FCPS Level IV Task Force Recommendation

[Anonymous]

I think the thought is going the other way, trying to integrate these children as much as possible into the base schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the thought is going the other way, trying to integrate these children as much as possible into the base schools.

I think the thought is trying to integrate children into their high school pyramids. It is hardly equitable, however, as some parts of the county (where there are higher SES) have much larger numbers of AAP-eligible students as compared to other parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

True, but those aren't the centers that are overcrowded. Why does anything need to be done differently for those centers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True, but those aren't the centers that are overcrowded. Why does anything need to be done differently for those centers?

Good question. It may be a budget issue and FCPS is trying to save money on transportation.

[Anonymous]

I think the recs make sense, but it would be a heavy lift to implement them because of capacity issues.

For example, in my pyramid (Woodson), there are currently two centers -- Canterbury Woods (currently 241 students) and Mantua (227). Both centers serve students from schools that are not in the Woodson pyramid. Under the proposal, there would be one center, presumably at Mantua or Canterbury Woods, that would have 335 students. So what are they going to do with that? Make one of the schools more overcrowded, and give one of them a 200+ student deficit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the county ever considered having an entire school be AAP 3-6 only?

It would make so much more sense to have one school in each cluster that houses only AAP kids, and it would eliminate the crowding and top-heavy issues in AAP center schools.

Interesting idea! I wonder if FCPS has enough schools to dedicate to such an approach and how that would affect personnel and transportation costs.

This is an interesting idea, but my guess is that families living in the area surrounding the AAP only school would be unhappy at losing their neighborhood school. Residents of the area surrounding TJ still regret losing their school, so I think the same is likely to follow if an elementary were changed to all AAP.

Good point. Maybe find some FCPS administrative buildings that used to be schools instead? It would require renovation, of course -- along the lines of the new Mason Crest ES that used to be the Lacey Center.

Graham Rd was a school and now there might be a charter school app for it's use. FCPS took away this neighborhood school that had a huge percentage of walkers. If each middle school has AAP or if all stay in pyramid then there would be significant shifts. Longfellow [Mclean pyramid]and Kilmer [Marshall pyramid]would see big decreases since all those students would now go to Cooper. Would they fit? This is just one example so does FCPS do base school boundary changes to re-adjust all the AAP students into base schools?

[Anonymous]

New parent here. My son is slated to started K at Shrevewood next year. I know that Haycock is currently the AAP center for Shrevewood. Am I interpreting things correctly that upcoming center kids from Shrevewood would now need to go to Churchill without transportation? That's not exactly a short trip...

[Anonymous]

These are all proposals, first of all.

It's a little unclear what they mean about closing Haycock to new students. My interpretation is that they mean just to new students starting this year who haven't started yet. It wouldn't really make sense to close Haycock to all new students on a going forward basis and divert them all to Churchill -- that's like 100 students a year.

But in the longer term, the proposal would be for a new center to be created that would house AAP kids from all the schools in the Marshall pyramid, including Shrevewood. Haycock would presumably remain a center, exclusively for the kids at elementary schools in the McLean pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are all proposals, first of all.

It's a little unclear what they mean about closing Haycock to new students. My interpretation is that they mean just to new students starting this year who haven't started yet. It wouldn't really make sense to close Haycock to all new students on a going forward basis and divert them all to Churchill -- that's like 100 students a year.

But in the longer term, the proposal would be for a new center to be created that would house AAP kids from all the schools in the Marshall pyramid, including Shrevewood. Haycock would presumably remain a center, exclusively for the kids at elementary schools in the McLean pyramid.

It's not a hundred students a year. There are maybe a hundred AAP in each grade, but 40% of them are zoned for haycock. Presumably, they wouldn't have to go to Churchill Road -- although that would be sweet irony after the Haycock base school parents have worked so hard to get our kids kicked out of Haycock.

[Anonymous]

When they say they would close the school to new students I think that means the current 2nd graders who are accepted into AAP next year would go to a different school. The kids already there would probably be grandfathered. This would reduce the overcrowding slowly and help the new centers get up to speed by adding 1 grade per year. It would be hard for families with multiple siblings scattered all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are all proposals, first of all.

It's a little unclear what they mean about closing Haycock to new students. My interpretation is that they mean just to new students starting this year who haven't started yet. It wouldn't really make sense to close Haycock to all new students on a going forward basis and divert them all to Churchill -- that's like 100 students a year.

But in the longer term, the proposal would be for a new center to be created that would house AAP kids from all the schools in the Marshall pyramid, including Shrevewood. Haycock would presumably remain a center, exclusively for the kids at elementary schools in the McLean pyramid.

It's not a hundred students a year. There are maybe a hundred AAP in each grade, but 40% of them are zoned for haycock. Presumably, they wouldn't have to go to Churchill Road -- although that would be sweet irony after the Haycock base school parents have worked so hard to get our kids kicked out of Haycock.

According to the chart, 150 out of 426 kids at Haycock AAP are zoned for Haycock. Four of the five schools that would be zoned for Haycock AAP under the proposal are already zoned for Haycock AAP. So this interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Why would a hypothetical 2013-14 AAP third grader from Chesterbrook have to go to Churchill next year if the Task Force proposal would have him/her at Haycock in the future?

[Anonymous]

9:55, Can you please post the links to the chart? I looked on board docs bu was unable to locate it. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are all proposals, first of all.

It's a little unclear what they mean about closing Haycock to new students. My interpretation is that they mean just to new students starting this year who haven't started yet. It wouldn't really make sense to close Haycock to all new students on a going forward basis and divert them all to Churchill -- that's like 100 students a year.

But in the longer term, the proposal would be for a new center to be created that would house AAP kids from all the schools in the Marshall pyramid, including Shrevewood. Haycock would presumably remain a center, exclusively for the kids at elementary schools in the McLean pyramid.

It's not a hundred students a year. There are maybe a hundred AAP in each grade, but 40% of them are zoned for haycock. Presumably, they wouldn't have to go to Churchill Road -- although that would be sweet irony after the Haycock base school parents have worked so hard to get our kids kicked out of Haycock.

According to the chart, 150 out of 426 kids at Haycock AAP are zoned for Haycock. Four of the five schools that would be zoned for Haycock AAP under the proposal are already zoned for Haycock AAP. So this interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Why would a hypothetical 2013-14 AAP third grader from Chesterbrook have to go to Churchill next year if the Task Force proposal would have him/her at Haycock in the future?

Actually, according to the data, only 276 of the 968 students currently at Haycock are not base school students. The AAP center is clearly not the problem.

[Anonymous]

It seems to make sense for the Franklin Sherman kids to go to Churchill instead of Haycock. How much would that help over the course of the four year AAP cycle?

[Anonymous]

What do they use that Pimmit Hills Center for anymore now? Could the daycare move there and some of the Haycock AAP students be put at Lemon Road?