Eliminating AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCAG email said that 21% of elementary students are in AAP, and the percentage is higher in some areas. That seems like a very high percentage to me. It used to be about 10% overall and that seemed to work well.

How difficult would it be at this point to get back to 10% as a goal? It would save money and improve the program at the same time, if they could do it. The alternative appears to be to eliminate the program altogether, which actually might be easier to sell to parents than the idea of ratcheting the program back.

I think the only way to do this for 2016-17 would be to close AAP Centers altogether and eliminate Level II and Level III as well.

So, then what happens to the kids that are truly gifted? If they're considering closing AAP centers down or eliminating the program, they need to have contingencies in place for the kids in the top 1-3percentile. Would they go to IEP plans or whatever they are called?

Nationally or in Fairfax? If it is nationally,then that is 10% or more of the Fairfax student body. They used to set the cut off at the 10% mark for Fairfax and it was usually at the 2% mark nationally. Fairfax is lucky, they have a large enough gifted population (in many school) to not have to segregate the students in separate schools. Now, if you are talking above kids above 150 - then that would be a much smaller number- probably worth 1 or 2 centers for the whole county.

Kids above 150.

So one center should do it.

Above 150 is a z-score of 3.125. That's more like 0.2% of the population.

- Allowing for 5 times that because, you know its Fairfax ( - that would be 130 per grade- and excellent size for one dedicated school.

How will this save $ next year?

[Anonymous]

Very little savings will come from eliminating centers.

[Anonymous]

One school for all 150+ IQ kids? How would you pick a location.

[Anonymous]

But the point of the Budget Task Force is to save money next year (2016-17).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCAG email said that 21% of elementary students are in AAP, and the percentage is higher in some areas. That seems like a very high percentage to me. It used to be about 10% overall and that seemed to work well.

How difficult would it be at this point to get back to 10% as a goal? It would save money and improve the program at the same time, if they could do it. The alternative appears to be to eliminate the program altogether, which actually might be easier to sell to parents than the idea of ratcheting the program back.

I think the only way to do this for 2016-17 would be to close AAP Centers altogether and eliminate Level II and Level III as well.

So, then what happens to the kids that are truly gifted? If they're considering closing AAP centers down or eliminating the program, they need to have contingencies in place for the kids in the top 1-3percentile. Would they go to IEP plans or whatever they are called?

Nationally or in Fairfax? If it is nationally,then that is 10% or more of the Fairfax student body. They used to set the cut off at the 10% mark for Fairfax and it was usually at the 2% mark nationally. Fairfax is lucky, they have a large enough gifted population (in many school) to not have to segregate the students in separate schools. Now, if you are talking above kids above 150 - then that would be a much smaller number- probably worth 1 or 2 centers for the whole county.

Kids above 150.

But then parents would cry "What about the 148 kids???? They're no different than the 150 kids and should not be made to feel inferior!!!!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One school for all 150+ IQ kids? How would you pick a location.

Next to TJ- they cold share busses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school for all 150+ IQ kids? How would you pick a location.

Next to TJ- they cold share busses.

How does all of this happen in 12 months?

[Anonymous]

And save $?

[Anonymous]

Just eliminate buses for AAP centers. I've got one kid in AAP and one not in the program. I don't like how it's truly the haves and have nots (even though we benefit for one kid). I'd be in favor of eliminating the Center model and encouraging more differentiation within the classrooms. I don't think the AAP kids are special needs in that they actually require separate classrooms. The very gifted kids are a small percentage of those admitted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just eliminate buses for AAP centers. I've got one kid in AAP and one not in the program. I don't like how it's truly the haves and have nots (even though we benefit for one kid). I'd be in favor of eliminating the Center model and encouraging more differentiation within the classrooms. I don't think the AAP kids are special needs in that they actually require separate classrooms. The very gifted kids are a small percentage of those admitted

Agreed. So what happens to the "very gifted kids?" I have one in APP that is "very gifted" and one that is too young for AAP, but I'm pretty certain will make it in based on scores and classroom performance. Youngest doesn't really need it and would do fine at base school with pull outs or classroom differentiation. Oldest will not do well at all with just pull outs or classroom differentiation. I really hope they consider these kids when making this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just eliminate buses for AAP centers. I've got one kid in AAP and one not in the program. I don't like how it's truly the haves and have nots (even though we benefit for one kid). I'd be in favor of eliminating the Center model and encouraging more differentiation within the classrooms. I don't think the AAP kids are special needs in that they actually require separate classrooms. The very gifted kids are a small percentage of those admitted

Agreed. So what happens to the "very gifted kids?" I have one in APP that is "very gifted" and one that is too young for AAP, but I'm pretty certain will make it in based on scores and classroom performance. Youngest doesn't really need it and would do fine at base school with pull outs or classroom differentiation. Oldest will not do well at all with just pull outs or classroom differentiation. I really hope they consider these kids when making this decision.

How exactly won't the old one not do well? Are you worried the commoner kids will pollute his mind?

[Anonymous]

She's saying her child can't be educated with yours. She's saying her child can't be educated with mine. She's saying her child can't be educated with a sibling.

[Anonymous]

Are they talking about eliminating local level IV also? How does that even save money?

I have a child who is thriving at a center and I find this all really maddening. So after switching schools once he would suddenly get sent back to his base school?

I actually think it makes sense to eliminate centers where you have robust local level IV programs, but I think it should be phased in so kids don't have to switch schools.

And, really, I wish the County would raise property taxes - when one of the wealthiest counties in the country is talking about cutting school counselor sand high school athletics, etc...something is fundamentally wrong. Why would anyone buy a home in a county with a stripped down school system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they talking about eliminating local level IV also? How does that even save money?

I have a child who is thriving at a center and I find this all really maddening. So after switching schools once he would suddenly get sent back to his base school?

I actually think it makes sense to eliminate centers where you have robust local level IV programs, but I think it should be phased in so kids don't have to switch schools.

And, really, I wish the County would raise property taxes - when one of the wealthiest counties in the country is talking about cutting school counselor sand high school athletics, etc...something is fundamentally wrong. Why would anyone buy a home in a county with a stripped down school system?

Isn't the issue less about a shortfall and more about needing to spend a great deal more money than fcps has on programs that do not attract high paying taxpayers into the district? Until they get thosenissie figured out we are still going to have problems with the budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they talking about eliminating local level IV also? How does that even save money?

I have a child who is thriving at a center and I find this all really maddening. So after switching schools once he would suddenly get sent back to his base school?

I actually think it makes sense to eliminate centers where you have robust local level IV programs, but I think it should be phased in so kids don't have to switch schools.

And, really, I wish the County would raise property taxes - when one of the wealthiest counties in the country is talking about cutting school counselor sand high school athletics, etc...something is fundamentally wrong. Why would anyone buy a home in a county with a stripped down school system?

Isn't the issue less about a shortfall and more about needing to spend a great deal more money than fcps has on programs that do not attract high paying taxpayers into the district? Until they get thosenissie figured out we are still going to have problems with the budget.

I think that's true - this problem is only going to keep getting worse, presumably needing to cut more and more "fat" and/or raise taxes. My understanding is the issue is the influx of residents to the County, many of whom do not pay property taxes.

I admit I haven't been following all of this budget stuff very intently over the past few years. It's never clear to me what is a real crisis and what is a manufactured crisis to put pressure on the Board of Supervisors, etc...

BUT, why on earth with this crisis looming did the County (Karen Garza?) decide to get rid of the early dismissal Mondays (which was costly) and change HS start times (also costly)? This all seems incredibly short-sighted. Both of those were good ideas (maybe), but it seems like it makes a lot more sense not to spend millions on "new" programs/situations rather than cutting established programs, music, gifted programs, athletics, raising class sizes, etc...

What am I missing here? This seems so obvious it seems like it can't possibly be true, or are the School Board and the Superintendent making terrible decisions?