New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers

[Anonymous]

I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

This isn't the right forum. Jeff separated out an AAP forum for the naysayers, not the boosters. That's why you're seeing such glee at the idea that FCPS might somehow take a step towards cutting AAP.

[Anonymous]

I suspect that the bloating of the AA Program has caused parents to get fed up with the program as a whole and has caused them to be willing to "vote" against it. In the late nineties, it was a smaller program and the local school offered very good differentiation within the regular classrooms. No one had a problem with kids going off to the center because the local school did such a great job with the rest of the kids.

Now, it has become a bigger and bigger program which parents see as consuming more and more resources (rightly or wrongly). My kids went through AAP and then to TJ and I see the good in it, but I also see the point of other parents who see the program as hogging resources which could be spread around to benefit more children. Possibly if they could reduce the size of the program and assure appropriate differentiation, parents might have fewer problems with it.

As it stands, I believe that many people are fed up with AAP and what they see as its expenses, and they will not be supporting it. Even as a parent whose kids have benefitted from the program, I can see other parents' point of view and can understand why they see the program the way they do.
I know that there are kids who need the program, but because FCPS has expanded it so much, support for it has unfortunately been reduced rather than increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: . . . Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case . . . (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

LLIV can be the same as a center if the kids would stay and not leave for a center. If your base school has 7 kids identified, well then, that's 6 kids just like yours. Those 7 can support one another. Done. And if it's 2, great they have each other. There's his/her peer group. People with kids in AAP (and yes I have 2) act like the kids in their base school have IQ's in the 5 %. Half those general education kids are just as bright and go on to be as successful if not more than the AAP kids. This is elementary school. Take a breath. Your child will not suffer for being in a class with 6 other AAP kids and a bunch of kids in level III. Get a grip!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

I think our school will be stronger if not so many AAP kids would leave for the center. It has a strong AAP classroom, but it could have two classrooms. My kids are enriched and I love that a lot of their friends are not in AAP, but in gen ed. I don't think there is a need to segregate kids outside the classroom. They already have the classroom for critical mass. Now, if a school does not have enough level IV students they can supplement with level III. There are 5 level III kids and my son's classroom and I know one of them is the "smartest" in the classroom. If there is not enough to make a classroom with Level III and IV students, then that is something Fairfax Co. needs to deal with. But for the MANY schools that could have a local lever IV, I don't see this as a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what my very gifted (according to test scores) DC is gifted at. If only dragging his feet and fighting not to do homework was a subject, THEN I would get it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that the proposal to put level 4 in every ES is just a backdoor way of saying "no more centers."

How would there be any savings if you are putting local level 4 classes in every ES and still keeping all the existing centers? Wouldn't that be more expensive???? Unless you are actually closing the centers -----> thereby saving the costs of busing and perhaps saving the costs of selecting kids for centers. Maybe part of the "savings" is that AARTs and teachers just place kids in local level 4s (no busing, no "in pool" committees)?

That couldn't be, that would just be tracking. I agree, not sure how it saves money and might even cost more (as centers may maximize economies of scale).

AAP as a whole is tracking! It's one big tracking program, so they might as well end it and [b]simply track kids into the appropriate groups.


So easy to say, and people say it all the time on DCUM. If schools just "track kids into the appropriate group for them," what happens if that group is only four kids in the whole grade? Or only 12? Not enough for a class. Oh, yes! Teachers are supposed to "differentiate in the classroom" and keep up with teaching both the four kids who are able to move faster, take in more and understand more complex material -- and at the same time, the same teacher is supposed to meet all the needs of kids who are in the middle and kids who need remedial help as well. All in one package: The teacher who can meet the needs of every single level of learner, simultaneously, daily. But the teacher has to do it without much additional training or help or resources, because, by gosh, we can't afford that.

Pull-outs? Sure. Pull out the top math kids for more advanced math. Maybe, if the school has a teacher who can do that, or if logistics permit. And the kids who could benefit from pull-outs for more advanced work in other topics? Sorry, no such thing, except maybe a higher-level reading group. Or additional assignments that the kid is expected to do on his or her own to "stay challenged" while the teacher of necessity must give most of the focus to the kids who need more help.

That's why the centers work. They create classes with enough students who work at similar levels of understanding so the students can have more challenging work in depth. Just doing "differentiation in the classroom" with one teacher, or a few pull-outs, does not work, especially now that teachers are under so much pressure all year long to bring up overall test scores for the school's sake (and their jobs' sakes).

We were told over and over that keeping our kid at our base school (no level IV available there, then) would be fine as teachers would differentiate their instruction for all kids and meet all needs. Not doable and that's not the teachers' fault -- why do we expect one teacher to be able to work equally well with kids who need remedial help, kids who are doing fine and on level for their grade, and kids who can do more if they're challenged? And going to level IV at every school sounds nice and fair, but in reality, it's going to end up just as the "tracking" people here seem to want, since many schools will lack enough students to create AAP classrooms.

[Anonymous]

The way our local elementary used to do it (not sure if they're still doing it this way) was that the grade was grouped into three teams of two classes each. The kids who were in the level IV pull out group were on the same team. The classes were combined and then separated into ability groupings for each subject. With two teachers, they could change the groupings around throughout the day. This class was also the one that would be assigned a student teacher at times, so that could add a third grouping. In addition, the AART would work separately once a week or so with a group of seven or eight kids for language arts.

Team teaching can give schools a lot of flexibility and works well for differentiation. Adding in resource specialists allows further small groupings to give kids what they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

This isn't the right forum. Jeff separated out an AAP forum for the naysayers, not the boosters. That's why you're seeing such glee at the idea that FCPS might somehow take a step towards cutting AAP.

Baloney! Jeff separated this forum so the general VA schools forum wouldn't be dominated by "how can I get my kid into AAP?" posts. The fact that people still say negative things about AAP here, speaks to the general dissatisfaction with what AAP has become. Many of the posters here are like me, they've had kids in both AAP and general ed, and have issues with both programs. I happen to agree with PPs who think AAP has gotten way too big. Sorry if that isn't boosterish enough for you, but at least it's honest.

I think it was interesting to notice that teachers who used the budget tool were even more negative than the general population about AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Possibly if they could reduce the size of the program and assure appropriate differentiation, parents might have fewer problems with it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

There is not need to "get mad". You clearly have a child in an AAP center that gets bussed and you don't want that to change. That's a pretty normal thought process but the school system has to think of all kids, not just yours.

What you want is not want is best for the entire school system, period. While AAP centers and bussing have been great perks, when there needs to be a budget realignment perks get put on the chopping block.

I assure you, your child will not wither into dumbness with the masses if they are in a LLIV program at their base school. If you really *want* a center, you provide transportation.

As for saying the kids will get bussed somewhere, so why not to a center. This is not entirely true. We are in a walker zone for our base school, there is not bus service. There is a bus that picks up kids from the school to go the center, yet the kids that are in AAP centers that are in walker zone to the base school get picked up by a bus right by their house. When they are clearly able to to walk to the base and take the bus from there to the center.

It's a waste of resources and extra fat needs to be trimmed.

[Anonymous]

excuse the typos- on my phone.

[Anonymous]

AAP Centers are not a 'perk.' They are the core of the AAP. They are not right for everyone, so FCPS has LLIV, to expand the benefits of the AAP to other populations.... but why are we now saying we need a "one size fits all" approach where everybody sits at their base school and accepts whatever LLIV means at that school? That's a sure recipe for taking a school system that seemed to actually meet each child where he/she is, and turning it into a factory.

A fair and appropriate education isn't a 'perk.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not need to "get mad". You clearly have a child in an AAP center that gets bussed and you don't want that to change. That's a pretty normal thought process but the school system has to think of all kids, not just yours.

What you want is not want is best for the entire school system, period. While AAP centers and bussing have been great perks, when there needs to be a budget realignment perks get put on the chopping block.

You are missing PP's point. Perhaps, to you, busing is a 'perk,' but for many families it is the only way that their kids can obtain the services that they need. There are some kids, the top 5% maybe, who really need these services. The people hurt by these cuts are those who can't afford to drive their kids around. So now you're basically just saying that Centers themselves are a 'perk,' or that they're a 'perk' that should only be supplied to wealthy families in FCPS.

I agree with others who say the AAP is bloated, but that's all the more reason to protect the Centers, IMHO. The kids who need AAP really need it. It shouldn't be a program for kinda smart kids with pushy parents. Stop over-identifying the # of kids for this program, and shrink it overall... but don't throw out the whole program. Centers are the basis of the program. Don't make hasty cuts that have long-reaching consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not need to "get mad". You clearly have a child in an AAP center that gets bussed and you don't want that to change. That's a pretty normal thought process but the school system has to think of all kids, not just yours.

What you want is not want is best for the entire school system, period. While AAP centers and bussing have been great perks, when there needs to be a budget realignment perks get put on the chopping block.

You are missing PP's point. Perhaps, to you, busing is a 'perk,' but for many families it is the only way that their kids can obtain the services that they need. There are some kids, the top 5% maybe, who really need these services. The people hurt by these cuts are those who can't afford to drive their kids around. So now you're basically just saying that Centers themselves are a 'perk,' or that they're a 'perk' that should only be supplied to wealthy families in FCPS.

I agree with others who say the AAP is bloated, but that's all the more reason to protect the Centers, IMHO. The kids who need AAP really need it. It shouldn't be a program for kinda smart kids with pushy parents. Stop over-identifying the # of kids for this program, and shrink it overall... but don't throw out the whole program. Centers are the basis of the program. Don't make hasty cuts that have long-reaching consequences.

If a school has enough kids to create a whole AAP classroom, why is a center better? Aren't 25 level IV kids plus a few Level III kids enough peers in common?