Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:20 In the 90's when AAP was smaller, classrooms were very crowded and segregated between classrooms with all lower students, GT classrooms, and combination classes of average/independent workers across two grade levels. Is this what you want to go back to?

Yes I think in some ways this was a better alternative.

Anonymous wrote:21:20 In the 90's when AAP was smaller, classrooms were very crowded and segregated between classrooms with all lower students, GT classrooms, and combination classes of average/independent workers across two grade levels. Is this what you want to go back to?

Anonymous wrote:21:20 In the 90's when AAP was smaller, classrooms were very crowded and segregated between classrooms with all lower students, GT classrooms, and combination classes of average/independent workers across two grade levels. Is this what you want to go back to?

Anonymous wrote:Teachers by 1/3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people posting about AAP kids coming back to general ed interested in the general ed curriculum being changed or just the AAP kids getting a lower curriculum and being an influence to the general ed kids? I think these people should really decide what they're really pushing for since it doesn't seem like AAP costs will get much lighter with any change.

I'm a little confused by what you're asking here, but it seems that PPs are saying if AAP [b]drastically cut the number of kids who qualify, limiting them to only the highly gifted, then costs for the program would also be cut. In addition, the Gen Ed classes would not continue to be depleted of avg/above avg. students who don't need a special, segregated environment. So it would be a win-win for both the Gen Ed population and the "highly gifted" population[/b].

Anonymous wrote:Are people posting about AAP kids coming back to general ed interested in the general ed curriculum being changed or just the AAP kids getting a lower curriculum and being an influence to the general ed kids? I think these people should really decide what they're really pushing for since it doesn't seem like AAP costs will get much lighter with any change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I'd cut out Level IV centers and just implement the advanced curriculum across the board. Keep the Sp. Ed. instructors to help those that can't keep up.

This gets rid of the expense of bussing, applications, the committees that go through all of the applications and the cost of testing in both 1st and 2nd grade plus the make up days for getting into the program while improving the quality of education for all FCPS students.

2) I'd also cut out many of the admin. paper pushing positions.

3) Also, change the school year to a modified calendar with multi-tracking. Several studies have shown that it is more cost effective to multi track with modified calendar year when school capacity is too high. Cheaper than modulars, additions, and new schools which require more staff and a it's a better use of existing facilities. Bonus, no summer learning loss.

Regarding #1: You do realize that children on the high end of the special ed spectrum are just as needy as the children on the lower end, right? I have one of the high end kids who is need of specialized instructions to meet her intellectual needs. She's very Sheldon-like so keeping her in regular classes is very stressful and unfair to her.

Children who have special needs, at either end of the spectrum, should have special services available to them. Do the masses of kids in today's AAP have special needs? Not on your life. AAP needs a huge revamp to service only those students who have a clear and compelling need for separate instruction. The program as it is currently run is a joke and a disgrace, for both the highly gifted learners and the smart Gen Ed kids whose classes are being depleted.

pp. I can't argue with this, but I would hate for my daughter to be put back into a regular ed class where it's not productive or healthy for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I'd cut out Level IV centers and just implement the advanced curriculum across the board. Keep the Sp. Ed. instructors to help those that can't keep up.

This gets rid of the expense of bussing, applications, the committees that go through all of the applications and the cost of testing in both 1st and 2nd grade plus the make up days for getting into the program while improving the quality of education for all FCPS students.

2) I'd also cut out many of the admin. paper pushing positions.

3) Also, change the school year to a modified calendar with multi-tracking. Several studies have shown that it is more cost effective to multi track with modified calendar year when school capacity is too high. Cheaper than modulars, additions, and new schools which require more staff and a it's a better use of existing facilities. Bonus, no summer learning loss.

Regarding #1: You do realize that children on the high end of the special ed spectrum are just as needy as the children on the lower end, right? I have one of the high end kids who is need of specialized instructions to meet her intellectual needs. She's very Sheldon-like so keeping her in regular classes is very stressful and unfair to her.

Children who have special needs, at either end of the spectrum, should have special services available to them. Do the masses of kids in today's AAP have special needs? Not on your life. AAP needs a huge revamp to service only those students who have a clear and compelling need for separate instruction. The program as it is currently run is a joke and a disgrace, for both the highly gifted learners and the smart Gen Ed kids whose classes are being depleted.

Nonschool-Based Positions
• Technical/Support: Include accountants, financial analysts, personnel analysts, management analysts, computer programmers and analysts, professional engineers, and architects.

• Management: Include directors, coordinators, senior analysts, department administrators and supervisors, special assistants, executive assistants, and area administrators.

• Educational Specialists: Examples include curriculum specialists, program specialists, nonschool-based social workers, psychologists, and psychometrists.

• Clerical: Include nonschool-based clerical staff.

• Custodial/Maintenance: Include nonschool-based custodial, maintenance, print shop, and warehouse employees.

Anonymous wrote:But, the question is: what is "non-school"? And, are some "non school" classified as school based? I think they are.