Anyone at the work session?

T. Rees Shapiro
?@TReesShapiro

Talks about #FCPS advanced academic program expansion hitting some snags as board members point out inconsistencies with projection numbers

https://twitter.com/TReesShapiro/status/290935451001434112

Anonymous wrote:But yet the school board is saying the population is going to decrease significantly at Cooper? And, having 400 add'l students won't exceed it's capacity? I don't see how this is possible.

Where are you getting 400 students? That is about the size of the entire AAP program at Longfellow. It is my understainding that only Cooper in bound AAP students would go to Cooper. That is probably about half of the Longfellow program- give or take.

My point about Tyson's is that all schools nearby will feel the increased student load at some point. If Cooper is expected to be below capacity, I would expect boundary changes for Cooper/Langley to take some of the load off of Longfellow/McLean, which in turn may have changesd to take loads off Marshall. This is eventual as the housing has yet to be built and hopefully it wil be more like Arlington and we can have an increase of dual income no children families to help all around.

But yet the school board is saying the population is going to decrease significantly at Cooper? And, having 400 add'l students won't exceed it's capacity? I don't see how this is possible.

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a proposed amendment that would allow Cooper AAP kids to continue to attend Kilmer, but not Longfellow? Don't the AAP kids in the Cooper district currently go to both Kilmer or Longfellow? I thought Longfellow just got expanded so it could continue to accommodate AAP kids in the Cooper district.

Longfellow was not expanded to specifically accommodate the AAP kids in the Cooper district. It was scheduled for a very needed renovation that included expansion to accommodate the current student load - they were able to add, twice, the capacity during the renovation process. However, it is still endanger of being over capacity, if not already. The hallways are packed. The feeder elementary schools are also over capacity and those students will be at Longfellow sooner or later. The whole area was stagnate for a while, but more of the older neighborhoods have turned over and have new families with school aged children.

For example, when we moved here in 1997, there was one child in our neighborhood at the bus stop for elementary school, one for the middle school and one for the high school. Now there are two bus stops and more than a dozen students for the elementary school, 8-10 for the middle school and 10-12 for the hgh school. Our neighborhood is similar to many that have had older citizens leave the area and young families move in.

Longfellow and Cooper will also feel the additional expected increase in Tyson's residents, in addition to Kilmer and others. The elementary schools will too. It is part of the drive to expand Lemon Road and Westgate. If they expect 100,000 more residents, that measn 15,000 more schools children if they have similar statistics to the county.

It maybe postponed now, but I can't see a scenario in the future that does not have Cooper at least accepting its in bound AAP students, if not adding more students. This is true of all the schools that ring Tyson's and those immediately beyond.

Why is there a proposed amendment that would allow Cooper AAP kids to continue to attend Kilmer, but not Longfellow? Don't the AAP kids in the Cooper district currently go to both Kilmer or Longfellow? I thought Longfellow just got expanded so it could continue to accommodate AAP kids in the Cooper district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reviewing the cooper amendment, why would the school board support providing transportation for 8th graders, but not provide transportation for 7th graders? From a policy perspective, that makes no sense. It almost seems outright mean to let some kids get on the bus, while other kids at the same bus stop cannot get on the bus.

My guess would be to discourage families from sending their 7th grade students to Kilmer. If someone is bent on sending their child to Kilmer, they will drive them or arrange a carpool.

And that is how the school board makes public policy? By trying to discourage parents from sending their children to a school by denying them transportation. At my bus stop there are currently 4 children going to Kilmer -- 2 8th graders and 2 7th graders. There are two rising 7th graders. Is ms Strauss suggesting that a bus would pick up the 8th graders but not allow the 7th graders to board? How wasteful for the parents and hurtful to the children. Wouldnt it be better to put the 7th graders at existing bus stops with 8th graders. I Wonder how the board of supervisors will feel about 50-100 students being driven into Tyson's corner?

No. What they are saying is that the bus will not stop just for a 7th grader, but if they are fortunate to have an 8th grader on the stop, the bus will take them.

When I pupil placed my kindergartner to the AAP center that my 3rd grader was attending, I was told that transportation will not be provided. But since there was a bus stop to pick up my 3rd grader (and other kids), my younger one also got transportation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reviewing the cooper amendment, why would the school board support providing transportation for 8th graders, but not provide transportation for 7th graders? From a policy perspective, that makes no sense. It almost seems outright mean to let some kids get on the bus, while other kids at the same bus stop cannot get on the bus.

My guess would be to discourage families from sending their 7th grade students to Kilmer. If someone is bent on sending their child to Kilmer, they will drive them or arrange a carpool.

And that is how the school board makes public policy? By trying to discourage parents from sending their children to a school by denying them transportation. At my bus stop there are currently 4 children going to Kilmer -- 2 8th graders and 2 7th graders. There are two rising 7th graders. Is ms Strauss suggesting that a bus would pick up the 8th graders but not allow the 7th graders to board? How wasteful for the parents and hurtful to the children. Wouldnt it be better to put the 7th graders at existing bus stops with 8th graders. I Wonder how the board of supervisors will feel about 50-100 students being driven into Tyson's corner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to 9:22. can you please tell me if you know that they will still meeting about aap after 1/14. i am concerned about the oakton pyramid and everyone is only focused on haycock.

Patty Reed and Dr. Zuluaga will be at a Waples Mill PTA meeting on Jan 17 at 10:00. There was no specific mention about the AAP "expansion" plan, but I imagine it will be brought up.

Good to know. maybe they can address the temporary solution of keeping the waples mill kids at hunters woods, when they know that they plan to eliminate that center. i've heard they really plan to send the kids to mosby woods.

There may be some students at existing stops for Kilmer with 8th graders, but I don't many

Anonymous wrote:In reviewing the cooper amendment, why would the school board support providing transportation for 8th graders, but not provide transportation for 7th graders? From a policy perspective, that makes no sense. It almost seems outright mean to let some kids get on the bus, while other kids at the same bus stop cannot get on the bus.

My guess would be to discourage families from sending their 7th grade students to Kilmer. If someone is bent on sending their child to Kilmer, they will drive them or arrange a carpool.

Anonymous wrote:to 9:22. can you please tell me if you know that they will still meeting about aap after 1/14. i am concerned about the oakton pyramid and everyone is only focused on haycock.

Patty Reed and Dr. Zuluaga will be at a Waples Mill PTA meeting on Jan 17 at 10:00. There was no specific mention about the AAP "expansion" plan, but I imagine it will be brought up.

to 9:22. can you please tell me if you know that they will still meeting about aap after 1/14. i am concerned about the oakton pyramid and everyone is only focused on haycock.

In reviewing the cooper amendment, why would the school board support providing transportation for 8th graders, but not provide transportation for 7th graders? From a policy perspective, that makes no sense. It almost seems outright mean to let some kids get on the bus, while other kids at the same bus stop cannot get on the bus.

Often times, for something like this, you will see loads of amendments that cover all kinds of slightly different scenarios. The reason for that is, if you get part way through the voting and nothing is passing, and you don't have any back up amendments, you get stuck. I'm sure that's why Reed tossed it all on the table - so that they could run through some viable options with the actual language that will be used at their work session first. That way they have a point to start from, even if it looks like a mess. And as a previous poster said, they may or may not come to a consensus at the work session, but they will have their final amendments in ahead of the meeting on the 24th (and hopefully they will all be posted), and there still might be a variety of options then, if they haven't come to a solid consensus prior to that.

Anonymous wrote:Which members?

Several of them. They spoke about their plans at the end of Thursday's Board meeting.