Patch article summarizing AAP Expansion vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I am not a Haycock parent. I was involved in the AAP restructuring issues and observed the "Haycock machine" in action. You may have won, but you won ugly. It's very dismissive to say there were just "some angry Cluster 2 parents" with a grievance. This was a large group of families who themselves had a very reasonable case -- that they had as much right to stay at Haycock, that they and their children contributed to Haycock's reputation and community. Of course, their presence and position was inconvenient to you, and you'd like to sugarcoat the fact you muscled out a group you targeted by appealing to anti-AAP sentiment and repeatedly implying that they were "other" and not really part of the school community.

Again, Strauss sounds reasonable to you because she's saying what you wanted to hear. To me, she sounds smarmy, disingenuous and condescending. I thought Schultz was right when she suggested that maybe Strauss should have done something about the Haycock situation long ago and not use this supposedly unpredictable crisis to justify making one particular segment of students suffer the worst consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Strauss is smart, works well with Staff, and usually accomplishes what most of her constituents want within the fiscal constraints imposed on FCPS. It's why she keeps getting reelected, despite representing the district that has the most opinionated and high-maintenance parents in the county.

I am familiar with the South Lakes redistricting. That was Stu Gibson's baby. Strauss's constituents at both Herndon and Langley didn't want to be included in the scope of the study, and they were not. Haycock was even more contentious, but the approach she supported was both logical and supported by most of her constituents at Haycock. She did her homework and accomplished her goal, working with FCPS staff and Haycock teachers and administrators. To answer your question, some of her constituents' kids will be reassigned from Haycock to Lemon Road, including some kids zoned for Longfellow/McLean who will now arrive at Longfellow knowing far fewer of their classmates than the Cluster 2 kids moved to Lemon Road will know when they arrive at Kilmer.

The Tysons area is expanding and new schools will be needed eventually, whether at Pimmit Hills or other sites in the area that are not currently up to code and that have been converted to other uses over the years (lewinsville, Dunn Loring). Be that as it may, Haycock is long due for a renovation, and I suspect relatively few of us would welcome the idea of sending our kids to an annex, while the school's administrators primarily reside in another building under renovation miles away. It is a tribute to the strength of Haycock's programs, and a reflection of the unhappiness of some parents that their children might be required to attend a different school than their current classmates next year, that the idea interested some parents, but the majority-held view by all consulted was that it was a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some people feel as you do; many others do not. There are many new School Board members who are sufficiently concerned about the issue that they have directed the "best practices" study of the current AAP program, and it may or may not lead to significant reforms. Relatively few parents with children who just exceeded the thresholds for participation now want to raise the bar. However, FCPS still had an emergency on its hands now with respect to a few schools that required immediate action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some people feel as you do; many others do not. There are many new School Board members who are sufficiently concerned about the issue that they have directed the "best practices" study of the current AAP program, and it may or may not lead to significant reforms. Relatively few parents with children who just exceeded the thresholds for participation now want to raise the bar. However, FCPS still had an emergency on its hands now with respect to a few schools that required immediate action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, I am not a Haycock parent. I was involved in the AAP restructuring issues and observed the "Haycock machine" in action. You may have won, but you won ugly. It's very dismissive to say there were just "some angry Cluster 2 parents" with a grievance. This was a large group of families who themselves had a very reasonable case -- that they had as much right to stay at Haycock, that they and their children contributed to Haycock's reputation and community. Of course, their presence and position was inconvenient to you, and you'd like to sugarcoat the fact you muscled out a group you targeted by appealing to anti-AAP sentiment and repeatedly implying that they were "other" and not really part of the school community.

Again, Strauss sounds reasonable to you because she's saying what you wanted to hear. To me, she sounds smarmy, disingenuous and condescending. I thought Schultz was right when she suggested that maybe Strauss should have done something about the Haycock situation long ago and not use this supposedly unpredictable crisis to justify making one particular segment of students suffer the worst consequences.

What is smarmy and ugly is your referring to a "Haycock machine" comprised of parents who like other parents want the best for their children.

Of course, the Cluster 2 families had reasonable arguments, as they have indeed been part of the school community. It may bother you that those arguments did not prevail, but they were presented and considered. At the end of the day, the School Board made, by a 10-2 vote, a reasoned decision that the need to relieve the severe overcrowding at a school about to begin a renovation, the benefits of preserving a neighborhood school's base boundaries, and the benefits of reducing the ratio of AAP to GenEd classes in the upper grades at Haycock outweighed the competing and also reasonable arguments that students should be allowed to finish their education at the same school, particularly when moving them to a new school might mean that they had attended 3-4 elementary schools prior to middle school.

Would the first set of arguments prevail over the second if a similar situation might arise in the future? Who knows? Perhaps if Patty Reed had argued on behalf of the Cluster 2 families earlier or more forcefully, or if she had enlisted the staff's help sooner to flesh out alternatives so that people really could have understood the expense and logistics better, the outcome might have been different. Maybe we conclude that Haycock's base boundaries should have been adjusted instead, and that it would be fine if, in the future, there were not two but three times as many AAP as GenEd classes at Haycock. I really don't know, but I think people with different interests had a chance to state their cases here and one position prevailed when presented to a 12-person body that included members with different backgrounds. Indeed, Ryan McElveen, who attended Cluster 2 schools and graduated from Marshall, supported Strauss's motion and opposed Schultz's.

As for the claim that Janie should have "done more" earlier to prevent the overcrowding at Haycock, you need to decide whether she has too much power or too little. It would be nice if she could snap her hands and get new schools built overnight, but the increase in Haycock's enrollment this past year was larger than anyone anticipated, and we ultimately sit in the renovation/construction queue like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

12:51 - I would also like to make the suggestion that, rather than continue to hash to death something that has already been decided, those of us with an interest in FCPS students might turn our attention to the severe overcrowding over at Bailey's ES. The situation there is every bit as severe as it is at Haycock, the difference being that there are not available classrooms to take advantage of nearby, as at Lemon Road.

What can we do to help Sandy Evans and get the Board of Supervisors to find a solution there?

[Anonymous]

Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

Dashboard data as of 11/16/12:

Total transfer students in = 71

Total transfer students out = 27 (3 special ed, 14 AAP, 10 other)

Program capacity = 1020

Current enrollment = 1321

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

Just like the AAP center at Haycock defies common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:51 - I would also like to make the suggestion that, rather than continue to hash to death something that has already been decided, those of us with an interest in FCPS students might turn our attention to the severe overcrowding over at Bailey's ES. The situation there is every bit as severe as it is at Haycock, the difference being that there are not available classrooms to take advantage of nearby, as at Lemon Road.

What can we do to help Sandy Evans and get the Board of Supervisors to find a solution there?

I suggest looking at the Leis Center for possible reuse as a neighborhood school. I also suggest a boundary study for all the elementary schools between Route 29 and Braddock Rd., east of the Beltway, to better share populations. (Might also have to add in North Springfield and Bren Mar Park ES to that boundary study.)

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/maps/boundary2012-13/elementary.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/maps/capacityutilization/elementary2017-18.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

Just like the AAP center at Haycock defies common sense.

I think the numbers posted by the PP make clear the situations are not similar. It appears the out-of-boundary transfers into Bailey's aren't that large. They really need another building - the question seems to be where.

[Anonymous]

Didn't they just close a school somewhat near there and someone was proposing a high school there? Maybe redistricting is in order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

I agree. FCPS put in those magnet programs at Hunters Woods and Bailey's because there was not the courage to do boundary adjustments. I was surprised to hear the dedicated rooms beyond normal allocations for those programs at Hunters Woods. AAP when it was GT was placed at many schools FCPS could not otherwise fill or was reluctant to do base school boundary changes.

Hunters Woods and Bailey's Magnet programs cost about 450,000 plus another 100,000 for the bus for a total of about 550 /school. AAP center bus was 2.5 million and the TJ bus was 1,15. So any board member who voted against AAP students at their base school with 3 levels of classes is fiscally irresponsible.

I do wonder if it illegal to have classes at some schools and not others in the same school division with no real reason or policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do wonder if it illegal to have classes at some schools and not others in the same school division with no real reason or policy.

The magnet programs and the AAP programs do have policies associated with them, as do the world language programs and the academy programs, among others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution to Bailey's: cancel the magnet program. If that is not enough, cancel the immersion program.

Two extra programs in a school as overcrowded as Bailey's defies common sense.

If you're just considering the numbers, I suppose those programs defy common sense. But both programs were brought to Bailey's to raise the overall quality of education by diversifying the student body... and for those of you who don't know Bailey's, I'm not exactly saying what you think. Bailey's is located smack dab between a huge amount of Section 8 housing, largely populated by recent or ESOL immigrant families, and single-family homes in Lake Barcroft which are largely populated by upper-middle-class, native English speakers. For many years these two populations balanced each other well, but in the last 20 (15? 10?) years the ESOL population grew much, much faster. The imbalance between those two populations led to "white flight" from the school, leaving a student population that had a hard time learning English because there were too few English-speakers around. These programs are very important to ensuring that Bailey's doesn't just become the kind of school we see in nearby D.C., where the only kids in public school are the ones who can't afford any other option. In light of that, I don't agree that canceling the magnet and/or immersion programs are good ideas.

This school will need to somehow be split, and a new building will have to be found & renovated, or built from scratch. I think the SB is examining the Willston Center at the moment.