FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:check out what the AAP classroom teacher roles are advertised as: "gifted education teacher."

AAP is how FCPS meets the state mandate to provide gifted education.

This is true but AAP includes gifted student. It is not exclusively for gifted students.

Sadly, today’s AAP program expectations were yesterday’s general ed expectations. 🤷‍♀️

Exactly. There is no actual GT program in FCPS anymore. AAP was their misguided attempt to make it more “accessible” to a more “diverse” group. All it is now is a huge, slightly faster curriculum. That’s it. A real GT program is very different. They could still have flexible groupings, to include “advanced,” if they return to the GT model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS switched from GT to AAP in the hope of "equity."

Didn't work. It never does when they do these things. See TJ changes.

Boundary study won't work either.

If it is not broke, don't "fix" it.

Address the problems, don't cover them up.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

14) Stop doing things that violate law and get FCPS sued, such as your suggstion to segregate 504/IEP and ESL kids. Work within the law or lobby for changes.

I think the suggestion was to use the same model for GT as for special needs. You don't think we could easily "mainstream" GT kids? That is what most systems do.

And, once more, AAP is NOT GT--no matter what you or FCPS claim. For all our SB talks about "equity," this is not it.

+1
AAP centers are INequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

FCPS should extend AAP to high school. Track those kids all the way to college.

Ever heard of AP? It’s open to all - as it should be.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

Sure but can we return to gatekeeping honors then? Like back in the day when a counselor was required to sign off on GT middle school classes?

I’m in the camp that kids need to be tested more frequently for AAP. And it should end in middle if they have honors.

Agreed as along as they continue to scrutinize enrollment for honors. Honors for all is a failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

You don't know Virginia education law.

It has nothing to do what my opinion is.

By Virginia law, 8 VAC 20-40-60A , [u]giftededucation is classified under special education.[i]

It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is, it is state law.

Gifted education is the only special ed that can be broadly fulfilled by separate, segregated classes.

Virginia schools cannot, by federal law, pull ESL or IEP/504 kids from the mainstream classrooms. It violates least restrictive environment. If they try to, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Gifted education can be segregated, because the AAP classes are the least restrictive environment.

FCPS would be better served by making sure each pyramid has an independent AAP program, before rezoning or eliminating AAP.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/gifted-education

DP. Once again, AAP is NOT a gifted program. Nowhere on the AAP page is the word "gifted" even used. They clearly state that AAP is for "advanced learners" - deliberately not using the "gifted" descriptor. I would actually prefer FCPS had a (very small) GT program, like the one they used to have, and then have advanced groupings open to ALL kids. Many/most Gen Ed kids are advanced in at least one subject - they should have the opportunity to excel as well.
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

I can't believe you are arguing this.

AAP is FCPS' gifted program as detailed in the "FCPS Local Plan for the Gifted 2022-2027" as required by the State of Virginia.

Here is the link to the PDF in Board Focs.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CKU3K4072A18/$file/Web%20Accessible%20Local%20Plan%20for%20the%20Gifted%202022-2027_f.pdf

The document mentions multiple times that AAP is FCPS' gifted program.

Regardless of the minutia of who and what you think constitutes a "gifted" student, and back to the original point of refuting the argument the original poster made that FCPS should removed ESL and 504/IEP kids from the mainstream classroom, eliminate AAP and replace the ESL/504/IEP kids with the former AAP kids, that cannot happen because it will violate federal law.

If FCPS even attempts to do what she wants, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Of the 3 groups of special ed students of AAP, 504/IEP and ESL (all 3 classified as Special Education by Virginia law) the only one of the three that can legally be moved into specialized classrooms are the gifted students (designated as AAP based on the Plan for the Gifted submitted to Virginia by FCPS)

DP. You said all this before and are just repeating yourself now.

You cannot seriously contend that FCPS can only satisfy its obligations under state law by continuing to operate AAP in its current form. It’s very clear other jurisdictions satisfy those obligations through programs that do not entail the creation of a bloated, formal two-track system that distorts school boundaries and enrollments.

You are not reading what I wrote.

I never said that in any of my posts.

If you read what I wrote, instead of just going to the "cancel AAP" screed, you would see that everything I am writing is 100% correct. My only points are that AAP falls under special ed as designated by FCPS Plan for the Gifted based on the Virginia gifted special education laws, just like 504/IEPs and ESL are classified as special ed, and of the 3 special ed groups, AAP is the only one that can legally be segregated into a special program. It is illegal, based on federal law to segregate 504/IEP students and ESL students, based on Least Restrictive Environment, but perfectly legal to segregate gifted students to fulfill Least Restrictive Environment for the gifted kids. (in this case AAP students based off FCPS designation of who qualified for gifted in their 2022-2027 Plan for the Gifted)

FCPS designated AAP as their gifted program, at least until 2027. Rezoning is happening in 2025. If you want to blow up AAP, you need to wait until after the first round of rezoning.

If you want to push to move the ESL kids out to a special school. Or the 504/IEP kids to self-contained classrooms and out of your kids mainstream class, you are out of luck.

What you want is illegal.

Those 2 groups are protected by special ed federal laws. Gifted Ed is protected by Virginia law, and FCPS Plan for the Gifted, at least until 2027. All 3 have LRE protections, which mean different things to these students on an individual level.

You cannot move ESL and 504/IEP kidsout of your kids class even if it makes sense. AAP kids are the only group of special ed kids who can legally be separated.

Should they be segregated? I am not arguing that and can see benefits and drawbacks to both scenarios. But I am not arguing "should" AAP be segregated. I am explaining "why" AAP is able to be segregated, when the other 2 special ed groups can not be legally segregated except under very specific, individual level LRE situations for the most severe cases.

If you want FCPS to change AAP classifications, focus on the 2028-33 document process and attack cemters the next rezoning cycle in 2029.

Give up on the segregation of ESL kids, unless you can lobby your federal reps to change the law.

Your mistake is that you are trying to be reasonable and rational with people who are just being bit(Hy and throwing tantrums. Maybe when they calm down, they can process your points.

[Anonymous]

Coates Elementary School Boundary Study Community Meetings???

Just got an email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coates Elementary School Boundary Study Community Meetings???

Just got an email.

The Coates ES and Parklawn ES boundary studies are on a separate track from the countywide study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coates Elementary School Boundary Study Community Meetings???

Just got an email.

The Coates ES and Parklawn ES boundary studies are on a separate track from the countywide study.

If they read the email they would know that. Severely lacking reading comprehension skills. Trying to stir up drama and can't even read a short email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coates Elementary School Boundary Study Community Meetings???

Just got an email.

The Coates ES and Parklawn ES boundary studies are on a separate track from the countywide study.

If they read the email they would know that. Severely lacking reading comprehension skills. Trying to stir up drama and can't even read a short email.

Does the Coates email indicate which schools are in scope for that boundary study? The FCPS web page on that study isn't informative at all.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to cross-post this on this thread in addition to the thread on the upcoming CIP hearing, since someone already reacted that the information in the draft 2026-30 CIP supports putting any boundary changes on hold:

"The draft 2026-30 CIP was posted today. It appears they largely roll forward information from prior CIPs, with some updated enrollment projections but otherwise little new thinking.

Some "highlights":

* They claim that they will be working on a new renovation queue, which contradicts a statement in another recent FCPS document (relating to Dr. Reid's meeting her performance obligations) that implies they are already working on a new queue.

* They are projecting a slight increase in total enrollment next year (SY 2025-26), followed by four years of declining enrollments that would leave FCPS with fewer students than at any point since 2015.

* They have jacked up the projected budget for the unnecessary Dunn Loring ES in Vienna to almost $86 million, with no explanation as to why this project is still in the CIP. Notably, once-overcrowded, nearby Shrevewood ES, which years ago was crowded and seeking capacity relief, is now projected to be at only 64% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* They continue to refer to a new western high school (location TBD), with planning work now bumped to 2032 (in the last CIP, planning was purportedly scheduled to begin in 2030).

* They prioritize renovations and expansions of elementary schools built in the late 1980s over enhancements to older high schools built decades earlier (even when those ES expansions are expected to leave several of these ES under 65% capacity).

* The schools identified as currently grossly overcrowded (over 114% capacity), or projected to be so in five years, taking modular seats into account, are limited to Coates ES (subject of pending boundary study), Kilmer MS, and West Springfield HS. Note that they have significantly reduced the "program capacity" for Kilmer MS in this CIP compared to prior CIPs, which is why Kilmer is now identified as grossly overcrowded.

* They have slightly increased their enrollment projections over the next five years for Herndon HS, but still project that HHS will only be at 69% capacity in SY 2029-30); on the other hand, they have reduced their enrollment projections for Herndon MS and now project that HMS will be at 85% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* They have significantly reduced their five-year enrollment projections for McLean HS, such that they now project that in five years McLean will only be at 103% capacity, including the current modular.

* The five-year projections for Lewis and Mount Vernon HS have Lewis at 78% capacity and Mount Vernon at 67% capacity in SY 2029-30. Conversely, West Springfield HS is projected to have over 3000 students and to be at 120% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* The draft CIP continues to assume an expansion of Centreville HS to 3000 seats, which would leave the school at 69% capacity in SY 2029-30. Nearby Chantilly HS is projected to see a decline in enrollment over the next five years, such that it would be at 98% capacity in SY 2029-30, taking the modular seats at the school into account."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to cross-post this on this thread in addition to the thread on the upcoming CIP hearing, since someone already reacted that the information in the draft 2026-30 CIP supports putting any boundary changes on hold:

"The draft 2026-30 CIP was posted today. It appears they largely roll forward information from prior CIPs, with some updated enrollment projections but otherwise little new thinking.

Some "highlights":

* They claim that they will be working on a new renovation queue, which contradicts a statement in another recent FCPS document (relating to Dr. Reid's meeting her performance obligations) that implies they are already working on a new queue.

* They are projecting a slight increase in total enrollment next year (SY 2025-26), followed by four years of declining enrollments that would leave FCPS with fewer students than at any point since 2015.

* They have jacked up the projected budget for the unnecessary Dunn Loring ES in Vienna to almost $86 million, with no explanation as to why this project is still in the CIP. Notably, once-overcrowded, nearby Shrevewood ES, which years ago was crowded and seeking capacity relief, is now projected to be at only 64% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* They continue to refer to a new western high school (location TBD), with planning work now bumped to 2032 (in the last CIP, planning was purportedly scheduled to begin in 2030).

...

The bolded, above, just makes me laugh. As in, literally laughing out loud. This SB is so clueless, it's actually hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to cross-post this on this thread in addition to the thread on the upcoming CIP hearing, since someone already reacted that the information in the draft 2026-30 CIP supports putting any boundary changes on hold:

"The draft 2026-30 CIP was posted today. It appears they largely roll forward information from prior CIPs, with some updated enrollment projections but otherwise little new thinking.

Some "highlights":

* They claim that they will be working on a new renovation queue, which contradicts a statement in another recent FCPS document (relating to Dr. Reid's meeting her performance obligations) that implies they are already working on a new queue.

* They are projecting a slight increase in total enrollment next year (SY 2025-26), followed by four years of declining enrollments that would leave FCPS with fewer students than at any point since 2015.

* They have jacked up the projected budget for the unnecessary Dunn Loring ES in Vienna to almost $86 million, with no explanation as to why this project is still in the CIP. Notably, once-overcrowded, nearby Shrevewood ES, which years ago was crowded and seeking capacity relief, is now projected to be at only 64% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* They continue to refer to a new western high school (location TBD), with planning work now bumped to 2032 (in the last CIP, planning was purportedly scheduled to begin in 2030).

...

The bolded, above, just makes me laugh. As in, literally laughing out loud. This SB is so clueless, it's actually hilarious.

They actually don't care. They don't care about wasting money and they don't care about being taken seriously. The fact that they sign off on such nonsense, while simultaneously claiming a boundary review is necessary, is one way they demonstrate they are in charge and can do whatever they want.

Of course, with the declining enrollment numbers, it looks like they don't have as many buyers as they once did.

[Anonymous]

They inexplicably modified the program capacities at McLean and Herndon High. McLean supposedly decreased 58 students. Herndon High magically increased 40. That increased the percentage at McLean by over 3% and decreased the percentage at Herndon High by 2%.

Clearest signal yet that they are goosing the numbers to suit the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They inexplicably modified the program capacities at McLean and Herndon High. McLean supposedly decreased 58 students. Herndon High magically increased 40. That increased the percentage at McLean by over 3% and decreased the percentage at Herndon High by 2%.

Clearest signal yet that they are goosing the numbers to suit the agenda.

Maybe, but then they also reduced the enrollment projections for McLean quite a bit, which cuts in the other direction from where I think you're going.