FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then you should report those posts as off-topic.

On the other hand, the current AAP model makes no sense from either a pedagogical or logistical standpoint.

You have schools like Cooper and Longfellow that offer AAP only to kids already zoned to those schools. You have mega-AAP centers like Carson and Rocky Run that serve kids who live in multiple pyramids. You have parents at one MS AAP center that serves kids in multiple pyramids (Glasgow) begging for the school to be downsized. And you have many schools that aren’t AAP centers that are well below capacity, in part because they send so many kids to AAP centers.

That ought to demand attention, and it could very well affect boundaries if given proper attention. Yet we have posters on here saying “AAP is going to stay the same - suck it.”

It is totally ass-backwards. FCPS should decide how it plans to deal with the current anomalies, advise the public, and adjust boundaries as needed.

+ a million

[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?

It makes sense from Reid's perspective. If the goal is to control how and what children are taught earlier and earlier, you will want universal pre-k. Right now, people are using Waldorf, Montessori or church-based options, hiring nannies or taking their children to private daycare. Not to mention, too many moms are SAHM spending more time taking kids to the playground/library and doing little puzzles when they could be drawing a taxed salary.

Wtf did I just read? "Too many moms are SAHM"? You've got to be kidding. Good for them.

[Anonymous]

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.

All of the bolded is true. I don't care if AAP exists - obviously, we need to have advanced classes for advanced learners - but as several other posters have pointed out, almost all kids are advanced in at least one subject. They should have access to advanced classes too. Flexible grouping is the obvious answer. Centers are everything that's wrong with FCPS.
DP

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe it’s based on actual experiences but, either way, they really need to figure out what their plans are for centers that pull kids from other schools before they do county-wide boundary adjustments. Calling something a “Trojan Horse” comes across as a weak excuse to maintain an illogical status quo.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe it’s based on actual experiences but, either way, they really need to figure out what their plans are for centers that pull kids from other schools before they do county-wide boundary adjustments. Calling something a “Trojan Horse” comes across as a weak excuse to maintain an illogical status quo.

It's only illogical to you. It makes sense for those of us who have children who need that structure.

Your kid can have "that structure" in his or her own neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, they SAID that getting rid of trailers and modulars is part of the rezoning goals and increases school safety …

I agree, I don’t see how they get 6th into all the middle schools at this point. The best they could do it move some ES 6th grade into the MS if the MS has enough extra classrooms, but then you’d definitely have some ES in your pyramid that were K-6, and others that were K-5. Hot mess. The boundary discussions pre-dated Reid and were thrown off track because of Covid. Now it seems like she wants to throw a wrench into the boundary discussion by also bringing up the topic of 6th to MS and trying to fold it in to the boundaries. In my line of work we call that “scope creep!”

+1
The idea of moving 6th into middle school is not only absurd, it's unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But they want to replace sixth graders with pre-schoolers in the elementary schools, so it’s not like they’d be freeing up much classroom space to consolidate elementary schools. And the renovations required to convert an elementary school to middle school level facilities is going to require a similar CIP and take a similar amount of time as expanding existing middle schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. All of the above nonsense could be eliminated entirely by offering flexible groupings within each grade, at each school. Some kids might be in the advanced math group, but not the advanced language arts group, and vice-versa. Everyone would have a chance to mingle with everyone else. Very few kids are advanced across the board, but those who are would simply be in the advanced groupings. Far more straightforward than this "Level IV, III, II" idiocy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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..

+100
And have each teacher handle one grouping per subject. This is how FCPS used to be when I was growing up and it worked great. We would just change classes based on which subject/group we were in. And we could move up as necessary (or down if more help was needed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
It's unreal that AAP kids get free busing to centers when they have AAP in their own schools to begin with (as most schools do at this point).

[Anonymous]

Can all the AAP obsessed folks take their comments to the AAP forum? Enough already. I get that it has relevance to the boundary discussion but you guys are really going overboard.

[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.

DP. All of the above nonsense could be eliminated entirely by offering flexible groupings within each grade, at each school. Some kids might be in the advanced math group, but not the advanced language arts group, and vice-versa. Everyone would have a chance to mingle with everyone else. Very few kids are advanced across the board, but those who are would simply be in the advanced groupings. Far more straightforward than this "Level IV, III, II" idiocy.

That is tracking.

Wasn't tracking made illegal around the time of least restrictive environment becoming federal law?

Perhaps our special ed expert moms can share their expertise and correct me if I am wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can all the AAP obsessed folks take their comments to the AAP forum? Enough already. I get that it has relevance to the boundary discussion but you guys are really going overboard.

Yes! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

God damn, look how the school board is bringing us together with these boundary changes.

Great work, Sandy, Kyle, and Robyn.

[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.

DP. All of the above nonsense could be eliminated entirely by offering flexible groupings within each grade, at each school. Some kids might be in the advanced math group, but not the advanced language arts group, and vice-versa. Everyone would have a chance to mingle with everyone else. Very few kids are advanced across the board, but those who are would simply be in the advanced groupings. Far more straightforward than this "Level IV, III, II" idiocy.

That is tracking.

Wasn't tracking made illegal around the time of least restrictive environment becoming federal law?

Perhaps our special ed expert moms can share their expertise and correct me if I am wrong.

What on earth is AAP then, if not tracking on a huge scale? Spare us. Flexible grouping at least allows for kids to move into and out of groups as necessary. No one is locked into a "label" at the age of 7/8.