West Springfield: -298
Chantilly: -271
Woodson: -89
Hayfield: -24

What does this mean for the students at the schools that EXCEED Program Capacity?

One thing for sure, FCPS has clearly been terribly mismanaged over a number of years to get things this out of whack. Politics (elected School Board) certainly plays a big part.

[Anonymous]

Reid wants 6-8 middle school to make space in elementary schools for universal pre-k. Would have made sense at one time but times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed, though I don't think it can be done easily within one classroom and think it would be far too difficult for a teacher to have 3-4 different levels in one class. But I do know that moving classrooms for core subjects can easily be done because that's what FCPS used to do and probably still does in many schools. All they should do is add an AAP grouping for anyone who is able. No need for center schools at all.

If you put AAP kids in the same room with Gen Ed, then the Gen Ed kids will get 90% of the attention. I agree the county can probably get rid of middle school AAP centers because every middle school would have a large enough AAP cohort for dedicated classes. That just isn't true at the elementary level.

[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.

DP. This is why each teacher would take a grouping for each subject. Trying to differentiate within one classroom isn’t going to work. As long as those groupings are flexible enough to allow kids to move up and down as needed, this is the obvious solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Current CIP Data (not including current construction projects at a couple of HS or TJ):

The average Program Capacity to Design Capacity in FCPS HS is 98%, with a number being at 100%. Lewis on the other hand, sticks out with a Program Capacity (1886) to Design Capacity (2139) of only 88%. Why is this? Only South Lakes is close at 92% (2499/2717).

Why does Mount Vernon have a Design Capacity (2451) to Program Capacity (2447) of 100% despite the fact that its enrollment has dropped to 1839? That is only 75% of either DC or PC. If Program Capacity is recalculated every year, why are we paying for so much extra Program Capacity at Mount Vernon? The enrollment there has been dropping for a while. Same question could be asked of Annandale, Herndon, Madison, South County, West Potomac, and Lewis. I don't think the argument could be all about having extra resources for struggling schools - that wouldn't explain Madison and South County. And I don't think increasing the number of teachers to handle ESL necessarily increases the Program Capacity.

Deltas between Program Capacity and Enrollment:

Annandale: 345
Herndon: 519
Madison: 290
Mount Vernon: 608
South County: 291
West Potomac: 246
Lewis: 245

And at the same time, these schools have enrollments that EXCEED Program Capacity:

Falls Church: -180
McLean: -200
Edison: -149 (why is the relatively new STEM academy here and not Lewis?)
Centreville: -195
West Springfield: -298
Chantilly: -271
Woodson: -89
Hayfield: -24

What does this mean for the students at the schools that EXCEED Program Capacity?

One thing for sure, FCPS has clearly been terribly mismanaged over a number of years to get things this out of whack. Politics (elected School Board) certainly plays a big part.

There has been too much input from the community. When a boundary problem pops up, they should just fix it. I fundamentally oppose the BRAC because I don't think parents should have any say in the boundaries of the attendance zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. This is why each teacher would take a grouping for each subject. Trying to differentiate within one classroom isn’t going to work. As long as those groupings are flexible enough to allow kids to move up and down as needed, this is the obvious solution.

K-2 already accomodaters different levels. It could easily be transitioned during third grade and start shifting more and more in 4-5. 6th grade could adapt to the middle school model. Our elementary school has done something like this for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Current CIP Data (not including current construction projects at a couple of HS or TJ):

The average Program Capacity to Design Capacity in FCPS HS is 98%, with a number being at 100%. Lewis on the other hand, sticks out with a Program Capacity (1886) to Design Capacity (2139) of only 88%. Why is this? Only South Lakes is close at 92% (2499/2717).

Why does Mount Vernon have a Design Capacity (2451) to Program Capacity (2447) of 100% despite the fact that its enrollment has dropped to 1839? That is only 75% of either DC or PC. If Program Capacity is recalculated every year, why are we paying for so much extra Program Capacity at Mount Vernon? The enrollment there has been dropping for a while. Same question could be asked of Annandale, Herndon, Madison, South County, West Potomac, and Lewis. I don't think the argument could be all about having extra resources for struggling schools - that wouldn't explain Madison and South County. And I don't think increasing the number of teachers to handle ESL necessarily increases the Program Capacity.

Deltas between Program Capacity and Enrollment:

Annandale: 345
Herndon: 519
Madison: 290
Mount Vernon: 608
South County: 291
West Potomac: 246
Lewis: 245

And at the same time, these schools have enrollments that EXCEED Program Capacity:

Falls Church: -180
McLean: -200
Edison: -149 (why is the relatively new STEM academy here and not Lewis?)
Centreville: -195
West Springfield: -298
Chantilly: -271
Woodson: -89
Hayfield: -24

What does this mean for the students at the schools that EXCEED Program Capacity?

One thing for sure, FCPS has clearly been terribly mismanaged over a number of years to get things this out of whack. Politics (elected School Board) certainly plays a big part.

There has been too much input from the community. When a boundary problem pops up, they should just fix it. I fundamentally oppose the BRAC because I don't think parents should have any say in the boundaries of the attendance zones.

Having been through three boundary studies, parents DO need to be involved. It is amazing how little staff and SB members understand about the neighborhood configurations, traffic, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Only one person on this thread has suggested all differentiation take place within one classroom isn’t, and it wasn’t me. I’ve said flexible groupings from the start - switching classes for each group. AAP - and all other levels - would be separate classes for each core subject.

As for you, “lady,” you have no idea if AAP will be staying in its current format or not. If FCPS has any sense, which is doubtful, they will send all kids back to their base schools before embarking on any boundary changes.

You can advocate for your preferences, and the rest of us will do the same.

[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. Yes - that’s what a lot of us want if FCPS is going to continue down the road of ignoring parental preferences. Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100
Completely agree.

[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.

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!

Allowing all kids to participate in the grouping most appropriate for them - at any given time - is not “drivel.” You know what is? Separating two enormous, very similar groups, year after year because of some “cohort” BS. Especially when the vast majority of that “cohort” isn’t even gifted to begin with.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Only one person on this thread has suggested all differentiation take place within one classroom isn’t, and it wasn’t me. I’ve said flexible groupings from the start - switching classes for each group. AAP - and all other levels - would be separate classes for each core subject.

As for you, “lady,” you have no idea if AAP will be staying in its current format or not. If FCPS has any sense, which is doubtful, they will send all kids back to their base schools before embarking on any boundary changes.

You can advocate for your preferences, and the rest of us will do the same.

And another PP has explained why switching classes simply doesn’t work for elementary aged kids. Too many transitions wastes too much time during the school day.