Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not a single SB member has ever suggested eliminating centers, despite the success of LLIV.

http://vienna.patch.com/articles/2013-pat-hynes-goals-for-fairfax-schools

Pat Hynes
8:54 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Though it's been difficult, and will continue to challenge us, I'm pleased that the school system has begun to reform Advanced Academics. Relieving overcrowding at AAP centers is one important goal, as part of an overall effort to better align facilities and instruction. My hope is that we are headed away from centers and toward a goal of meeting every child's needs in their own neighborhood schools.

The creation of centers for "advanced" learners probably made sense years ago, but there have been unintended consequences. We know better now how to meet individual student needs. We know that good curriculum is curriculum that challenges every learner and provides teachers with built-in opportunities for differentiation.

The transition from the current centers to a more decentralized approach will not happen overnight, and may not be appropriate everywhere. But to the extent that we are providing more families the opportunity to remain at their neighborhood schools, rather than forcing them to make difficult choices between programs, I think we will be on the right track.[/b]

11:00 here. I think this is consistent with my prior observation. In FCPS parlance, the next school year is "overnight."

So "not overnight" could be 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not a single SB member has ever suggested eliminating centers, despite the success of LLIV.

http://vienna.patch.com/articles/2013-pat-hynes-goals-for-fairfax-schools

Pat Hynes
8:54 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Though it's been difficult, and will continue to challenge us, I'm pleased that the school system has begun to reform Advanced Academics. Relieving overcrowding at AAP centers is one important goal, as part of an overall effort to better align facilities and instruction. My hope is that we are headed away from centers and toward a goal of meeting every child's needs in their own neighborhood schools.

The creation of centers for "advanced" learners probably made sense years ago, but there have been unintended consequences. We know better now how to meet individual student needs. We know that good curriculum is curriculum that challenges every learner and provides teachers with built-in opportunities for differentiation.

[b]The transition from the current centers to a more decentralized approach will not happen overnight, and may not be appropriate everywhere. But to the extent that we are providing more families the opportunity to remain at their neighborhood schools, rather than forcing them to make difficult choices between programs, I think we will be on the right track.[/b]

11:00 here. I think this is consistent with my prior observation. In FCPS parlance, the next school year is "overnight."

Anonymous wrote:
Not a single SB member has ever suggested eliminating centers, despite the success of LLIV.

http://vienna.patch.com/articles/2013-pat-hynes-goals-for-fairfax-schools

Pat Hynes
8:54 pm on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Though it's been difficult, and will continue to challenge us, I'm pleased that the school system has begun to reform Advanced Academics. Relieving overcrowding at AAP centers is one important goal, as part of an overall effort to better align facilities and instruction. My hope is that we are headed away from centers and toward a goal of meeting every child's needs in their own neighborhood schools.

The creation of centers for "advanced" learners probably made sense years ago, but there have been unintended consequences. We know better now how to meet individual student needs. We know that good curriculum is curriculum that challenges every learner and provides teachers with built-in opportunities for differentiation.

The transition from the current centers to a more decentralized approach will not happen overnight, and may not be appropriate everywhere. But to the extent that we are providing more families the opportunity to remain at their neighborhood schools, rather than forcing them to make difficult choices between programs, I think we will be on the right track.

Anonymous wrote:Why has this all of the sudden become the Principal's fault? We are EXTREMELY overcrowded. If we weren't going into a renovation, I know grandfathering would have been fine, but the reality is, we can't go into a renovation with 1,000 students, period. Our student's safety (Cluster 1 AND 2) is a priority. The teachers and principal have spoken, yes, and they suggested that students need to be removed. They are in it, working it, living it. If they say it's not feasible to grandfather, then we're in an unfortunate situation. No plan has been great. I wish the SB could have come up with a better plan to grandfather Cluster 2, but hasn't.

I wouldn't paint the opinions of the faculty with too broad of a brush. Perhaps you are unaware, but there are faculty members who support grandfathering. Also, if you read the posts above, the poster says she does NOT blame the principal.

Anonymous wrote:
The McLean pyramid teachers have all already been trained in the AAP curriculum.

It would make sense to use the McLean pyramid as a model for Local Level IV at every school. Then no AAP Center would be needed at Haycock.

At the work session, several School Board members urged using Haycock as a model for the rest of the County. Therefore, this would be an opportunity to do so.

The general thrust of recent discussions has been to slow down, reflect on the current AAP model, and only make changes now that are necessary to address the severe overcrowding at a small number of schools. In a few years, what you suggest may come to pass, but I don't see it happening until FCPS has gained more experience with the Local Level IV programs within Cluster 1.

The McLean pyramid teachers have all already been trained in the AAP curriculum.

It would make sense to use the McLean pyramid as a model for Local Level IV at every school. Then no AAP Center would be needed at Haycock.

At the work session, several School Board members urged using Haycock as a model for the rest of the County. Therefore, this would be an opportunity to do so.

Not a single SB member has ever suggested eliminating centers, despite the success of LLIV. This is for good reason. Think about the expansion of AAP from 5% to 17% of the student population. Were centers designed for 17% of the total student population? No. They were designed for kids who are not well suited to the average classroom. "Differentiated" education within the gen. ed. classroom will, in fact, be harmful to these kids. But the population I'm talking about isn't 17% of FCPS.

That being said, what FCPS (and others) have learned about gifted education is extremely useful for a much broader set of students. So FCPS is trying to learn from its experiences, by both expanding AAP and also by "infusing" gifted education into all classrooms. This has started in the McLean pyramid. The language being used is "infusion," though... it doesn't mean that gifted education is right for all children, just that certain techniques and curricular changes can be helpful for a broader population.

LLIV provides a great resource for many kids who can benefit from gifted education but who would like to stay with their neighborhood friends. It's a "win, win." But that doesn't mean it's right for all kids. That top 5% (or whatever the right percentage is) may still not be well-served. First of all, some of that top 5% might live in an area that doesn't have enough "critical mass" to offer a robust LLIV. But even if those kids happen to live in an area where there are lots of other bright kids, they can end up being ill-served at a LLIV. They need the challenge of a broader peer group learning at their level, not just spending their elementary and middle school years as a "big fish in a small pond." For these kids, centers still serve the same vital function that they always have.

In McLean, the schools where LLIV was established first showed a huge drop in the numbers heading to centers... but the numbers are not zero. FCPS is offering centers as a choice because they believe strongly in centers. If I had to guess, I would think that FCPS hopes that the expansion of LLIV will make centers like Haycock more viable -- not less -- because the kids who continue to attend the center will probably be that top 5%. That number is much more manageable. In the meantime, a larger group of kids (like 17%) will benefit from gifted education, and as the curriculum is "infused" elsewhere, in fact the benefits of gifted education go even further.

Of course, the fact that all of this has happened gradually means that Haycock is dealing with a hugely overcrowded school, in part because they attract the top 17%, not the top 5%. I don't mean to minimize the pain of parents (esp. Cluster 2 parents who are obviously distraught). I do think that, long term, FCPS is making the right moves. But in the short term, this is really really painful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has this all of the sudden become the Principal's fault? We are EXTREMELY overcrowded. If we weren't going into a renovation, I know grandfathering would have been fine, but the reality is, we can't go into a renovation with 1,000 students, period. Our student's safety (Cluster 1 AND 2) is a priority. The teachers and principal have spoken, yes, and they suggested that students need to be removed. They are in it, working it, living it. If they say it's not feasible to grandfather, then we're in an unfortunate situation. No plan has been great. I wish the SB could have come up with a better plan to grandfather Cluster 2, but hasn't.

I agree. That's why the AAP Center should be closed altogether. Send all the kids back except for the Haycock base school kids.

Not going to happen any time soon. If Chesterbrook, FS and Timber Lane all have Local Level IV next year, not that many AAP kids from those schools will opt for Haycock in any event (there might be more from FS for the first couple of years that FS has LLIV), and FCPS isn't yet prepared to tell AAP parents that their kids don't have a center option.

The McLean pyramid teachers have all already been trained in the AAP curriculum.

It would make sense to use the McLean pyramid as a model for Local Level IV at every school. Then no AAP Center would be needed at Haycock.

At the work session, several School Board members urged using Haycock as a model for the rest of the County. Therefore, this would be an opportunity to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has this all of the sudden become the Principal's fault? We are EXTREMELY overcrowded. If we weren't going into a renovation, I know grandfathering would have been fine, but the reality is, we can't go into a renovation with 1,000 students, period. Our student's safety (Cluster 1 AND 2) is a priority. The teachers and principal have spoken, yes, and they suggested that students need to be removed. They are in it, working it, living it. If they say it's not feasible to grandfather, then we're in an unfortunate situation. No plan has been great. I wish the SB could have come up with a better plan to grandfather Cluster 2, but hasn't.

I agree. That's why the AAP Center should be closed altogether. Send all the kids back except for the Haycock base school kids.

Not going to happen any time soon. If Chesterbrook, FS and Timber Lane all have Local Level IV next year, not that many AAP kids from those schools will opt for Haycock in any event (there might be more from FS for the first couple of years that FS has LLIV), and FCPS isn't yet prepared to tell AAP parents that their kids don't have a center option.

Anonymous wrote:Why has this all of the sudden become the Principal's fault? We are EXTREMELY overcrowded. If we weren't going into a renovation, I know grandfathering would have been fine, but the reality is, we can't go into a renovation with 1,000 students, period. Our student's safety (Cluster 1 AND 2) is a priority. The teachers and principal have spoken, yes, and they suggested that students need to be removed. They are in it, working it, living it. If they say it's not feasible to grandfather, then we're in an unfortunate situation. No plan has been great. I wish the SB could have come up with a better plan to grandfather Cluster 2, but hasn't.

I agree. That's why the AAP Center should be closed altogether. Send all the kids back except for the Haycock base school kids.

Why has this all of the sudden become the Principal's fault? We are EXTREMELY overcrowded. If we weren't going into a renovation, I know grandfathering would have been fine, but the reality is, we can't go into a renovation with 1,000 students, period. Our student's safety (Cluster 1 AND 2) is a priority. The teachers and principal have spoken, yes, and they suggested that students need to be removed. They are in it, working it, living it. If they say it's not feasible to grandfather, then we're in an unfortunate situation. No plan has been great. I wish the SB could have come up with a better plan to grandfather Cluster 2, but hasn't.

PP here again. I'm not blaming Kelly. I think she did what she thought was best. I'm just really sad about the whole thing.

PP here. To be honest, if the principal is against grandfathering, she should have just said so in the first place. I think it would have been easier for people and the nastiness probably wouldn't have gone on for so long. I think people felt like our kids were a valued part of the community and that most, except a small, vocal group, wanted them to stay. If we had known at the beginning that wasn't true, it may not have been worth fighting for.

Anonymous wrote:Why one earth would anyone object to the School Board seeing the current conditions at Haycock first hand? It's the type of thing they should do more often.

I don't think people would object if it was done in an objective manner. It was not. There were parents from one "side" and the principal there. The other "side" was unrepresented -- even allowed to be there to listen. Maybe the principal didn't take an official stand, but by her actions, she has shown the board where she is. That's fine. She can and probably should have an opinion about what happens in her own school. I'm sure it's upsetting to those parents who she told that she would fight for their children to stay (I am not one of them, so I'm just going by what others say as to whether she said that).

Anonymous wrote:Louise Archer's principal sent out a heartfelt email reassuring the parents that she will ensure all children are grandfathered. Haycock's principal sent out an email stating that she hopes the school can re-unite after the decisions have been made.

That says it all.

Yep, different schools, different circumstances. Archer is not as overcrowded as Haycock today and FCPS is projecting Archer will be under capacity in a few years, even without any changes in the AAP assignments. Makes it easier for the Archer principal to take credit for the more liberal grandfathering.