FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not properly order this in prior post.

You don't need "critical mass." You just need teachers who plan for all children. I guarantee you, that, even in an AAP class, the kids are not all on--or even near--the same level. Good grief--what do you think all the "twice exceptional" kids are doing there? Of course, some have needs that are acceptable in an AAP classroom, but most are not able to keep up. When a child needs "extra time" to complete a project, do you really think the class is moving at a faster pace?
Ask any teacher at an AAP center--I guarantee you that some in GenEd are achieving as high as some in AAP.

When you have kids who are illterate and do not speak English, you are tasking teachers with the impossible, to prepare leveled lessons for everyone from the newly arrived illegal immigrant through the kids with the 150 IQ and a heavy dose of aspergers, along with all the 504 and IEP work they do.

AAP should not be elimimated.

Every pyramid should have a center elementary school.

Every middle school should have AAP, using the Irving model. Centers should be eliminated at the middle school level so no middle schoolers attend schools outside of their high school pyramid.

Fixing this is way more of a priority than county wide rezoning, middle school start times, and certainly more important than moving 6th grade to middle school so reid can add preK to all elementary schools.

DP. Centers should be eliminated at the elementary level, too. No one is claiming each teacher should be handling multiple levels in his/her classroom. The point of flexible grouping is that Teacher A takes the advanced kids for a given subject, Teacher B takes the grade-level kids, Teacher C takes the remedial kids. And this goes for every core class, so the teachers might switch levels depending on subject. And if there was a tiny GT program in each school for kids who were *actually gifted* - like there was for many decades - then those kids would be covered too.

AAP centers should be a thing of the past - FCPS needs to chalk them up as a huge, inequitable failure. They should have stuck with the GT model and flexible groupings instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When you have kids who are illterate and do not speak English, you are tasking teachers with the impossible, to prepare leveled lessons for everyone from the newly arrived illegal immigrant through the kids with the 150 IQ and a heavy dose of aspergers, along with all the 504 and IEP work they do.

In the primary grades, the kids generally pick up the language very quickly. (I've been a teacher in this situation.)

In the upper levels, you don't understand that having illiterate, non-English speaking kids is an issue for GenEd?

I agree that the non-English speaking, illeterate kids are an issue. It needs to be addressed in another way, but AAP kids don't deserve better than GenEd.

We don't need centers.

+100
Honestly, it’s clear some of these posters (no doubt AAP parents) think it’s just fine to stick non-English speakers and SPED kids in the GenEd classrooms - as long as their kids don’t have to deal with them. It’s NOT okay. Plenty of Gen Ed kids are just as bright and capable as their AAP peers. They do deserve better, as you said. They deserve a learning experience that is just as targeted to their skills and abilities as the AAP kids receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not properly order this in prior post.

You don't need "critical mass." You just need teachers who plan for all children. I guarantee you, that, even in an AAP class, the kids are not all on--or even near--the same level. Good grief--what do you think all the "twice exceptional" kids are doing there? Of course, some have needs that are acceptable in an AAP classroom, but most are not able to keep up. When a child needs "extra time" to complete a project, do you really think the class is moving at a faster pace?
Ask any teacher at an AAP center--I guarantee you that some in GenEd are achieving as high as some in AAP.

When you have kids who are illterate and do not speak English, you are tasking teachers with the impossible, to prepare leveled lessons for everyone from the newly arrived illegal immigrant through the kids with the 150 IQ and a heavy dose of aspergers, along with all the 504 and IEP work they do.

AAP should not be elimimated.

Every pyramid should have a center elementary school.

Every middle school should have AAP, using the Irving model. Centers should be eliminated at the middle school level so no middle schoolers attend schools outside of their high school pyramid.

Fixing this is way more of a priority than county wide rezoning, middle school start times, and certainly more important than moving 6th grade to middle school so reid can add preK to all elementary schools.

DP. Centers should be eliminated at the elementary level, too. No one is claiming each teacher should be handling multiple levels in his/her classroom. The point of flexible grouping is that Teacher A takes the advanced kids for a given subject, Teacher B takes the grade-level kids, Teacher C takes the remedial kids. And this goes for every core class, so the teachers might switch levels depending on subject. And if there was a tiny GT program in each school for kids who were *actually gifted* - like there was for many decades - then those kids would be covered too.

AAP centers should be a thing of the past - FCPS needs to chalk them up as a huge, inequitable failure. They should have stuck with the GT model and flexible groupings instead.

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

[Anonymous]

I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

[Anonymous]

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Removing AAP centers would show the school board is using “real” numbers before shifting boundaries. They need to remove AAP at middle asap and then at the elementary level a few years later (when all schools have local). So this and many boundaries won’t need to shift.

And of course close the AP/IB loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Removing AAP centers would show the school board is using “real” numbers before shifting boundaries. They need to remove AAP at middle asap and then at the elementary level a few years later (when all schools have local). So this and many boundaries won’t need to shift.

And of course close the AP/IB loophole.

Again, they would would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It's not a cure for every problem.

[Anonymous]

Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Removing AAP centers would show the school board is using “real” numbers before shifting boundaries. They need to remove AAP at middle asap and then at the elementary level a few years later (when all schools have local). So this and many boundaries won’t need to shift.

And of course close the AP/IB loophole.

Again, they would would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It's not a cure for every problem.

It would solve a lot.

And also shift boundaries at the ES level, which more support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

This doesn't work either. It sort of works at the lower elementary level and FCPS pretends it works in middle school because no one is allowed to be retained and everyone is encouraged to try an Honors level course even if they can't handle it. The truth comes out by 9th grade. A 14 year old who can't add two digit numbers and who is reading at a K or 1st grade level shouldn't be mainstreamed. High schools straight up track students by ability and it's more beneficial for everyone.

[Anonymous]

This doesn't work either. It sort of works at the lower elementary level and FCPS pretends it works in middle school because no one is allowed to be retained and everyone is encouraged to try an Honors level course even if they can't handle it. The truth comes out by 9th grade. A 14 year old who can't add two digit numbers and who is reading at a K or 1st grade level shouldn't be mainstreamed. High schools straight up track students by ability and it's more beneficial for everyone.

There is a big difference between third grade and high school. For one thing, you don't have a 14 year old reading on a first grade level.
No one is suggesting that we eliminate AP or Honors classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

The troll’s back, everyone. She’s got nothing worthwhile to say, but damned if she won’t repeat herself incessantly.