FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.

+1,000!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.

I don’t like the idea of 6th graders in MS but plenty of places across the country have 6th graders attending MS, to include LCPS. I have not had any of my friends with kids in LCPS complain about the move or tell me that their kids or their kids friends are exposed to vaping or sex at MS. The 7th graders I seem to be split on wishing they were still at ES and wishing they had started MS a year earlier. I think the kids will be fine if 6th-8th grade happens. I don’t think it is possible based on space at MS at this time.

[Anonymous]

I like having 6th in elementary and am glad both my kids will get to experience this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Exactly how does moving 6th graders to middle school benefit them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Nope, don't think that's okay either. Those kids should be in special ed. You'll have to fight with the "push in" special ed parents over that one.

[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.

Reid wants 6-8 middle school because she thinks it's what's best for 6th graders. Many FCPS parents (and the vast majority of researchers and the rest of the USA) agree.

Have you polled "the rest of the USA"? I have a niece in another state who is in a 6-8 middle school and she (and her parents) absolutely hate it. The 7-8th graders are more mature, both physically and emotionally. She is exposed to vaping and sexual behavior that she wouldn't have been exposed to for another year, if 6th graders were still in elementary school there. There is no benefit to rushing these tweens to grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

+1, especially the bolded.

[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.

The accommodations are different from the remediations. The children with dyslexia or dysgraphia can use audio books and dictation software to keep up with the AAP curriculum. The remediation should be done separately.

DP. Remediation is currently done in the Gen Ed classroom - so how is that fair to Gen Ed students who don't need remediation? If it should be done "separately," then it shouldn't be done within a mainstream Gen Ed classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.

Yep, all of this. Still haven't heard one reason to move 6th graders to middle school. Because there are no reasons to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

How about leaving middle school as it is for just 2 years and have just 2 years of early waking. They will survive both.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.

Yep, all of this. Still haven't heard one reason to move 6th graders to middle school. Because there are no reasons to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

How about leaving middle school as it is for just 2 years and have just 2 years of early waking. They will survive both.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.

Yep, all of this. Still haven't heard one reason to move 6th graders to middle school. Because there are no reasons to do so.

This. Keep middle school 2 years and early start. They will survive. I promise if you move 6th to middle school and have a late start with everyone commuting home during rush hour there will be plenty of complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, she has grown children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This. Keep middle school 2 years and early start. They will survive. I promise if you move 6th to middle school and have a late start with everyone commuting home during rush hour there will be plenty of complaints.

Why force them to "survive" something (as you put it) unnecessarily when they don't have to? You just want kids today to be as miserable as you were? There is no reason we shouldn't try to make things better if we have the opportunity to do so.

[Anonymous]

I still agree that we should remove AAP in middle school and send all those kids to their base schools, so they end up with the kids they'll be in high school with. LLIV/AAP in every middle school would be great.

[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.

I can’t tell if this is satire. If not, you should go talk to Terry Mcauliffe about how people feel about your sentiments.