Haters Gonna Hate, but Centers are here to stay (with busing)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break. They can find $67 mm. My vote is suck it up and get the $$$$$.

I hope you're not in charge of your family's budget. "They can find $67 mil?" Okaaaaaay....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen Garza's budget for next year contains no cuts to AAP Centers or associated transportation (or anything else). It increases teacher compensation and decreases class size.

Condolences to the AAP haters who have been stalking this board for months salivating over the prospect of Centers being dismantled. Not gonna happen. Period. Done. Moving on....

I find it so obnoxious that you felt the need to start a snarky post, just to prove some kind of point. It's the equivalent of nanny nanny boo-boo and really immature.

You're right. There was absolutely no snarky "another reason why Centers are going" posts celebrating the imminent demise of Centers after the Budget Task Force recommendations came out. Sore loser with a double standard much?

Mmkay, Bitchy Betty.

[Anonymous]

There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

[Anonymous]

One reason is because it's hard to find the perfect amount of kids for an advanced class. If class sizes get smaller, it makes things easier because there are more teachers, but we won't know the budget till May. Also, it's likely that moving kids back to base schools will cause boundary shifts. People might not like where they would be redistricted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

I'd be thrilled, as it would mean smaller class sizes for those LLIV services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

More questions- what is the cut off (# students) for offering local level IV? What if that level drops down significantly- do those kids then go to the center? You do realize that local level IVs implement the program at the principal's discretion which can vary every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

I'd be thrilled, as it would mean smaller class sizes for those LLIV services.

No it doesn't. It means combination classes. You don't get extra teachers here just because your numbers don't work out perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

I'd be thrilled, as it would mean smaller class sizes for those LLIV services.

No it doesn't. It means combination classes. You don't get extra teachers here just because your numbers don't work out perfectly.

How do you know? If centers are eliminated there has to be some parity. It's nonsensical to make proclamations of what would or wouldn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason for centers, and so no need for busing, in many parts of FCPS. I really would prefer to eliminate centers/busing and have smaller class sizes in local level IV where there are enough kids to support local level IV. I'm not sure why saying this gets so many people upset. In a time with no budget constraints, I'm all for keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately, with the significant increase in high needs kids into FCPS and no corresponding increase in the tax base, we aren't in that situation. This is a real question, for those with kids in schools that can support local level IV, why would you prefer to send your kids to centers with larger classes instead of cutting centers and getting a better student/teacher ratio? I doubt we'll get to keep centers and still get smaller class sizes without potentially impacting important things like teacher pay.

While you have a nuanced proposal that I don't disagree with, the bolded parts are why folks tend to get upset. AAP is not implemented the same across the county. Honest question: how would you propose handling schools where there isn't enough to support LLIV? Centers, bussing in some parts of the county and not others? How would FCPS adminster that? Or what?

I'd be thrilled, as it would mean smaller class sizes for those LLIV services.

No it doesn't. It means combination classes. You don't get extra teachers here just because your numbers don't work out perfectly.

How do you know? If centers are eliminated there has to be some parity. It's nonsensical to make proclamations of what would or wouldn't happen.

You only get so many teachers for so many students per school from FCPS. If the numbers of kids divides evenly into the staffing teacher ratio (right now at about 26.5 students per teacher before additional students are added for ESOL and FRM) there is no need for a combination class. So if a principal is able to divide their LLIV kids into neat groups of 24-29, there is no real problem in terms of staffing. The problem comes when a principal is left over with 10-18 kids and can't really justify a class just for them while also having to raise other classes above 30 students. In this case he/she needs to create a combination class or do some special regrouping to make the majority of classes fit into that 24-29 student to teacher ratio. Or they need to create some large class sizes over 30 which isn't popular with the parents with kids in those grades. FCPS has said they will ask each school to look at reconfiguring before they will give additional teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break. They can find $67 mm. My vote is suck it up and get the $$$$$.

I hope you're not in charge of your family's budget. "They can find $67 mil?" Okaaaaaay....

We can expect our taxes to go up for sure.

[Anonymous]

You only get so many teachers for so many students per school from FCPS. If the numbers of kids divides evenly into the staffing teacher ratio (right now at about 26.5 students per teacher before additional students are added for ESOL and FRM) there is no need for a combination class. So if a principal is able to divide their LLIV kids into neat groups of 24-29, there is no real problem in terms of staffing. The problem comes when a principal is left over with 10-18 kids and can't really justify a class just for them while also having to raise other classes above 30 students. In this case he/she needs to create a combination class or do some special regrouping to make the majority of classes fit into that 24-29 student to teacher ratio. Or they need to create some large class sizes over 30 which isn't popular with the parents with kids in those grades. FCPS has said they will ask each school to look at reconfiguring before they will give additional teachers.

This is already a problem in center schools. The answer is to get rid of centers and self-contained AAP and give ALL teachers smaller classes. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One reason is because it's hard to find the perfect amount of kids for an advanced class. If class sizes get smaller, it makes things easier because there are more teachers, but we won't know the budget till May. Also, it's likely that moving kids back to base schools will cause boundary shifts. People might not like where they would be redistricted to.

A lot of us would be just fine with a redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason is because it's hard to find the perfect amount of kids for an advanced class. If class sizes get smaller, it makes things easier because there are more teachers, but we won't know the budget till May. Also, it's likely that moving kids back to base schools will cause boundary shifts. People might not like where they would be redistricted to.

A lot of us would be just fine with a redistricting.

Well maybe I don't want to pay for your redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason is because it's hard to find the perfect amount of kids for an advanced class. If class sizes get smaller, it makes things easier because there are more teachers, but we won't know the budget till May. Also, it's likely that moving kids back to base schools will cause boundary shifts. People might not like where they would be redistricted to.

A lot of us would be just fine with a redistricting.

Well maybe I don't want to pay for your redistricting.

And maybe I don't want to pay for your AAP centers and busing.