FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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?

I agree with you. However, if all kids are sent back to their base schools (i.e. ending centers), that could affect boundaries. So it is an issue that should be explored.

[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.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

[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.

+1
And no one “owes” Reid anything.

[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.

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.

+ a million

[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.

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.

Former teacher
I've only read one PP state that. And, it sure didn't sound like she had ever taught in a school. It can be done. It's really only a matter of math and language arts.
And, FWIW, a lot of schools already do this in some form.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. What? Are you claiming that certain public school kids are “authentic” while other public school kids are somehow faking it? These are ALL public school kids. There’s nothing wrong with preferring the schools out kids have been zoned for and are currently attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

DP but I’d assume they would either get an IEP and a 504 with an accommodation for a screen reader + extra pull outs with the reading specialist (probably what should be done) orrrrrr the school would do nothing, maybe put the one kid in advanced math, and say they aren’t on level for reading so they can’t be in LIV.

DP. Except they DO put kids with reading issues in AAP - all the time. Kind of begs the question, aren’t they “holding back” the rest of the class, as AAP parents claim GE kids would do?

The whole thing is ridiculous. There is such an overlap of skills and ability between GenEd and AAP kids. The only way to ensure ALL kids are reaching their potential in ALL subjects is to go back to flexible groups.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully block education grants to the states will come with strings attached such as mandatory voucher programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. But it’s ok for kids who need a LOT more attention and help to be in the Gen Ed classrooms, thus slowing down all of those kids who don’t need remedial help?

Look, if AAP kids are entitled to an education free of distractions / kids who need more help, then high-ability Gen Ed kids (generally indistinguishable from 99% of AAP kids) also deserve that learning environment. It absolutely boggles the mind that people like you insist on one but are perfectly ok with the other (since it doesn’t affect your kids).

Case in point why centers and segregated classes need to end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[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.

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.

Oh, please. There is already TON of wasted time during the school day. Switching to the classroom next door across the hallway for math or language arts isn’t wasting time. It’s going to the class/level best suited for your abilities. Many schools already do this and have for a long time. It makes perfect sense - and everyone benefits, rather than just one “cohort.”

[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.

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.

Former teacher
I've only read one PP state that. And, it sure didn't sound like she had ever taught in a school. It can be done. It's really only a matter of math and language arts.
And, FWIW, a lot of schools already do this in some form.

Exactly. Some parents are desperate not to lose whatever perceived status they think comes with center schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This essentially changes the school system being responsible for 13 yrs (K through 12) to 14 or 15 years (pk3 or pk4 through 12). I'm skeptical there's enough seats in the county to add these extra kids no matter how hard they scramble everything up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This essentially changes the school system being responsible for 13 yrs (K through 12) to 14 or 15 years (pk3 or pk4 through 12). I'm skeptical there's enough seats in the county to add these extra kids no matter how hard they scramble everything up.

Question: Does Michelle Reid have any children? Doesn't sound like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This essentially changes the school system being responsible for 13 yrs (K through 12) to 14 or 15 years (pk3 or pk4 through 12). I'm skeptical there's enough seats in the county to add these extra kids no matter how hard they scramble everything up.

It would have made sense from a FCPS budgetary standpoint if the Feds were ponying up other people’s money but those days are gone at least for now. So, if she gets her way more tax increase for the good people of Fairfax County.