Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who live in the Langley pyramid and pay upwards of 30K plus in property taxes-not exactly looking to bring in those from the apartment complexes in Tysons-a la Korean families moving right before high school so their kids can attend TJ.

Well maybe you won't have a choice. What an ignorant comment. Sounds like more diversity -- both ethnic and economic -- is definitely what your pyramid could use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

PP here-I believe I already stated that I wasn't qualified to comment on Kilmer, so the above snotty comment wasn't necessary.

I really don't get why the school board feels it makes sense to have AAP in all middle achools. In Cluster 1, it makes most sense for Longfellow to be THE center for middle school. They clearly have the teaching resources and extracurricular infrastructure already in place as well as the renovated building. It would also solve the problems of critical mass and AAP vs Non AAP populations. If transportation is the issue do limited or no bussing. I would gladly drive my kid for an advanced education in an established center-and I'm sure others feel the same, since clearly the main issue here is money (or lack thereof in FCPS) driving these decisions.

It doesn't make sense when Cooper is under capacity because they send AAP students to Longfeloow and Longfellow is over capacity becasue of those same students. There are plenty of AAP students in the Cooper district for a robust AAp program. I would also send half the expereince AAP teachers at Longfellow to Cooper so they can benefit from the experienced teacher resources. The extracurricular stuff could easily be done at Cooper now. I don't know why they don't do it currently. The issue isn't money (as it wouldn't save all that much), it is space and the fact that the over large AAP population at Longfellow adversely affects the Gen- Ed population at Longfellow.

Therein lies the problem-none of the Longfellow teachers would be willing to come over to Cooper to get a new center up and running-if there were, I'm sure parents at Churchill and Spring Hill would feel differently about allowing their kids to be a "guinea pig" for a new center. It takes time and energy as well as appropriate, qualified center teachers to lead a new center-and despite all of the recent talk on the subject, Cooper seems to be doing nothing in the meantime to make itself more attractive to kids currently at the Churchill Road Center or Spring Hill local level IV.

I sure as heck don't want my 5th grader to be part of the pseudo-center at Cooper they keep talking about creating, and I doubt many would-and given property taxes I pay to live in the Langley pyramid, it should be my choice to do what's best for my kid.

First of all, don't forget about Colvin Run which also feeds into Cooper, Longfellow, and Cooper.

As a current Cooper parent, I am very happy that Cooper is "doing nothing to make itself more attractive" to the AAP population. Cooper, as it is right now, is a wonderful school and doesn't need to make itself more appealing for a select group of students. Why would they? I agree with a PP who said Cooper should remain a Gen Ed school, taking Gen Ed kids from Longfellow as well. I think making Longfellow an AAP only center is a great idea. Let's not forget why there is overcrowding in the AAP centers in the first place: FCPS has admitted far too many kids into the program in recent years. It's not Cooper's fault that there are fewer and fewer Gen Ed kids; it's FCPS! Why should Cooper have to absorb the AAP overflow when the Gen Ed population has gotten the short end of the stick for years? Why on earth should Gen Ed kids have to bend over backwards to accomodate a "special" program at Cooper? We also live in the Langley pyramid and we also pay exorbitant property taxes; frankly, the one benefit we parents of Gen Ed kids have is a middle school that has NO AAP! Long may that last.

+1,000 I'm with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spin it that way to avoid the real issue . . . the primary opposition is from parents of AAP students at Longfellow whose base school is Cooper (and parents of AAP students at Kilmer whose base school would be Cooper). Their kids and often their siblings have been attending Longfellow (or Kilmer) for years and they feel just as invested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

[Anonymous]

Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

Let me guess -- you are a Haycock/Longfellow parent? You think you are the only one who has a right to a certain set of schools? Whether that describes you or not, do you think you have "a right" to send your kids to the school they were assigned to when you bought your home? If yes, I'd argue the long standing AAP assignments are not much different than boundary assignments -- many people buy homes taking the AAP program into account, especially long standing center assignments. If you say no, then I'd argue that likewise, it may not be "a right' and we know it's potentially subject to change, but it's a strong expectation upon which people make home purchases and school commitments, and the school system should only be making major changes to these school assignments if it's the right thing to do educationally, not what they can get away with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

Let me guess -- you are a Haycock/Longfellow parent? You think you are the only one who has a right to a certain set of schools? Whether that describes you or not, do you think you have "a right" to send your kids to the school they were assigned to when you bought your home? If yes, I'd argue the long standing AAP assignments are not much different than boundary assignments -- many people buy homes taking the AAP program into account, especially long standing center assignments. If you say no, then I'd argue that likewise, it may not be "a right' and we know it's potentially subject to change, but it's a strong expectation upon which people make home purchases and school commitments, and the school system should only be making major changes to these school assignments if it's the right thing to do educationally, not what they can get away with.

My guess is that the PP is a Cluster Two parent. I think the AAP assignments are the same as boundary assignments and neither are guaranteed. FCPS is not the only school district in the same situation. Arlington and DC are about to go through major redistricting. Fairfax tweaks the boundaries every year in some part of the county. I think this area of Fairfax county is long over due for a redistricting overhaul- perhaps even countywide. It doesn't make sense for some schools to be grossly overcrowded and others to be under capacity when it is a systemic issue and not a temporary one.

For the ones who are complaining that Langley's district is too large already (geographically), it is partly because Langley's district has a much lower population density. If you want the big lots, you will have a larger district. The other is that Langley, McLean and Marshall are all clumped near each other - so one or two sides of the district would be tight. It is like Madison and Oakton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spin it that way to avoid the real issue . . . the primary opposition is from parents of AAP students at Longfellow whose base school is Cooper (and parents of AAP students at Kilmer whose base school would be Cooper). Their kids and often their siblings have been attending Longfellow (or Kilmer) for years and they feel just as invested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

I could not agree more with this poster. Longfellow is the most established center school in Cluster 1 in terms of teachers and extracurricular resources, so I really think doing the following (if FCPS plans to do anything at all) makes the most sense:

1-Make Longfellow a CENTER school only for Cluster 1, and absorb the Longfellow, Cooper, and Kilmer AAP populations. This should not exceed school capacity. If you like, establish an additional screening process in 6th grade (perhaps based on IOWA scores or an additional screening tool in addition to teacher recs)

2-Have Cooper absorb GE population of Longfellow.

3-Establish limited busing to the centers if you live outside the Longfellow base boundaries (maybe clustered at local shopping malls or churches the way Potomac school does)

This would go a long way to addressing everyone's concerns and eliminate the AAP vs Non AAP friction that currently exists in elementary school. By middle school, the kids have a proven academic track record and it would behoove everyone (students and parents alike) to focus on the academics and not friction created by the current system in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

Let me guess -- you are a Haycock/Longfellow parent? You think you are the only one who has a right to a certain set of schools? Whether that describes you or not, do you think you have "a right" to send your kids to the school they were assigned to when you bought your home? If yes, I'd argue the long standing AAP assignments are not much different than boundary assignments -- many people buy homes taking the AAP program into account, especially long standing center assignments. If you say no, then I'd argue that likewise, it may not be "a right' and we know it's potentially subject to change, but it's a strong expectation upon which people make home purchases and school commitments, and the school system should only be making major changes to these school assignments if it's the right thing to do educationally, not what they can get away with.

NP here. I am a "Cluster 2 parent" who was part of the whole Haycock disaster last year. The Haycock parents told me repeatedly that I have no right to a certain boundary and that boundaries change (while at the same time saying that it was unfair to crowd the neighborhood school of which they had intentionally bought into the borders -- I wonder what they will say when their "boundaries change"). Anyway, you are in for a tough battle trying to fight the Longfellow parents. They seem to want a beautifully renovated school that is below capacity (don't we all?) and they will get what they want at all costs. I wonder how it will play out this time since both parties are represented by the same school board member. I suspect you will have better luck getting people to think creatively toward a solution that works for everyone (but you won't get to stay at Longfellow).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spin it that way to avoid the real issue . . . the primary opposition is from parents of AAP students at Longfellow whose base school is Cooper (and parents of AAP students at Kilmer whose base school would be Cooper). Their kids and often their siblings have been attending Longfellow (or Kilmer) for years and they feel just as invested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

I could not agree more with this poster. Longfellow is the most established center school in Cluster 1 in terms of teachers and extracurricular resources, so I really think doing the following (if FCPS plans to do anything at all) makes the most sense:

1-Make Longfellow a CENTER school only for Cluster 1, and absorb the Longfellow, Cooper, and Kilmer AAP populations. This should not exceed school capacity. If you like, establish an additional screening process in 6th grade (perhaps based on IOWA scores or an additional screening tool in addition to teacher recs)

2-Have Cooper absorb GE population of Longfellow.

3-Establish limited busing to the centers if you live outside the Longfellow base boundaries (maybe clustered at local shopping malls or churches the way Potomac school does)

This would go a long way to addressing everyone's concerns and eliminate the AAP vs Non AAP friction that currently exists in elementary school. By middle school, the kids have a proven academic track record and it would behoove everyone (students and parents alike) to focus on the academics and not friction created by the current system in place.

Longfellow has more GenEd students than AAP students and the AAP students come from both Cooper and Longfellow. If the Cooper AAP students go back to Cooper, Cooper posters have claimed it will be overwhelmed with students and the school will be littered with trailers. Yet you think it's OK to send all of Longfellow's GenEd students to Cooper. The numbers simply don't work.

In addition, having an AAP-only middle school at Longfellow would result in howls of protests from parents in other parts of the county whose children attend other AAP centers. Longfellow would be under-enrolled, yet it would still send far more students to TJ than any other middle school. Parents at other AAP centers would think their kids were getting a raw deal.

Finally, if you had GenEd kids who lived within walking distance of Longfellow, you'd be unhappy that FCPS was now bussing your kids miles away to an unrenovated Cooper because AAP parents living further away had decided they liked your building.

As a result, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

Let me guess -- you are a Haycock/Longfellow parent? You think you are the only one who has a right to a certain set of schools? Whether that describes you or not, do you think you have "a right" to send your kids to the school they were assigned to when you bought your home? If yes, I'd argue the long standing AAP assignments are not much different than boundary assignments -- many people buy homes taking the AAP program into account, especially long standing center assignments. If you say no, then I'd argue that likewise, it may not be "a right' and we know it's potentially subject to change, but it's a strong expectation upon which people make home purchases and school commitments, and the school system should only be making major changes to these school assignments if it's the right thing to do educationally, not what they can get away with.

No, we are not at Haycock. We had kids at Kilmer when FCPS decided some AAP kids needed to move to a new center at Jackson due to overcrowding. It seems to me this will be similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spin it that way to avoid the real issue . . . the primary opposition is from parents of AAP students at Longfellow whose base school is Cooper (and parents of AAP students at Kilmer whose base school would be Cooper). Their kids and often their siblings have been attending Longfellow (or Kilmer) for years and they feel just as invested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

I could not agree more with this poster. Longfellow is the most established center school in Cluster 1 in terms of teachers and extracurricular resources, so I really think doing the following (if FCPS plans to do anything at all) makes the most sense:

1-Make Longfellow a CENTER school only for Cluster 1, and absorb the Longfellow, Cooper, and Kilmer AAP populations. This should not exceed school capacity. If you like, establish an additional screening process in 6th grade (perhaps based on IOWA scores or an additional screening tool in addition to teacher recs)

2-Have Cooper absorb GE population of Longfellow.

3-Establish limited busing to the centers if you live outside the Longfellow base boundaries (maybe clustered at local shopping malls or churches the way Potomac school does)

This would go a long way to addressing everyone's concerns and eliminate the AAP vs Non AAP friction that currently exists in elementary school. By middle school, the kids have a proven academic track record and it would behoove everyone (students and parents alike) to focus on the academics and not friction created by the current system in place.

Longfellow has more GenEd students than AAP students and the AAP students come from both Cooper and Longfellow. If the Cooper AAP students go back to Cooper, Cooper posters have claimed it will be overwhelmed with students and the school will be littered with trailers. Yet you think it's OK to send all of Longfellow's GenEd students to Cooper. The numbers simply don't work.

In addition, having an AAP-only middle school at Longfellow would result in howls of protests from parents in other parts of the county whose children attend other AAP centers. Longfellow would be under-enrolled, yet it would still send far more students to TJ than any other middle school. Parents at other AAP centers would think their kids were getting a raw deal.

Finally, if you had GenEd kids who lived within walking distance of Longfellow, you'd be unhappy that FCPS was now bussing your kids miles away to an unrenovated Cooper because AAP parents living further away had decided they liked your building.

As a result, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

It is not just Cooper AAP kids but also some of Kilmer's AAP kids that are proposed being moved to Cooper, in case you haven't been reading carefully.
This would definitely overload the school in terms of space, but the more important issues concern teacher quality/AAP credentialing and robust extracurricular activity support.

Longfellow-you can keep your fancy building, but if you expect AAP Cooper and Kilmer parents to be supportive of your rezoning plans, send us some of the experienced teachers from Longfellow-that would be the most fair and equitable thing to do. Short of that, shut your pieholes!

And I hope Janie Strauss is reading this right now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spin it that way to avoid the real issue . . . the primary opposition is from parents of AAP students at Longfellow whose base school is Cooper (and parents of AAP students at Kilmer whose base school would be Cooper). Their kids and often their siblings have been attending Longfellow (or Kilmer) for years and they feel just as invested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

I could not agree more with this poster. Longfellow is the most established center school in Cluster 1 in terms of teachers and extracurricular resources, so I really think doing the following (if FCPS plans to do anything at all) makes the most sense:

1-Make Longfellow a CENTER school only for Cluster 1, and absorb the Longfellow, Cooper, and Kilmer AAP populations. This should not exceed school capacity. If you like, establish an additional screening process in 6th grade (perhaps based on IOWA scores or an additional screening tool in addition to teacher recs)

2-Have Cooper absorb GE population of Longfellow.

3-Establish limited busing to the centers if you live outside the Longfellow base boundaries (maybe clustered at local shopping malls or churches the way Potomac school does)

This would go a long way to addressing everyone's concerns and eliminate the AAP vs Non AAP friction that currently exists in elementary school. By middle school, the kids have a proven academic track record and it would behoove everyone (students and parents alike) to focus on the academics and not friction created by the current system in place.

Longfellow has more GenEd students than AAP students and the AAP students come from both Cooper and Longfellow. If the Cooper AAP students go back to Cooper, Cooper posters have claimed it will be overwhelmed with students and the school will be littered with trailers. Yet you think it's OK to send all of Longfellow's GenEd students to Cooper. The numbers simply don't work.

In addition, having an AAP-only middle school at Longfellow would result in howls of protests from parents in other parts of the county whose children attend other AAP centers. Longfellow would be under-enrolled, yet it would still send far more students to TJ than any other middle school. Parents at other AAP centers would think their kids were getting a raw deal.

Finally, if you had GenEd kids who lived within walking distance of Longfellow, you'd be unhappy that FCPS was now bussing your kids miles away to an unrenovated Cooper because AAP parents living further away had decided they liked your building.

As a result, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

It is not just Cooper AAP kids but also some of Kilmer's AAP kids that are proposed being moved to Cooper, in case you haven't been reading carefully.
This would definitely overload the school in terms of space, but the more important issues concern teacher quality/AAP credentialing and robust extracurricular activity support.

Longfellow-you can keep your fancy building, but if you expect AAP Cooper and Kilmer parents to be supportive of your rezoning plans, send us some of the experienced teachers from Longfellow-that would be the most fair and equitable thing to do. Short of that, shut your pieholes!

And I hope Janie Strauss is reading this right now...

Sending experienced AAP teachers to Cooper makes sense me (former Longfellow parent). If half the AAP students leave, then half the AAP experienced teachers can go to Cooper too. They can do it like a draft. The Cooper Principal can pick one, then the Longfellow Principal, then the Cooper Principal. First math, then science..... There isn't any reason Cooper can't do the same extracurricular activites that Longfellow does - today.

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course, it would make sense to seed a Cooper AAP center with some experienced AAP teachers from Longfellow and Kilmer.

FCPS is going to have to address the enrollment trends at Cooper, Kilmer and Longfellow one way or the other. The current and future overcrowding at Kilmer will drive the process.

As for the numbers, there are more GenEd students at Longfellow than AAP students from Cooper now at Kilmer and Longfellow, which is why the proposal to move all of Longfellow's GenEd students to Cooper flies in the face of what other Cooper parents have argued.

I do hope Janie Strauss and others know that parents are already watching what FCPS is considering here, whether it's a new AAP center at Cooper or other boundary adjustments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.