FCPS Level IV Task Force Recommendation

[Anonymous]

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

http://www.fcag.org/documents/level_iv_task_force_recs/aap_enr_by_ctr_fdr.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think the idea is to move from Haycock the kids from elementary schools that are not in the McLean pyramid -- Lemon Road, Shrevewood, and Westgate -- and move to Haycock kids from Kent Gardens Elementary. The kids from Lemon Road, Shrevewood, and Westgate would go to a new center for all kids in the Marshall pyramid.

[Anonymous]

I really don't care what they do, as long as it starts with incoming 3rd graders and the kids already in place are grandfathered in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

http://www.fcag.org/documents/level_iv_task_force_recs/aap_enr_by_ctr_fdr.pdf

Thanks!

I looked at what they are proposing for our AAP center, and my head is spinning.

It moves half the kids to another school, and reroutes several elementary schools to replace them, changing the AAP center from a capacity school to a significantly overcrowded school. Plus the schools they are replacing us with are geographically farther from the center school than the schools they are moving out. It looks like way more bus mileage and trailers will be needed to accomodate the changes. Hopefully this is just a work in progress and they will tweak it to make it make more sense.

I agree, kids already enrolled should be grandfathered in. I also think younger AAP qualifying siblings should be allowed to go to the same school as the older siblings.

They really should look at this center school by center school and deal with the ones with real problems, and not upset the applecart by messing with the schools that are fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it's not, but the Haycock parents can't face the truth that the school is now too big and probably should be redistricted. It's much easier to blame the "outsiders."

[Anonymous]

If I read this correctly, Haycock would go down from 426 to 378 AAP students. How exactly does that decrease of 48 students solve the overcrowding problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I read this correctly, Haycock would go down from 426 to 378 AAP students. How exactly does that decrease of 48 students solve the overcrowding problem?

The very nature of an AAP center indicates it should be able to accommodate 300+ AAP center students. Right now, Haycock only has 276 students that are not base school students.

Haycock either needs to have it's base school boundaries adjusted, or lose it's entire AAP center. Shifting a couple schools out and a couple in isn't going to solve anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They really should look at this center school by center school and deal with the ones with real problems, and not upset the applecart by messing with the schools that are fine.

+1000

[Anonymous]

This is not a boundary issue. There would have to be no long boundary study for any of these changes. FCPS considers this a program change, so all that's needed is a SB vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a boundary issue. There would have to be no long boundary study for any of these changes. FCPS considers this a program change, so all that's needed is a SB vote.

So does anyone know if/when this is scheduled to go before the school board for a vote?

[Anonymous]

PP, I emailed my school board rep about this. She said she is looking into it and will get back to me. I'll post if I hear more about a vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: PP, I emailed my school board rep about this. She said she is looking into it and will get back to me. I'll post if I hear more about a vote.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

That chart is not even correct. Just looking at my neighborhood and DD's class it is off by a few. If it is off by a few for several grades at several schools then it would make a significant difference.

What does it say about how the county is doing this if they can't even collect this simple data correctly?Do you think it's worth trying to get it fixed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That chart is not even correct. Just looking at my neighborhood and DD's class it is off by a few. If it is off by a few for several grades at several schools then it would make a significant difference.

What does it say about how the county is doing this if they can't even collect this simple data correctly?Do you think it's worth trying to get it fixed?

My guess is that the data was collected prior to the late summer transfers moving into the district, but after all the newly accepted FFX students enrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a boundary issue. There would have to be no long boundary study for any of these changes. FCPS considers this a program change, so all that's needed is a SB vote.

So does anyone know if/when this is scheduled to go before the school board for a vote?

Jack Dale stated that staff would be preparing an implementation plan for the School Board's review. Dale stated the plan would be ready for a work session in December, if not sooner.

Currently scheduled work sessions are:
* October 15 (2013 Legislative Program)
* October 28 (HOLD - no topic announced)
* November 12 (Budget, Financial Management, and Food & Nutrition Services and Community Relations)
* December 10 (Human Resources)
* December 13 (HOLD - no topic announced)

http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/docs/workcalendar.pdf