FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

The idea of switching schools to a 6-8 model is terrible. 7/8 grades are a very special, awkward time in life and it makes sense to keep these kids together. 6th graders deserve to have one last year of "childhood." Why should we rush the 6th graders off to middle school?

I would encourage you to voice those concerns at one of the virtual boundary review meetings because the UPK thing is a big push from the superintendent herself and they are going to need the extra classrooms in the elementaries in order to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, they should eliminate all AAP centers and all split feeders. Make each school a neighborhood school. Have AP in all schools. Changing boundaries shouldn’t even be a discussion until those things are complete.

I’ve HEARD through various channels that there are a few advocacy groups that are influential in keeping the AAP centers going. Fairfax County Association for the Gifted was one. They won’t be eliminated any time soon. It seems like the hope right now is getting LLIV into all schools, pushing for kids to stay at their local schools, and then maybe, eventually, 10-15+ years into the future, reducing the number of ES AAP centers. MS AAP may be eliminated sooner if the amount of honors classes increases.

Excellent! FCPS absolutely needs the centers to stay open in order to provide strong cohorts of advanced students for those who need it.

BS. These students can receive advanced instruction within their own neighborhood schools.

Nope. Centers are superior to the local level IV.

Too bad. They're inequitable for all of the other kids who don't get to choose which school they'd prefer to attend. A true GT center/program would be quite different than these unnecessary AAP centers full of kids who overlap hugely with GenEd kids.

They aren't inequitable because your kid can't get in. Kids choose their schools in other ways as well. The fixation on centers is strange. Even if there were GT centers there would still be a group of kids that choose their school

If there was an actual GT program - you know, for the tiny percent of actually gifted kids - then we would only need a couple of centers, one on either end of the county. That's how few kids would actually qualify for a gifted program. The rest of the kids, to include the merely "advanced," would simply be educated at their neighborhood school, which would hopefully re-implement flexible groupings.

FCPS is super wealthy, has one of the highest concentrations of highly educated moms in the entire country, and a disproportionately high number of asians and indians.

We do not have just "a few truly gifted" kids.

We have every thing in place to have many "truly gifted"kids: affluence, really smart highly educated moms, and lots of asians.

They aren’t gifted. They are elementary school advanced. Big, big difference. Look at the list of National Merit commended students that was posted recently. That’s just the lowest level of recognition BTW - not semi finalists or award winners. At some of these ES, a huge number of kids are “AAP.” Is that number reflected in the number of National Merit commended students? No it is absolutely not. There are FAR fewer commended students than kids in elementary and even middle AAP. You’d think if they were all “gifted,” they could at least get to commended student status on one of the biggest HS standardized tests. But they can’t. Because they aren’t all gifted. They are merely good elementary school students. BTW, a surprising number of truly gifted kids are poor students.

A smaller number of centers would be fine to accommodate the truly gifted. Not the wacky, two tiered system we have now. Most kids needs can be met at the local schools with advanced math and some ELA extensions. For the kids whose needs truly can’t be met, they need an IEP for actual gifted services, which is the way it was done in the past.

What are you really mad about?

- that kids can leave base schools?
-that smart kids aren’t there to teach your kid?
- That your kid may be transferred because a school allows kids to transfer out?

If you want AAP gone- start a separate thread.

I’m just pointing out that there aren’t soooooo many gifted kids in FCPS. There just aren’t. Regardless, the centers are apparently staying because certain interest groups like them, so they won’t be a part of the boundary discussions at this point.

DP.

Lots of kids pushed in by pushy parents who retest...

Hasn't been a truly gifted program in years. Many kids pushed into centers to get away from poorer or less desirable elementary schools.

It should go back to the old model. At a minimum, middle school AAP centers should go.

And it is pertinent to the boundary discussion because of the impact on enrollments.

And IB should go away as well in favor of county wide AP. Also impacts enrollments through transfers.

AAP is not relevant to the boundary discussions because Fcps is not touching AAP other than possible adding more centers.

Switching IB to AP is absolutely part of the boundary discussions, due to how the high schools ans high school curriculum is structured.

AAP has zero to do with the current boundary discussions OR the IB/AP/high school curriculum as it relates to rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, they should eliminate all AAP centers and all split feeders. Make each school a neighborhood school. Have AP in all schools. Changing boundaries shouldn’t even be a discussion until those things are complete.

I’ve HEARD through various channels that there are a few advocacy groups that are influential in keeping the AAP centers going. Fairfax County Association for the Gifted was one. They won’t be eliminated any time soon. It seems like the hope right now is getting LLIV into all schools, pushing for kids to stay at their local schools, and then maybe, eventually, 10-15+ years into the future, reducing the number of ES AAP centers. MS AAP may be eliminated sooner if the amount of honors classes increases.

Excellent! FCPS absolutely needs the centers to stay open in order to provide strong cohorts of advanced students for those who need it.

BS. These students can receive advanced instruction within their own neighborhood schools.

Nope. Centers are superior to the local level IV.

Too bad. They're inequitable for all of the other kids who don't get to choose which school they'd prefer to attend. A true GT center/program would be quite different than these unnecessary AAP centers full of kids who overlap hugely with GenEd kids.

They aren't inequitable because your kid can't get in. Kids choose their schools in other ways as well. The fixation on centers is strange. Even if there were GT centers there would still be a group of kids that choose their school

If there was an actual GT program - you know, for the tiny percent of actually gifted kids - then we would only need a couple of centers, one on either end of the county. That's how few kids would actually qualify for a gifted program. The rest of the kids, to include the merely "advanced," would simply be educated at their neighborhood school, which would hopefully re-implement flexible groupings.

FCPS is super wealthy, has one of the highest concentrations of highly educated moms in the entire country, and a disproportionately high number of asians and indians.

We do not have just "a few truly gifted" kids.

We have every thing in place to have many "truly gifted"kids: affluence, really smart highly educated moms, and lots of asians.

They aren’t gifted. They are elementary school advanced. Big, big difference. Look at the list of National Merit commended students that was posted recently. That’s just the lowest level of recognition BTW - not semi finalists or award winners. At some of these ES, a huge number of kids are “AAP.” Is that number reflected in the number of National Merit commended students? No it is absolutely not. There are FAR fewer commended students than kids in elementary and even middle AAP. You’d think if they were all “gifted,” they could at least get to commended student status on one of the biggest HS standardized tests. But they can’t. Because they aren’t all gifted. They are merely good elementary school students. BTW, a surprising number of truly gifted kids are poor students.

A smaller number of centers would be fine to accommodate the truly gifted. Not the wacky, two tiered system we have now. Most kids needs can be met at the local schools with advanced math and some ELA extensions. For the kids whose needs truly can’t be met, they need an IEP for actual gifted services, which is the way it was done in the past.

What are you really mad about?

- that kids can leave base schools?
-that smart kids aren’t there to teach your kid?
- That your kid may be transferred because a school allows kids to transfer out?

If you want AAP gone- start a separate thread.

I’m just pointing out that there aren’t soooooo many gifted kids in FCPS. There just aren’t. Regardless, the centers are apparently staying because certain interest groups like them, so they won’t be a part of the boundary discussions at this point.

DP.

Lots of kids pushed in by pushy parents who retest...

Hasn't been a truly gifted program in years. Many kids pushed into centers to get away from poorer or less desirable elementary schools.

It should go back to the old model. At a minimum, middle school AAP centers should go.

And it is pertinent to the boundary discussion because of the impact on enrollments.

And IB should go away as well in favor of county wide AP. Also impacts enrollments through transfers.

AAP is not relevant to the boundary discussions because Fcps is not touching AAP other than possible adding more centers.

Switching IB to AP is absolutely part of the boundary discussions, due to how the high schools ans high school curriculum is structured.

AAP has zero to do with the current boundary discussions OR the IB/AP/high school curriculum as it relates to rezoning.

You really do not think they are going to consider AAP centers with their redistricting? You must be on the "inside" if you are that sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

Imagine the number of split feeders 6-8 MS would cause. Shows the 8130 categories are just pretext.

Imagine all the extra bus routes for all those walker 6th graders who now become bus riders to the middle schools.

The middle school bus runs will be bigger than the high school bus runs. (3 grades needing busses for middle school vs roughly 2 grades worth of bus riders for the high schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

So start a separate AAP thread


This is a REZONING thread, not a "Larla is not really gifted so we need to close down AAP thread.

It is really easy to start a new thread about your chosen topic. Try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

Imagine the number of split feeders 6-8 MS would cause. Shows the 8130 categories are just pretext.

Imagine all the extra bus routes for all those walker 6th graders who now become bus riders to the middle schools.

The middle school bus runs will be bigger than the high school bus runs. (3 grades needing busses for middle school vs roughly 2 grades worth of bus riders for the high schools.)

Never underestimate the incompetence of the School Board and Gatehouse leadership. They are fundamentally stupid people with ridiculous personal agendas that have nothing to do with improving the quality of public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

The idea of switching schools to a 6-8 model is terrible. 7/8 grades are a very special, awkward time in life and it makes sense to keep these kids together. 6th graders deserve to have one last year of "childhood." Why should we rush the 6th graders off to middle school?

I would encourage you to voice those concerns at one of the virtual boundary review meetings because the UPK thing is a big push from the superintendent herself and they are going to need the extra classrooms in the elementaries in order to do so.

Sixth grade was a great transition year for my kids. The teachers started switching off and preparing them for middle school. I cannot see this happening in fifth grade. I hope they don't do this. And, this would throw another monkey wrench in the whole boundary study.

All of this needs to be dropped. Get rid of DEI. Hire more CLASSROOM teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

The idea of switching schools to a 6-8 model is terrible. 7/8 grades are a very special, awkward time in life and it makes sense to keep these kids together. 6th graders deserve to have one last year of "childhood." Why should we rush the 6th graders off to middle school?

I would encourage you to voice those concerns at one of the virtual boundary review meetings because the UPK thing is a big push from the superintendent herself and they are going to need the extra classrooms in the elementaries in order to do so.

Sixth grade was a great transition year for my kids. The teachers started switching off and preparing them for middle school. I cannot see this happening in fifth grade. I hope they don't do this. And, this would throw another monkey wrench in the whole boundary study.

All of this needs to be dropped. Get rid of DEI. Hire more CLASSROOM teachers.

No opinion either way, but I had a transition year in fifth. We switched classrooms for most classes. It was fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

DP, but you’re completely wrong. Boundaries very much have to take into account whether a school is only serving a base population or also serving scores of out of boundary kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to fold “6th to middle school” into the boundary review. Ostensibly to align FCPS to most of (certainly not all) the rest of the US, which has 6-8 middle school, and to give 6th graders access to a middle school curriculum and extra-curriculars. But the big driving factor is Reid wants UPK. It’s a pet issue for her. And they need space at the elementaries to account for extra preschool classes. Some schools currently have a special education preschool including another class for kids with autism, and some have a pre-K that is income based and/or for kids with IEP’s (and this class is usually only available for 4 year olds due to space restrictions, the special needs classes start at 2). And this would be full day pre K, so no using the same classroom for a morning and then an afternoon class to double up on how many kids can be in one classroom. So with the smaller class sizes that you usually have in pre K and the need for a teacher and an aide for each class … imagine how much more space they will need. I’d guess the equivalent of 3 extra classrooms at an average sized school as some parents will elect to keep their kids in full day day care, which often has a more favorable schedule without the lengthy breaks of the schools.

Imagine the number of split feeders 6-8 MS would cause. Shows the 8130 categories are just pretext.

Imagine all the extra bus routes for all those walker 6th graders who now become bus riders to the middle schools.

The middle school bus runs will be bigger than the high school bus runs. (3 grades needing busses for middle school vs roughly 2 grades worth of bus riders for the high schools.)

Never underestimate the incompetence of the School Board and Gatehouse leadership. They are fundamentally stupid people with ridiculous personal agendas that have nothing to do with improving the quality of public education.

This is the reality. The clowns making the decisions don’t care what their constituents want. This exercise is all for show. Kids, parent, teachers will all suffer in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

DP, but you’re completely wrong. Boundaries very much have to take into account whether a school is only serving a base population or also serving scores of out of boundary kids.

The AAP kids are staying the centers. The boundary discussion has nothing to do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

DP, but you’re completely wrong. Boundaries very much have to take into account whether a school is only serving a base population or also serving scores of out of boundary kids.

The AAP kids are staying the centers. The boundary discussion has nothing to do with that.

No, it absolutely does. If they commit to boundary reviews every five years, and do nothing to change the current AAP centers now, they are probably locking themselves into that model for the next five years. It’s an implicit decision, even if it’s one borne of a failure to wrestle with the implications of their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

DP, but you’re completely wrong. Boundaries very much have to take into account whether a school is only serving a base population or also serving scores of out of boundary kids.

The AAP kids are staying the centers. The boundary discussion has nothing to do with that.

No, it absolutely does. If they commit to boundary reviews every five years, and do nothing to change the current AAP centers now, they are probably locking themselves into that model for the next five years. It’s an implicit decision, even if it’s one borne of a failure to wrestle with the implications of their actions.

They aren't touching AAP centers. It isn't even on the table except in your dreams. Yes, it's a decision to continue them on in the next 5, 10, 15+ years. They don't need to wrestle with any implications because the model works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the I hate AAap poster please start her own thread?

This is a discussion about rezoning.

The school board is not touching centers during this rezoning process.

Discuss your hate for centers somewhere else please, since they have nothing to do with rezoning.

There are several people pointing out the absurdity of the AAP center model - not just one.

Hopefully one of you can start a new thread about it and talk among yourselves because no one else cares. Centers and AAP have nothing to do with boundaries.

DP, but you’re completely wrong. Boundaries very much have to take into account whether a school is only serving a base population or also serving scores of out of boundary kids.

The AAP kids are staying the centers. The boundary discussion has nothing to do with that.

No, it absolutely does. If they commit to boundary reviews every five years, and do nothing to change the current AAP centers now, they are probably locking themselves into that model for the next five years. It’s an implicit decision, even if it’s one borne of a failure to wrestle with the implications of their actions.

They aren't touching AAP centers. It isn't even on the table except in your dreams. Yes, it's a decision to continue them on in the next 5, 10, 15+ years. They don't need to wrestle with any implications because the model works.

Except when it doesn’t. A lot of the middle schools that have been overcrowded in the past were AAP centers. You simply want the topic to be off the table even though we know there is at least one MS AAP center that parents are currently begging FCPS to downsize because they think it has too many kids.