Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The latest CIP (at 31) also has Kilmer, Longfellow and Cooper at 133%, 115% and 70% of capacity by 2018-19.

If you think the FCPS projections are wrong, please speak up and ask FCPS to stare harder at these numbers, whether at Churchill, Spring Hill or elswhere, because it appears that FCPS in the verge of program and/or boundary adjustments in this area based on the assumption that Cooper and Langley need more students.

[Anonymous]

160 students? Where did that come from? 31 third graders, about 60 fourth graders and 45 or so fifth graders...

My point was that Haycock had promised to give Lemon Road material resources that they no longer needed - which never materialized. Also, talk of teachers making the move with the students proved to be a pipe dream. Enough teachers retired or moved out of the school that they ended up not destaffing anyone in the AAP program.

To be honest, the teachers at Lemon Road have been fabulous. I couldn't be happier. Just wanted to alert the Cooper group not to believe everything they are promised by an established center - as it doesn't often come true. In some cases, like mine, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they may not realize that yet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:160 students? Where did that come from? 31 third graders, about 60 fourth graders and 45 or so fifth graders...

My point was that Haycock had promised to give Lemon Road material resources that they no longer needed - which never materialized. Also, talk of teachers making the move with the students proved to be a pipe dream. Enough teachers retired or moved out of the school that they ended up not destaffing anyone in the AAP program.

To be honest, the teachers at Lemon Road have been fabulous. I couldn't be happier. Just wanted to alert the Cooper group not to believe everything they are promised by an established center - as it doesn't often come true. In some cases, like mine, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they may not realize that yet...

Good to know the teachers at Lemon Road have been great and that you're very happy there. Many in Cluster 2 did not want to listen when others predicted this would be the case a year ago.

[Anonymous]

Few of us in the Cooper/Langley area are under any illusion that Janie Strauss is advocating for our children and schools, or our priorities, whether it be full day K, later start time, lower class sizes, anything -- she's been on the wrong side from her "stakeholders" most of the time.

Nor do we believe that any Longfellow teachers would move to Cooper. And despite Cooper's stated best intentions, few believe the AAP center could be a satisfactory alternative overnight. In a few years, given resources, planning, money for building capacity and enhancements -- maybe. Parents of both AAP and GE students are and should continue to be very skeptical of the impact on their kids.

Re the CIP & projections -- yes I strongly believe they are unreliable, and we've seen them way off year after year. Many parents have spoken up and some School Board members are advocating for better data too. Whether it's in regard to AAP center changes or the boundary adjustments -- ALL parents should be following this and getting involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:160 students? Where did that come from? 31 third graders, about 60 fourth graders and 45 or so fifth graders...

My point was that Haycock had promised to give Lemon Road material resources that they no longer needed - which never materialized. Also, talk of teachers making the move with the students proved to be a pipe dream. Enough teachers retired or moved out of the school that they ended up not destaffing anyone in the AAP program.

To be honest, the teachers at Lemon Road have been fabulous. I couldn't be happier. Just wanted to alert the Cooper group not to believe everything they are promised by an established center - as it doesn't often come true. In some cases, like mine, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they may not realize that yet...

Good to know the teachers at Lemon Road have been great and that you're very happy there. Many in Cluster 2 did not want to listen when others predicted this would be the case a year ago.

This poster may be happy, but there are other parents who are not. AND, the poster's happiness is despite Janie Strauss and Haycock Administration's promised help (which never materialized), not because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Last year, Strauss and company claimed that Haycock population would go down by 150. Ha. Ha. It went down by about 60 students (maybe fewer). It is no less crowded feeling this year.

[Anonymous]

Haycock did have an AAP teacher destaffed at the end of last year due to lowered enrollment. The position was created again in August due to the principal advocating for lower class sizes in 6th grade.

Do many of you out there believe that teachers should be forced to move to a different school if FCPS opens a new AAP center? If so, good luck hiring teachers and keeping morale up in that environment. Most teachers feel very invested in their schools and are not interested in moving. That is just reality. Many of us would not want to change colleagues, offices, work culture once we have found a place we are happy in.

I know getting potentially new teachers hurts those people within the Cooper boundaries, but boundary changes are one risk of using the public school system.

If you want to fix the issues, start paying teachers a fair salary, and then you will see more amazing teachers in the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:160 students? Where did that come from? 31 third graders, about 60 fourth graders and 45 or so fifth graders...

My point was that Haycock had promised to give Lemon Road material resources that they no longer needed - which never materialized. Also, talk of teachers making the move with the students proved to be a pipe dream. Enough teachers retired or moved out of the school that they ended up not destaffing anyone in the AAP program.

To be honest, the teachers at Lemon Road have been fabulous. I couldn't be happier. Just wanted to alert the Cooper group not to believe everything they are promised by an established center - as it doesn't often come true. In some cases, like mine, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they may not realize that yet...

Good to know the teachers at Lemon Road have been great and that you're very happy there. Many in Cluster 2 did not want to listen when others predicted this would be the case a year ago.

This poster may be happy, but there are other parents who are not. AND, the poster's happiness is despite Janie Strauss and Haycock Administration's promised help (which never materialized), not because of it.

Decide which way you want to spin it and stick to it, because you really can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you're confusing the above arguments and/or posters... Not only do I not have a child at Longfellow, I am one of the many Cooper GE parents who is opposed to the influx of AAP students in Cooper! Personally, though Cooper may not be beautifully renovated, I'm fine with it as is if it means it would not have an AAP program. It's a great school and the fact that it's not a newly renovated facility has nothing to do with the quality of education being offered there. All we are asking is for this to remain a GE only school; other GE students from say, Longfellow or Kilmer, would be welcome here. We just don't want Cooper to turn into yet another center, making AAP once again, "the norm" (a false normal, if ever there was one).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Few of us in the Cooper/Langley area are under any illusion that Janie Strauss is advocating for our children and schools, or our priorities, whether it be full day K, later start time, lower class sizes, anything -- she's been on the wrong side from her "stakeholders" most of the time.

Nor do we believe that any Longfellow teachers would move to Cooper. And despite Cooper's stated best intentions, few believe the AAP center could be a satisfactory alternative overnight. In a few years, given resources, planning, money for building capacity and enhancements -- maybe. Parents of both AAP and GE students are and should continue to be very skeptical of the impact on their kids.

Re the CIP & projections -- yes I strongly believe they are unreliable, and we've seen them way off year after year. Many parents have spoken up and some School Board members are advocating for better data too. Whether it's in regard to AAP center changes or the boundary adjustments -- ALL parents should be following this and getting involved.

This post says it all-and from all the arguments made on both sides-consider Longfellow as CENTER only!!!!!! It truly does make the make sense in the long run.

And let's all pray that Louise Epstein or anyone else but Janie Strauss wins next election. I'm tired of the McLean/GF cluster 1 parents having to endure huge class sizes allegedly because "We can afford to supplement our kids education" in ways that the rest of the county cannot. Let the naysayers move into our pyramid and start paying exorbitant property taxes if they want to whine about their class sizes of 14 while we endure 30+ (in my 3rd graders AAP center school class). Some progress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think you're confusing the above arguments and/or posters... Not only do I not have a child at Longfellow, I am one of the many Cooper GE parents who is opposed to the influx of AAP students in Cooper! Personally, though Cooper may not be beautifully renovated, I'm fine with it as is if it means it would not have an AAP program. It's a great school and the fact that it's not a newly renovated facility has nothing to do with the quality of education being offered there. All we are asking is for this to remain a GE only school; other GE students from say, Longfellow or Kilmer, would be welcome here. We just don't want Cooper to turn into yet another center, making AAP once again, "the norm" (a false normal, if ever there was one).

It sounds friendly to say that GenEd kids would be "welcome" at Cooper, as if you were throwing an open house, but in practice I fear that means that Cooper/Langley will want to cherry-pick single-family neighborhoods from Kilmer/Marshall and Longfellow/McLean for reassignment to Cooper/Langley, so you can maintain the GenEd enrollment at Cooper and justify FCPS's plans to expand Langley's capacity to 2100 students (even though its enrollment has been declining). The past 30 years of boundary changes in FCPS suggest that Langley parents always get what they want, as evidenced by Langley's exclusion from the South Lakes boundary study in 2008 when other schools like Madison and Oakton were included. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, happy to hear it.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you about facilities not being the most important reflection of quality, but you chimed in to agree with a poster who was voicing similar antagonism to AAP but advocating for the opposite of the outcome you actually want. That's the disconnect I was trying to point out. That prior poster wants the AAP students to leave Longfellow and come to Cooper, while you don't want them at Cooper.

I think it's interesting that you so unabashedly oppose your child attending school with anyone in aap. Why does that make you so uncomfortable? Do you think that's the real world for your child to be insulated from those students? Do you plan to send your child to a HS that does not allow kids to take too many APs or otherwise be allowed to be more accelerated than your child? Is this really good for your child or just about your issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you about facilities not being the most important reflection of quality, but you chimed in to agree with a poster who was voicing similar antagonism to AAP but advocating for the opposite of the outcome you actually want. That's the disconnect I was trying to point out. That prior poster wants the AAP students to leave Longfellow and come to Cooper, while you don't want them at Cooper.

I think it's interesting that you so unabashedly oppose your child attending school with anyone in aap. Why does that make you so uncomfortable? Do you think that's the real world for your child to be insulated from those students? Do you plan to send your child to a HS that does not allow kids to take too many APs or otherwise be allowed to be more accelerated than your child? Is this really good for your child or just about your issues?

This post was meant as a reply to the poster who said S/he is a cooper parent who would welcome GE kids (only) at cooper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think you're confusing the above arguments and/or posters... Not only do I not have a child at Longfellow, I am one of the many Cooper GE parents who is opposed to the influx of AAP students in Cooper! Personally, though Cooper may not be beautifully renovated, I'm fine with it as is if it means it would not have an AAP program. It's a great school and the fact that it's not a newly renovated facility has nothing to do with the quality of education being offered there. All we are asking is for this to remain a GE only school; other GE students from say, Longfellow or Kilmer, would be welcome here. We just don't want Cooper to turn into yet another center, making AAP once again, "the norm" (a false normal, if ever there was one).

It sounds friendly to say that GenEd kids would be "welcome" at Cooper, as if you were throwing an open house, but in practice I fear that means that Cooper/Langley will want to cherry-pick single-family neighborhoods from Kilmer/Marshall and Longfellow/McLean for reassignment to Cooper/Langley, so you can maintain the GenEd enrollment at Cooper and justify FCPS's plans to expand Langley's capacity to 2100 students (even though its enrollment has been declining). The past 30 years of boundary changes in FCPS suggest that Langley parents always get what they want, as evidenced by Langley's exclusion from the South Lakes boundary study in 2008 when other schools like Madison and Oakton were included. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, happy to hear it.

PP here and I agree with what you're saying. I'm also a Langley parent and the Langley boundaries have been so off for so long, they are absolutely due to be realigned. There are kids at Langley who live about three minutes from Herndon HS and yet are assigned to Langley. My child is very happy at Langley, but I would have been just fine had the boundaries changed in 2008, putting us in the South Lakes or Herndon district. It certainly would have been a lot closer. My main concern right now though is keeping Cooper free of AAP.

[Anonymous]

By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.