FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

I’m sure I missed one, but I only count 6 schools (ignoring ones that only go K-2)

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25AAPElementarySchools.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

It is more likely that alll middle schools will have AAP added, with no transfers for AAP.

There is no reason why Robinson and heck, Key do not have AAP. Even Key has enough AAP kids to support a center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

It is more likely that alll middle schools will have AAP added, with no transfers for AAP.

There is no reason why Robinson and heck, Key do not have AAP. Even Key has enough AAP kids to support a center.

Exactly this. It makes for a better MS environment when kids aren't transferring to giant AAP centers just for AAP. That creates a mercenary attitude on the part of many families - they only see their kids as there for AAP (and possibly gunning for TJ) and have no interest in being part of an ongoing school community.

But if they do this it may call for some boundary adjustments. A school like Rocky Run could end up too small and a school like Thoreau too big.

[Anonymous]

We used to handle the really bright kids by jumping them grade levels.
You'd go from Pre-K to 1st grade to 3rd grade to 5th grade.
So you'd see a 7 year old in 5th grade that eventually would start high school I wat 11.
But we changed to a GT system that kept kids in grade, but the consequence was that now every parent with a mildly bright kid wanted their kid in that program.
But for truly gifted kids, there are special programs to meet their needs.

Where was this? I was an educatoTwir. This is quite rare and has been discouraged in education for many decades.

I strongly disagree with the current AAP model. AAP is far from gifted. Once they took objective testing out of the mix, things went haywire. And, because the IQ tests now seem to be in circulation, I'm not sure you can put the genie back in the bottle for GT.

We can meet the needs in the classroom. They can be mainstreamed just as those kids with learning disabilities can be mainstreamed. Write up IEPs for the truly gifted, if needed, to ensure needs are met..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

I’m sure I missed one, but I only count 6 schools (ignoring ones that only go K-2)

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25AAPElementarySchools.pdf

Hunt Valley, Orange Hunt, and Rolling Valley not having LLIV in the West Springfield pyramid is a big complicating factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

I’m sure I missed one, but I only count 6 schools (ignoring ones that only go K-2)

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25AAPElementarySchools.pdf

Hunt Valley, Orange Hunt, and Rolling Valley not having LLIV in the West Springfield pyramid is a big complicating factor.

Especially since HV and OH are sent out of pyramid to Sangster instead of to Keene Mill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s is the transparency? Which schools still lack local? I’m sure there are only a few left.

I’m guessing when local is at all, no more centers. I see removal from middle coming with boundary changes.

I’m sure I missed one, but I only count 6 schools (ignoring ones that only go K-2)

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25AAPElementarySchools.pdf

Hunt Valley, Orange Hunt, and Rolling Valley not having LLIV in the West Springfield pyramid is a big complicating factor.

Especially since HV and OH are sent out of pyramid to Sangster instead of to Keene Mill.

That one simple thing is contributing to crowding at WSHS. I’m sure a lot of those families would like to stay in pyramid and at their local school for AAP. If they had LLIV, I think FCPS could feel a lot more confident in moving all of Sangster to Lake Braddock. Right now there is a small contingent of Sangster neighborhood kids who do go to WSHS. And they need to either put middle school AAP everywhere or nowhere at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg AAP haters.

Start your own thread.

It seems like they hate the center schools more than they hate AAP.

No, the centers are the Trojan horse. If they could successfully get rid of those, they'd come for AAP next. The AAP board is flooded with posts about how AAP isn't fair, how their children are made fun of because they didn't get in, how it breaks up community schools and causes resentment and depression among those rejected, etc. it's an obsession for them. It's a really weird fixation.

I can't speak to what others intentions are. But I have multiple children and I want all of them to attend the same school. Of my school age kids one is level IV the other will not be. I agree the standards to be deemed level IV are not high and is often a frustration for my Kid. I do think if the handful of kids stayed local instead of going to the center that may be marginally better but really not much. Considering the low bar of entrance I do believe if local is offered they should not be bussed to a center. If they ever change it to an actual advanced program then have at it with centers.

My niece goes to an elementary that does an in school class and uses an actual IQ test for admission with a set cut off. It starts in 3rd grade like fcps. The area is educated middle to upper middle class.

Their elementary class sizes are small, around 20 kids with 5 classes per grade. The one gifted class per grade that uses a hard IQ cut off as its only admissions criteria is TINY, around 15 kids.

Using the hard IQ cut off, in her grade, only 2 girls qualified. The rest are boys.

Looking through her yearbook at the other grades, those small "truly gifted" IQ based classes were all boy heavy, although more like 60/40 or 70/30, not 2 girls and a dozen plus boys like my niece's grade. But all were majority male. The races were more evenly represented than the genders, and appeared to more or less reflect the school make up.

There was not one class that was girl heavy or close to 50/50.

Again, the only criteria for admission is an individually administered IQ test paid for by the district.

The kids casually refer to that class as "the smart kids" and themselves as the "regular" or "not smart" kids. It is not from the teachers or parents based on what my niece says in her elementary school unfiltered candor. Her parents try to correct her, and she responds with "Mom, we are not stupid. We all know they are the smart kids."

Funnily, the kids, including the 2 girls who qualified for that class, also refer to the gifted class as the class that doesn't know how to behave.

I would be careful what you wish for.

Eliminating AAP might not be all you think it will be.

Where did I say eliminate AAP? All I said was in it's current form centers are not needed and a waste of resources. The kids can have their cohort getting slightly advanced curriculum. My child can be bored with the math curriculum just as well staying at their base school and not being bussed to a center.

Your child can stay at their school now. Leave others to go to the centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg AAP haters.

Start your own thread.

It seems like they hate the center schools more than they hate AAP.

No, the centers are the Trojan horse. If they could successfully get rid of those, they'd come for AAP next. The AAP board is flooded with posts about how AAP isn't fair, how their children are made fun of because they didn't get in, how it breaks up community schools and causes resentment and depression among those rejected, etc. it's an obsession for them. It's a really weird fixation.

I can't speak to what others intentions are. But I have multiple children and I want all of them to attend the same school. Of my school age kids one is level IV the other will not be. I agree the standards to be deemed level IV are not high and is often a frustration for my Kid. I do think if the handful of kids stayed local instead of going to the center that may be marginally better but really not much. Considering the low bar of entrance I do believe if local is offered they should not be bussed to a center. If they ever change it to an actual advanced program then have at it with centers.

My niece goes to an elementary that does an in school class and uses an actual IQ test for admission with a set cut off. It starts in 3rd grade like fcps. The area is educated middle to upper middle class.

Their elementary class sizes are small, around 20 kids with 5 classes per grade. The one gifted class per grade that uses a hard IQ cut off as its only admissions criteria is TINY, around 15 kids.

Using the hard IQ cut off, in her grade, only 2 girls qualified. The rest are boys.

Looking through her yearbook at the other grades, those small "truly gifted" IQ based classes were all boy heavy, although more like 60/40 or 70/30, not 2 girls and a dozen plus boys like my niece's grade. But all were majority male. The races were more evenly represented than the genders, and appeared to more or less reflect the school make up.

There was not one class that was girl heavy or close to 50/50.

Again, the only criteria for admission is an individually administered IQ test paid for by the district.

The kids casually refer to that class as "the smart kids" and themselves as the "regular" or "not smart" kids. It is not from the teachers or parents based on what my niece says in her elementary school unfiltered candor. Her parents try to correct her, and she responds with "Mom, we are not stupid. We all know they are the smart kids."

Funnily, the kids, including the 2 girls who qualified for that class, also refer to the gifted class as the class that doesn't know how to behave.

I would be careful what you wish for.

Eliminating AAP might not be all you think it will be.

Where did I say eliminate AAP? All I said was in it's current form centers are not needed and a waste of resources. The kids can have their cohort getting slightly advanced curriculum. My child can be bored with the math curriculum just as well staying at their base school and not being bussed to a center.

Your child can stay at their school now. Leave others to go to the centers

They do, now everyone should has well to reduce transportation costs.

[Anonymous]

That AAP map isn't accurate.

[Anonymous]

And you don't need to have AAP in every middle. There are honors classes. You don't need AAP at all after elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current allocation of AAP centers should be evaluated for the comprehensive study. Every pyramid should have a minimum of one ES elementary and one MS feeder and students should only be assigned to those centers if they live in bounds for that pyramid, even if that means offering AAP services at every middle school. Students should not have to travel out of pyramid for AAP services. These out of bound cohorts can be traced through the transfer dashboard even at the high school level.

Onto the other point. There are not enough middle school seats to transition from 7-8 to 6-8. They have three options for pursuing that pipe dream. (1) Wait for enrollment levels to decline to the point where there are enough middle school seats to support 3 grades. (2) Invest on expanding middle schools so there are enough seats to support 3 grades. (3) Shove sixth grade into modular classrooms for the next 10-20 years.

Personally, I’d go with option 1, but they’ll obviously do option 3.

FCPS doesn't give the numbers on a convenient spread sheet so I think these are dashboard totals:
MS capacity 30080 inc 3 with grade 6 enrollment 28023 surplus 2057
40209 enrollment including all grade 6 at ES sites (10,129) deficit

So Reid might be considering an Option 4: converting specific ES to MS. I cannot comprehend how she or board members are contemplating this mess. Especially when they want capacity reviews every 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg AAP haters.

Start your own thread.

You realize that there may be those who strongly dislike AAP in its current form, but also those who simply think FCPS should have decided what it wants to do with AAP before plowing ahead with a county-wide boundary study precisely because the AAP center model definitely impacts boundaries.

You don’t seem to be capable of appreciating these nuances. Perhaps you should sit this one out for a while.

+1
AAP centers - and whether or not they will be a thing of the past - are very much part of the boundary discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg AAP haters.

Start your own thread.

You realize that there may be those who strongly dislike AAP in its current form, but also those who simply think FCPS should have decided what it wants to do with AAP before plowing ahead with a county-wide boundary study precisely because the AAP center model definitely impacts boundaries.

You don’t seem to be capable of appreciating these nuances. Perhaps you should sit this one out for a while.

It has already been decided. Centers will stay.

Seethe.

Oh? Please post your citation.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg AAP haters.

Start your own thread.

You realize that there may be those who strongly dislike AAP in its current form, but also those who simply think FCPS should have decided what it wants to do with AAP before plowing ahead with a county-wide boundary study precisely because the AAP center model definitely impacts boundaries.

You don’t seem to be capable of appreciating these nuances. Perhaps you should sit this one out for a while.

But that is not at all what they are discussing.

A handful of posters are hijacking this thread to argue " My Larla's best friend got to go to a center, but she is not truly gifted because she wasn't a national merit winner" and "no one is truly gifted because the truly gifted would demand the end of AAP centers, and would rather their elementary kids get bussed an hour away to one of two truly gifted classrooms in the county."

They aren't discussing AAP capacity and how it relates to school capacity or rezoning.

They are whining about who they perceive as "truuuuly gifted" which has zero to do with rezoning.

The need to start their own thread, of visit one of the thousands of AAP discussions on the dedicated AAP forum.

DP. You sound truuuuuuuly unhinged.