But it is Longfellow with the enviable math program...

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the changes to MS AAP centers is happening but not being discussed or noticed. Yes, resources may shift from Honors to AAP, but also, resources from the current AAPs will be shifted to the new schools as well. For example, Longfellow and Cooper are already in discussions regarding shifting resources from Longfellow's reputable math program over to Cooper.

Wouldn't those discussions involve Kilmer as well? Some of the Great Falls students go to the AAP center at Kilmer, not Longfellow.

I wonder if all the new middle school programs will be staffed with new teachers or if they will transfer over a few experienced teachers to act as lead teachers in setting up the program.

It makes me nervous to think of the first students being used as guinea pigs, as the staff does trial and error to discover how they want to run the program.

I agree that the changes to MS AAP centers is happening but not being discussed or noticed. Yes, resources may shift from Honors to AAP, but also, resources from the current AAPs will be shifted to the new schools as well. For example, Longfellow and Cooper are already in discussions regarding shifting resources from Longfellow's reputable math program over to Cooper.

And what about the non-AAP students in these middle schools? Isn't it possible that the resources used to teach Honors programs may now be shifted over to the AAP classes. I believe that a teacher only has to be enrolled in one of the instructional programs to be qualified to teach advance academics. If some of the best and brighest teachers limit the number of honors classes they teach, won't that negatively impact the Honors program. I don't think any principal would deny a teacher who wanted to make a change from one program to another.

I had posted much earlier in this discussion and still feel strongly -- there will not be critical mass to have a center at every MS and there will not be critical mass at some of the pyramids to support their own center. These children will be denied the full advantages of a center education. I do not believe the middle school component has any value and it makes no sense given the charge of the original task force. We should keep ms centers as they are so they remain robust and have enough children to support valuable afterschool programs.

I do think pyramid realignment makes a lot of sense for the elementary schools but only if there is enough children to have a robust program. That may come down the line but FCPS should not open centers in those pyramids now.

I do think a new Cluster II elementary center makes a lot of sense. It would have enough children to be a good center and it would directly address overcrowding at Louise Archer and Haycock (one of the reasons for starting a task force in the first place).

What I don't understand with regards to the middle schools is that some of the schools that were underperforming are now more attractive because of the AAP Center there (Luther Jackson comes to mind). Take away the AAP Center, and it goes back to being a mediocre school.

At the MS level, I think FCPS will have serious issues to consider. For example, wasn't Glasgow rebuilt and wasn't Longfellow renovated based on assumptions that there would be large AAP programs there? In addition, programs like Longfellow and Kilmer are very large, so there's no question but that schools like Cooper and Thoreau also could have large AAP centers. But what about other schools like Glasgow and Sandburg? If a sizable chunck of their AAP students get sent back to other schools like Poe, Holmes and Whitman, will there be a sufficient number of AAP students at those schools to support vibrant programs? If not, what would do FCPS do about that and how great is the risk that, at least in the short term, the impact on the schools involved will be negative if parents avoid schools where their kids might only have access to a small AAP program?

The GT/AAP lobby in Fairfax is extraordinarily vocal, and it's virtually impossible that FCPS could ram this through without being forced to come up with answers to some of these questions.

Does anyone have a clear, concise description of the problem FCPS are trying to solve by eliminating center-based AAP at the middle schools? I understand that there are problems with some of the Centers at the elementary schools, and clearly FCPS and the school board needs to work with the parents of those schools to develop a well-thoughout out solution. However, how did middle-school realignment get included in this discussion? I am at a center-based program with approximately 400 students. I have been told that while the school is slightly above capacity, the center is not above capacity. Are we eliminating center-based MS AA programs because some middle schools are overcrowded and FCPS doesn't want to initiate any boundary changes?

I have tried repeatedly to obtain details about how the recommendations to develop a AA program at each middle school were developed. What factors were considered. How many students will be impacted? What alternatives were considered and rejected (and why). What is the potential cost of implementing a new program at every middle school. I can't find anything on the FCPS website, and I have written to FCPS and have been told to go to the public meetings. If FCPS believes that the model they have been following for many years been a failure, surely there must be some emperical or statistical data that was considered in developing the recommendations. (And, if the current system is not working, should we be relying on the same group of people to develop a new model).

In my humble opinion, and only for the realignment of middle schools students, we must be talking about over a thousand students being affected. Not to mention that some schools will be losing hundreds of students and some schools will be gaining 100+ students. Changes of this magnitude will have a huge impact on the character and make-up of the school, not to mention facilities, funding, transportation and student morale. Surely a school system the size of Fairfax County cannot hope to successfully implement a program like this IN 6 MONTHS???

One parent told me that the purpose of MS realignment is so that students can "stay together" from elementary through high school, but i don't understand why this would be a consideration in eliminating a very successful program. And, of course, if my child was not comfortable moving with the rest of her class into a center-based MS, I could choose to send her to the local MS and place her in honors or another program. Should this not be the parent's decision?

I urge everyone who reads this blog to write to the school board, go to meetings, speak with your neighbors and be vocal if you feel passionately about this issue. The school board is an elected body, and we have the right to demand full disclosure and accountability on an issue of this magnitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.

+1 Along the lines of having an AAP Center in a MS for 16 kids.

Isn't the point to increase the number of AAP kids at that center?

How much more can they increase it? 20% of the county is already in AAP.

Is it 20% now? I thought I had read it is 18%.

In any case, there are way too many kids in AAP. They should scale it back so it is the top 5% or so. Then the 6% to 20% (or 18%) can attend Local Level IV at their base school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.

+1 Along the lines of having an AAP Center in a MS for 16 kids.

Isn't the point to increase the number of AAP kids at that center?

How much more can they increase it? 20% of the county is already in AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.

+1 Along the lines of having an AAP Center in a MS for 16 kids.

Isn't the point to increase the number of AAP kids at that center?

The point is to expand; that does not mean increase numbers but instead to alleviate overcrowding in a handful of schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.

+1 Along the lines of having an AAP Center in a MS for 16 kids.

Isn't the point to increase the number of AAP kids at that center?

Anonymous wrote:How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.

+1 Along the lines of having an AAP Center in a MS for 16 kids.

How the heck do you have local level IV with 2 kids? That's absurd.