Patch article summarizing AAP Expansion vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give up on Haycock -- other schools are better --- really.

Not really, but other schools are good too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give up on Haycock -- other schools are better --- really.

yes, haycock is good because of the students. Once good chunk of them move, the school's reputation will fall

Keeping it classy as usual.. It's like you got evicted from your house and want to rip put out all the copper pipes before the sheriff arrives.

Of course there will continue to be some drama for the next few weeks as those unhappy with the school board's decision and others jealous of the school's reputation say nasty things. But Haycock will remain a great school, just less crowded.

[Anonymous]

Jealousy....? Do you really believe that your child's elementary school will determine his or her success in life? If so then you are a failure as a parent and , clearly if they don't go to Haycock, I think your kid will end up in prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jealousy....? Do you really believe that your child's elementary school will determine his or her success in life? If so then you are a failure as a parent and , clearly if they don't go to Haycock, I think your kid will end up in prison.

A bit tipsy last night? Hope it was fun!

[Anonymous]

I hesistate to get involved because of the petty and nasty tone of this thread but I can't help myself. I believe the Haycock "base" parents were so desperate, so blinded by their single-minded desire to do what they think they have to do to "save their school" that they cannot see Strauss, other school board members, and the rest of the issues before the SB objectively. Strauss may have been on your side on this little battle, but she has shown over time that she is not a great advocate for most of her constituents most of the time (My kids are in other McLean schools) and routinely ignores parent opinion when it doesn't suit her agenda. It's her way or the highway and she believes she knows best. You may not have minded her tactics in this fight because it was to an end that you supported, but those of us watching closely over time, beyond your fight -- there are many examples, including the Cooper issue most recently -- have witnessed her lie, mislead, support measures that hurt her own constituents, or fail to advocate for improvements that would help us. And again, you may not have liked Schultz's Pimmit proposal, but on the numbers issues, Schultz & Reed were completely right. You should want SB members willing to challenge and direct staff, not be yes-men and women for them or apologists. Those on the SB and others who say, oh projections change, etc., have either not followed the outrageous incompetency here OR simply want to push through changes they desire for policy reasons, numbers be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hesistate to get involved because of the petty and nasty tone of this thread but I can't help myself. I believe the Haycock "base" parents were so desperate, so blinded by their single-minded desire to do what they think they have to do to "save their school" that they cannot see Strauss, other school board members, and the rest of the issues before the SB objectively. Strauss may have been on your side on this little battle, but she has shown over time that she is not a great advocate for most of her constituents most of the time (My kids are in other McLean schools) and routinely ignores parent opinion when it doesn't suit her agenda. It's her way or the highway and she believes she knows best. You may not have minded her tactics in this fight because it was to an end that you supported, but those of us watching closely over time, beyond your fight -- there are many examples, including the Cooper issue most recently -- have witnessed her lie, mislead, support measures that hurt her own constituents, or fail to advocate for improvements that would help us. And again, you may not have liked Schultz's Pimmit proposal, but on the numbers issues, Schultz & Reed were completely right. You should want SB members willing to challenge and direct staff, not be yes-men and women for them or apologists. Those on the SB and others who say, oh projections change, etc., have either not followed the outrageous incompetency here OR simply want to push through changes they desire for policy reasons, numbers be damned.

Your post doesn't surprise me at all. The base of Louise Epstein's support when she failed to unseat Janie Strauss in the last election consisted of wealthier parents who think McLean and Great Falls residents shouldn't subsidize lower class sizes in other parts of the county and AAP parents who think the interests of AAP students should always come first. Of course some of you are still upset that Louise - who was aligned with Schultz - lost, and it annoys you to no end that Strauss's position on Haycock ultimately was supported by hundreds of Haycock families who signed a position opposing Schultz's motion. Those families were outraged that Schultz - who lives at the other end of the county - would presume at the last minute to have a better understanding of what needed to be done to relieve the overcrowding at Haycock than their own representative, or Haycock's own principal and teachers. I think your "reluctance" to speak out is somewhat disingenuous. Epstein has continued to challenge Strauss at every opportunity, and her handful of supporters on FCAG and similar groups will do likewise. It doesn't mean that Haycock families should buy the line you are selling here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hesistate to get involved because of the petty and nasty tone of this thread but I can't help myself. I believe the Haycock "base" parents were so desperate, so blinded by their single-minded desire to do what they think they have to do to "save their school" that they cannot see Strauss, other school board members, and the rest of the issues before the SB objectively. Strauss may have been on your side on this little battle, but she has shown over time that she is not a great advocate for most of her constituents most of the time (My kids are in other McLean schools) and routinely ignores parent opinion when it doesn't suit her agenda. It's her way or the highway and she believes she knows best. You may not have minded her tactics in this fight because it was to an end that you supported, but those of us watching closely over time, beyond your fight -- there are many examples, including the Cooper issue most recently -- have witnessed her lie, mislead, support measures that hurt her own constituents, or fail to advocate for improvements that would help us. And again, you may not have liked Schultz's Pimmit proposal, but on the numbers issues, Schultz & Reed were completely right. You should want SB members willing to challenge and direct staff, not be yes-men and women for them or apologists. Those on the SB and others who say, oh projections change, etc., have either not followed the outrageous incompetency here OR simply want to push through changes they desire for policy reasons, numbers be damned.

Your post doesn't surprise me at all. The base of Louise Epstein's support when she failed to unseat Janie Strauss in the last election consisted of wealthier parents who think McLean and Great Falls residents shouldn't subsidize lower class sizes in other parts of the county and AAP parents who think the interests of AAP students should always come first. Of course some of you are still upset that Louise - who was aligned with Schultz - lost, and it annoys you to no end that Strauss's position on Haycock ultimately was supported by hundreds of Haycock families who signed a position opposing Schultz's motion. Those families were outraged that Schultz - who lives at the other end of the county - would presume at the last minute to have a better understanding of what needed to be done to relieve the overcrowding at Haycock than their own representative, or Haycock's own principal and teachers. I think your "reluctance" to speak out is somewhat disingenuous. Epstein has continued to challenge Strauss at every opportunity, and her handful of supporters on FCAG and similar groups will do likewise. It doesn't mean that Haycock families should buy the line you are selling here.

+1000
Couldn't have said it better myself. I think all of us need to be careful of FEC activists who, for the most part, have a narrow-minded us-vs.-them mentality that poisons most of what they try to accomplish. We may not agree with everything our SB does, but that doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't make them the enemy. Real-world decisions are hard, involve trade-offs, and will always disappoint some people. Schultz, Reed (and Epstein, for that matter) continue to engage as if anyone who doesn't agree with them is either stupid or incompetent. Underneath this attitude is a selfish, Darwinian view of public education as serving only the wealthiest and/or loudest parents, and the most gifted students. If we want to elevate our politics, we must get rid of these kinds of jokers, and marginalize them as the fringe element they really are.

[Anonymous]

Well, speaking of disingenuous, it's rather ridiculous for you to try to smear those who disagree with you as "wealthier." (!) Do you think people believe that you are living below the poverty line over there in McLean/Falls Church? Especially after your not so subtle campaign against "cluster 2" kids from across the tracks that they shouldn't be able to stay at your school, "where you went to the expense and trouble of actually buying a house?" Your testimony and advocacy pretty much implied that your children only mixed with their own kind "from the neighborhood."

[Anonymous]

It is also interesting to hear you haycock parents decrying an "us vs. them" mentality. Do you have no self-awareness at all? It was pretty sad to listen to one after another of you talk about your wonderful community that would be so much better if you could jettison a portion of the 9-11 year olds and their parents from said community. But keeping telling yourself how high minded you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, speaking of disingenuous, it's rather ridiculous for you to try to smear those who disagree with you as "wealthier." (!) Do you think people believe that you are living below the poverty line over there in McLean/Falls Church? Especially after your not so subtle campaign against "cluster 2" kids from across the tracks that they shouldn't be able to stay at your school, "where you went to the expense and trouble of actually buying a house?" Your testimony and advocacy pretty much implied that your children only mixed with their own kind "from the neighborhood."

It's not ridiculous at all. If you look at the last School Board election, Epstein's support came primarily from wealthy precincts in the Langley district, and Strauss's support came primarily from close-in McLean and West Falls Church, which are very nice areas but aren't likely to be confused with Langley Forest. And Epstein's main themes were that FCPS was incompetent, Strauss placed too much faith in FCPS Staff, Strauss should not allow FCPS to spend as much money as it does on schools in poorer areas, and AAP programs should be protected at all costs, much of which you've just argued. It sounds very familiar.

The Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 neighborhoods that feed into Haycock are very similar, with the exception of Pimmit Hills in Cluster 2, which is still a less expensive area of SFHs. If it was arbitrary to make cuts about redistricting based upon cluster assignments, at least those judgments were based on pre-existing boundaries and administrative decisions, and physical proximity to the school. In my judgment, and that of many others, that was a better basis to make the tough judgments that needed to be made than simply doing so based on a child's AAP status or, as you just tossed out, economic status.

If the crux of your prior thread was that the School Board should challenge Staff's projections more vigorously, I won't really take issue, other than to note that projections are imprecise by nature and that every dollar we spend performing retrospective reviews of their rigor and accuracy is a dollar that could be spent on a teacher, a computer, or art supplies.

[Anonymous]

The numbers will tell the truth come next fall. How much relief will Haycock receive by removing cluster 2 students? On the flip side how many children will fill the new center at Lemon Road? I wouldn't use the numbers prepared by staff as they didn't even have the cuurent student population correct. Decisions were made based on projections for next year. One would assume those projections should be fairly accurate given we are halfway thru the school year. Have a good day!

[Anonymous]

As far as Janie Strauss is concerned, she always goes with staff--as long as staff protects Langley boundaries. Go back and read the history of the South Lakes redistricting. She was careful to keep Langley out of the mix-when several Langley neighborhoods are very close to South Lakes. She joined Stu Gibson in implying that Floris parents were bigots for wanting to stay at Westfield, meanwhile protecting her Langley corridor at all costs. Look at the Langley boundaries--the most western parts should be at Herndon and those along route 7 near the toll road should clearly go to South Lakes.
I am not so familiar with Haycock. Sounds like Schultz was trying to come up with a compromise and not favor one set of parents over the other. Maybe it wasn't practical--one thing for sure, it would have required some effort on the part of "Staff" and that does not ever suit "Staff".
It's not like Pimmit has never housed students. Sounds to me like it would be a good use of FCPS property. And, why are we trying to build more schools when there is FCPS property available?

FCPS has a tradition of favoring certain board members over others.

I'll have to say this for Strauss, she learned something from the last election. How many constituents of hers are going to Lemon Road?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is also interesting to hear you haycock parents decrying an "us vs. them" mentality. Do you have no self-awareness at all? It was pretty sad to listen to one after another of you talk about your wonderful community that would be so much better if you could jettison a portion of the 9-11 year olds and their parents from said community. But keeping telling yourself how high minded you are.

The behavior described by a previous poster (who, by the way, didn't even identify whether she was a Haycock parent) is subtle, obviously too subtle for this poster to understand. At the risk of being flamed by this same, angry person, let me try again: The proposals raised by both Reed & Schultz on behalf of Cluster 2 parents were hardly more than flickers of an idea when they were presented. They were not fully researched, not fully discussed with the ENTIRE Haycock community, and certainly came as a huge last-minute surprise to many. There was not a single person from Haycock who talked about how they were eager to "jettison" anyone. Janie Strauss recognized the huge overcrowding problem coupled with the need for the renovation, and proposed a solution. She researched alternatives, discarded them if they seemed unworkable, and gave plenty of time for public input. Schultz and Reed heard from some angry Cluster 2 parents, and tried to make political hay by doing what they do best: harnessing angry people with a grievance and making them believe that, in fact, "the system" is corrupt, incompetently run, etc. These are people who want to make you believe that they only way you can get your way is essentially to overthrow the government by... voting more people like them into office. Schultz especially spent the meeting rolling her eyes, showing blatant disrespect for anyone who dared challenge her version of the facts... she acted imperious. Reed spent the SB "work session" defending her proposals from attacks by BOTH the Lemon Road and Haycock principals, neither of which she had (obviously) discussed her ideas with.

It's fine to disagree with people on a given issue, but I think we ought to demand that our politicians do so carefully, respectfully, and spend their time trying to find the best solution... but usually there is no perfect solution. Reed & Schultz --- and Epstein whenever I've come across her --- spend their time tearing down the SB, FCPS staff, and anyone who opposes them. If you cross them, you are an ENEMY. If you disagree, you are UNINFORMED. They dismiss facts to the contrary has having been gathered by an incompetent staff. From Strauss I heard a thoughtful argument. From these guys I heard an emotional appeal to "do no harm" or "keep the cohort together" without any analysis about what those phrases actually mean... Ted Velkoff did a nice job (politely) suggesting that no solution to the Haycock debacle would "do no harm," and implying that Reed & Schultz were being disingenuous to suggest there was such a solution. I think he was right.

[Anonymous]

Why do you think the problem occurred. I'll tell you why: there are far too many kids in the AAP program that do not belong there. These are not gifted children, they are smart, very bright, hardworking kids who have parents who make the effort to see that they get the best. Is there anything wrong with that? NO!
However, this does not mean the AAP program is what it is intended to be. The requirements for the program were relaxed in order to attract more disadvantage families. Instead, it just allowed any child with a parent who is alert and aggressive to get their children into the program.
Look at TJ:the requirements were changed to attract African American and Hipanic kids. What happened? TJ admitted the WRONG caucasion and Asian kids and now has to provide remedial math.

Once upon a time, the program was designed for children who were truly gifted. You talk about the "proper" credentials for teaching gifted kids--but the program is no longer about the gifted.

FCPS needs to fix this. Scrap the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

The "AAP study" is not solely for AAP Centers but the continuum of Advanced Academic Programs in K-12. Note the wording of the motion:

I move to amend the main motion by offering the following substitute motion: that the School Board direct the Superintendent to conduct an analysis of the FCPS Continuum of Advanced Academic Services to ensure that current practices are aligned with the best practices in K-12 gifted education; further move that the scope of the analysis be presented to, and decided by, the Board by February 28, 2013, and the report on the analysis be completed by June 30, 2013.