Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.

Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

Different poster here, but AAP centers at each of Cooper, Kilmer (without the Cooper kids from Great Falls) and Longfellow (with the Cooper kids from McLean) would still be large compared to many other AAP centers in the county. "Critical mass" sounds great up until the point when a facility is grossly overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

Different poster here, but AAP centers at each of Cooper, Kilmer (without the Cooper kids from Great Falls) and Longfellow (with the Cooper kids from McLean) would still be large compared to many other AAP centers in the county. "Critical mass" sounds great up until the point when a facility is grossly overcrowded.

All the more reason to have one middle school center for each cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

Different poster here, but AAP centers at each of Cooper, Kilmer (without the Cooper kids from Great Falls) and Longfellow (with the Cooper kids from McLean) would still be large compared to many other AAP centers in the county. "Critical mass" sounds great up until the point when a facility is grossly overcrowded.

All the more reason to have one middle school center for each cluster.

That doesn't follow at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.

Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

When you say that "the stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality," you leave yourself wide open to criticism. I absolutely disagree with this statement. Not only is it pretentious and condescending, it's also incorrect. The Gen. Ed. kids deserve to attend a middle school where there is not the constant AAP division that there currently is in elementary school, especially in elem. centers. The prospect of attending a middle school where AAP is finally non-existent is extremely refreshing to these kids who have had it shoved in their faces since 3rd grade. The world does not revolve around AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.

Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

When you say that "the stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality," you leave yourself wide open to criticism. I absolutely disagree with this statement. Not only is it pretentious and condescending, it's also incorrect. The Gen. Ed. kids deserve to attend a middle school where there is not the constant AAP division that there currently is in elementary school, especially in elem. centers. The prospect of attending a middle school where AAP is finally non-existent is extremely refreshing to these kids who have had it shoved in their faces since 3rd grade. The world does not revolve around AAP.

I think the other poster is saying that, for AAP kids, the stakes are higher in middle school than in elementary school, NOT that the stakes in middle school are higher for AAP kids than for GenEd kids.

I do get the impression, however, that the other poster thinks that having a "critical mass" of AAP students at middle schools should be the organizing principle in FCPS, and that everything else should flow from that. He/she apparently thinks it's fine if some schools are vastly overcrowded, or if kids are bussed long distances to attend a school with other GenEd kids; it's a small price to pay so long as his/her AAP kid can attend a school with a large number of other AAP kids.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the poster who said the stakes were higher, but I took that comment to be comparing the stakes for middle schoolers vs elementary schoolers -- pp was comparing that to the experience of ES students being made to switch centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.

Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

When you say that "the stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality," you leave yourself wide open to criticism. I absolutely disagree with this statement. Not only is it pretentious and condescending, it's also incorrect. The Gen. Ed. kids deserve to attend a middle school where there is not the constant AAP division that there currently is in elementary school, especially in elem. centers. The prospect of attending a middle school where AAP is finally non-existent is extremely refreshing to these kids who have had it shoved in their faces since 3rd grade. The world does not revolve around AAP.

I think the other poster is saying that, for AAP kids, the stakes are higher in middle school than in elementary school, NOT that the stakes in middle school are higher for AAP kids than for GenEd kids.

I do get the impression, however, that the other poster thinks that having a "critical mass" of AAP students at middle schools should be the organizing principle in FCPS, and that everything else should flow from that. He/she apparently thinks it's fine if some schools are vastly overcrowded, or if kids are bussed long distances to attend a school with other GenEd kids; it's a small price to pay so long as his/her AAP kid can attend a school with a large number of other AAP kids.

I agree. And frankly, I've had it with FCPS catering to the AAP population and ignoring the needs of the Gen Ed population. AAP should be the exception to the rule, but around here, it's somehow become the "norm". What a skewed system.

[Anonymous]

As an AAP parent, I could not feel less "catered to" by FCPS in the past few years. I think it's clear the program is beginning to be dismantled or diluted, which is unfortunate, because it was viewed nationwide as an example of a stellar GT-type program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cluster 2 families were told last year they had to send their kids to a new AAP program at Lemon Road ES with no track record, so Cluster 1 families can send their kids to a new AAP program at Cooper MS. You don't have a right to send your kids to Kilmer or Longfellow just because you pay property taxes.

The stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality. It makes more sense to have more local centers and level IV centers at an elementary school level.

Did I seriously just read this? You feel that the stakes are higher for AAP kids? That, in a nutshell, is what is so very wrong with the AAP program as it is today. The parents actually believe their kids are more special and more important than the general ed. kids, and so everything must revolve around them. What this area needs are far fewer centers and FAR fewer AAP kids. General Ed kids deserve the same amount of focus and energy that AAP has been getting from FCPS.

Please...there is no point in arguing AAP vs. GE-and in fact, Cluster 1 schools have adopted the AAP curriculum standards in GE this year, at least at our center school. I was simply making the point that having the critical mass of AAP students matters more in middle school than in elementary and it makes more sense not to have more local level IV centers in middle school. You need to get the chip off of your shoulder.

When you say that "the stakes are higher in middle school for the AAP kids-sorry, that is just the reality," you leave yourself wide open to criticism. I absolutely disagree with this statement. Not only is it pretentious and condescending, it's also incorrect. The Gen. Ed. kids deserve to attend a middle school where there is not the constant AAP division that there currently is in elementary school, especially in elem. centers. The prospect of attending a middle school where AAP is finally non-existent is extremely refreshing to these kids who have had it shoved in their faces since 3rd grade. The world does not revolve around AAP.

I think the other poster is saying that, for AAP kids, the stakes are higher in middle school than in elementary school, NOT that the stakes in middle school are higher for AAP kids than for GenEd kids.

I do get the impression, however, that the other poster thinks that having a "critical mass" of AAP students at middle schools should be the organizing principle in FCPS, and that everything else should flow from that. He/she apparently thinks it's fine if some schools are vastly overcrowded, or if kids are bussed long distances to attend a school with other GenEd kids; it's a small price to pay so long as his/her AAP kid can attend a school with a large number of other AAP kids.

I agree. And frankly, I've had it with FCPS catering to the AAP population and ignoring the needs of the Gen Ed population. AAP should be the exception to the rule, but around here, it's somehow become the "norm". What a skewed system.

You're both throwing a lot of different arguments out there that may reflect your general feelings about AAP centers, but aren't really persuasive re the situation being discussed in this thread -- Longfellow -- and in particular the possibility of moving AAP students from Longfellow to Cooper. First, no one said Cooper would lack a critical mass. That might be a real concern elsewhere but not here. Second, Cooper would become vastly overcrowded by moving all these kids over from Longfellow and Kilmer. If anything, YOU are advocating that an outdated, dingy, vastly overcrowded Cooper is a small price to pay for your GE kid to stay in a beautifully renovated & under capacity Longfellow. Third, as far as FCPS catering to AAP and being "the norm" -- I think that's the very argument being used by some Cooper GE parents to oppose the influx of AAP students into Cooper, so I'm not sure you're helping your case there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You're both throwing a lot of different arguments out there that may reflect your general feelings about AAP centers, but aren't really persuasive re the situation being discussed in this thread -- Longfellow -- and in particular the possibility of moving AAP students from Longfellow to Cooper. First, no one said Cooper would lack a critical mass. That might be a real concern elsewhere but not here. Second, Cooper would become vastly overcrowded by moving all these kids over from Longfellow and Kilmer. If anything, YOU are advocating that an outdated, dingy, vastly overcrowded Cooper is a small price to pay for your GE kid to stay in a beautifully renovated & under capacity Longfellow. Third, as far as FCPS catering to AAP and being "the norm" -- I think that's the very argument being used by some Cooper GE parents to oppose the influx of AAP students into Cooper, so I'm not sure you're helping your case there.

The 11:03 post and some earlier posts suggest a concern that a stand-alone AAP program at Cooper might not have "critical mass." I agree that's a red herring given the number of AAP kids in that area. Second, FCPS identifies Cooper as being 327 students below capacity, with its enrollment projected to decline in the future. How many AAP students does Cooper send to Longfellow and Kilmer and how would their attending Cooper leave it "vastly overcrowded" relative to other schools? Third, while I don't agree that FCPS necessarily "caters" to AAP students, requiring GenEd students at schools like Kilmer and Longfellow to attend overcrowded schools so that AAP students from other areas can attend large AAP centers, could be viewed that way, at least where there are under-enrolled schools nearby that could also educate AAP students.

The issue will be most acute at Kilmer, not Longfellow, if FCPS's current projections hold water. Longfellow will be the tail on this dog when things really heat up.

[Anonymous]

FCPS Dashboard shows Cooper as 141 students under cap -- http://www.fcps.edu/fts/dashboard/enrollment/msenroll13-14.html

Pretty sure last year proposal would have moved 150 from Longfellow alone. Can't recall numbers from Kilmer, but assume it's in the hundreds as well, so I believe it was shown that Cooper would be well over capacity immediately or within a year at most. That was the best case scenario -- assuming the enrollment projections were not way low -- which they tend to be in this area. Spring Hill is growing, Churchill is growing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll just point out again that it's not Longfellow enrollment trends that will force changes at Cooper. It's the declining enrollment at Cooper and the overcrowding at Kilmer, which gets the Cooper AAP kids from Great Falls.

So it's fair to all of a sudden overcrowd Cooper overnight and force kids into trailers when Longfellow just undertook a nice renovation to increase capacity (I can't comment on Kilmer since I know nothing about their building or future renovation plans).

Longfellow is at capacity even with its Reno. It is slated to go over capacity shortly. People are not saying to do it over night. This has been talked about for at least a year and Cooper is slated to be under capacity. I don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to continue to deny AAP to their neighborhood children and require them to be bussed all the way across town to Longfellow. I also don't think it is fair for Cooper parents to say they don't want their AAP students but that they perfectly fine for them to be overwhelming another school's resources. Cooper should take care of its own students - all of them.

The AAP kids attending Longfellow from the Cooper district are a small part of Longfellow's overcrowding problem and the school is not actually at capacity. But Cooper would definitely go over capacity very quickly with these kids being moved over from Longfellow and/or Kilmer, and what's worse, in a building that doesn't even have a planned reno yet. But anyway, the real issue is not just a building and capacity issue. Like the Haycock battle last year, it's a substantive issue about the quality and equivalency of the programs offered. Do you really think the bulk of the opposition to this move is from "Cooper parents" who don't want to provide AAP to their "neighborhood children" or are you trying to spivested in those schools as you do. And as many other posters have pointed out, no one believes that a Cooper program would be anywhere near the quality of Longfellow or Kilmer for many years, especially in light of the lack of planning on the County's part.

If half the AAP students leave, then half the AAP experienced teachers can go to Cooper too. They can do it like a draft. The Cooper Principal can pick one, then the Longfellow Principal, then the Cooper Principal. First math, then science..... There isn't any reason Cooper can't do the same extracurricular activites that Longfellow does - today.

yeah....like that will happen. Just like Haycock promised to send resources and teachers who were destaffed over to Lemon Road, only to then have the School Board and FCPS decide that they can reopen the school to newly found eligible transfers in grades 4-6 so that in the end they sent nothing over and didn't end up reducing the population by much. Cooper - don't expect anything from Longfellow. They won't give it up. I can't wait to see Janie Strauss battle this one out!! Pass the popcorn !!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS Dashboard shows Cooper as 141 students under cap -- http://www.fcps.edu/fts/dashboard/enrollment/msenroll13-14.html

Pretty sure last year proposal would have moved 150 from Longfellow alone. Can't recall numbers from Kilmer, but assume it's in the hundreds as well, so I believe it was shown that Cooper would be well over capacity immediately or within a year at most. That was the best case scenario -- assuming the enrollment projections were not way low -- which they tend to be in this area. Spring Hill is growing, Churchill is growing, etc.

The dashboard shows Cooper as 327 students under capacity - with a design capacity of 1080 and current enrollment of 753. The program capacity simply reflects the building's current program configuration at the moment. The "building utilization" rank for Cooper is also 19th of 26 middle schools, compared to Kilmer, which is 1st, and Longfellow, which is 6th. The higher the ranking, "the more efficient the school use" (i.e., the more crowded).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

yeah....like that will happen. Just like Haycock promised to send resources and teachers who were destaffed over to Lemon Road, only to then have the School Board and FCPS decide that they can reopen the school to newly found eligible transfers in grades 4-6 so that in the end they sent nothing over and didn't end up reducing the population by much. Cooper - don't expect anything from Longfellow. They won't give it up. I can't wait to see Janie Strauss battle this one out!! Pass the popcorn !!!

Haycock's enrollment went down by over 50 students this year and Lemon Road's went up by 160 students. Are you saying Lemon Road got 160 more students and no additional resources or teachers? I'd find that hard to believe.

As for Janie Strauss, if I recall correctly, the Longfellow neighborhoods got her re-elected last time while the Cooper neighborhoods went for Louise Epstein, her opponent. Oops.