To the final poster in this quote,

Actually, we aren't outraged by the idea of two classes worth of kids because most of us thing that would be an ideal grouping of students to spend the core classes with, coupled with mixing grade wide for specials, recess and clubs.

Having two classes of around 60-70 kids total is very different from one class of maybe a dozen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because parents choose to be cordial doesn't mean the school situation is healthy

Exactly. Most of the parents saying their school is just fine, has no problems with AAP/GE, etc. are, in fact, AAP parents. Of course they don't see the problems! And, as PP says, parents are generally going to be cordial and polite in person. You're probably never going to hear anything negative from a parent at your school if they feel what they have to say is going to be received negatively. That's why it was very interesting to read the comments on the FCPS message board, when they opened it up for discussion. Many parents were upset over centers and the way AAP is administered, and spoke freely in those comments - because it was anonymous.

I think the FCPS' User Voice suggestion of assigning some neighborhood schools to be all AAP is a good suggestion. There are some parts of the county where schools are located in close proximity to one another. Just take entire schools in various locations across the county and make them all AAP. There would be no need for Advanced Academic Resource Teachers in the base schools, either.

I don't think that is a bad idea.

HOWEVER there are going to be many EXTREMELY unhappy base school parents who are pleased with their school and happy to be able to have, for example, one kid in GE and a sibling in AAP, who are going to be furious when they are going to get reassigned to a different school so there school can be turned into a center only school.

I would bet money that there are far more people who would be upset by this and that there are many more people who would prefer the status quo over such an idea.

That is a can of worms fcps does not want to open.

Maybe though they could pilot it with one of the schools that dcum says flier in this thread who have is nothing but problems...perhaps Louise Archer.

Turn that school into a 3-6 AAP only magnet and reassign all the other kids to neighboring schools and see how it goes.

LA gen ed/anti AAP parent posting here, what say you? Could you get behind such an idea?

AAP parent, and I like that DC goes to school with a mix of kids. She doesn't need all AAP peers (although she does need enough for at least 2 classes, which almost no base schools have). Also, this seems like you are setting up a TJ situation, with parents griping about kids having access to an elite super school and get busing there. But, there are certainly GE parents earlier in this thread who said they would welcome redistricting if it meant their kids didn't have to go to the same school as AAP kids. So presumably, they would nOT mind if there kids were sent to a different school so the local Center could become all AAP.

PPs -- you raise good points.

I like the idea of a pilot "all AAP" school.

I seem to recall Greenbriar West did a survey of parents prior to the Poplar Tree change. Maybe survey the Louise Archer parents and ask for their feedback?

If PPs are as unhappy with having their kids with AAP kids as they say, they should jump at the chance to send their kids somewhere else. Problem solved (I suspect not. I'm sure GE parents would hate this solution too).

To my knowledge, no one has said they are unhappy with having AAP kids at their school. The problem arises when AAP kids become the majority, such as at several center schools, and the GE kids are now the minority, going through years with the same peers. It's interesting that AAP parents cry foul when their kids don't have a "peer group," but it's perfectly ok in their book for the GE kids to be stuck with the same classmates year after year.

Having LLIV in every base school would ensure there is not a huge block of AAP kids at one school (centers). They would be dispersed among all the base schools. I'm not sure why some of you are trying to make this so difficult. It's a much simpler solution than the current one of having multiple schools feed into centers, and providing busing from all of those schools (for free, no less).

Wouldn't that likely give AAP students exactly one small class of kids they spend 4 years with? How is that better?

I believe the point is that none of the AAP parents seem to care when there's a situation in which there is one, maybe two, classes of GE students. But when it's the reverse - i.e. a very small group of AAP students - then their parents are outraged. It's more than a little hypocritical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, GBW is one of the schools that posters are saying is a toxic environment. The extreme overcrowding combined with the imbalance of aap to ge classes being 3:1 creates that.

We'll see if the new center makes much difference-the rumor is that we're going to be around 200 kids over capacity still.

But that sounds like a GBW specific problem (and 260+ kids over capacity is awful). Not a systemic AAP problem.

To be clear, I said I wasn't opposed to centers. The way ours has evolved is horrible.

But I do think it would be nice if people would acknowledge that certain center schools have some true issues to be addressed, not just say "well, my school isn't like that" and act like we're all crazy to be upset with this system.

AAP parents on this thread and many other threads have repeatedly said that...over and over. If I wasn't onmy phone I would start quoting them.

They did not start with the repeated "not at my school" until one poster repeatedly started saying it was a problem at every single center couty wide, that the AAP parents (in schoolsfar away from hers) and actually aome GE parents too, were wrong, misguided and were choosing not to see this is a terrible problem across the county

When someone goes all crazy irrational like that argumentative poster, it puts people on the defensive.

When someone is making everything us against them and refuses to be rational (such as acknowleging this is a vast and diverse county and what is an issue in one pyramid might not be a problem in another pyramid or even schools within a pyramid) it turns others against your cause.

She is doing none of you any favors.

Anonymous wrote:Arlington may diverse, but it is nearly all high SES, highly educated parents (and if it's not, please point out where-- I'd love to be able to afford a house that close in). In FCPS, you have McLean and Vienna on one hand and Bailey's and Herndon (the Dogwood ES part, not the Franklin Farm part) on the other. What works in McLean in terms of LLIV will not work at Baileys and Dogwood. And if anyone doesn't need resources diverted from Gen Ed to create a special program for a small handfull of kids, it's Baileys and Dogwood.


South Arlington is not all high SES.

I agree Baileys and Dogwood don't need to divert funds to a special program for a handful of kids, but those handfuls of kids should go to a center.

North Arlington is not diverse at all. Almost no blacks or hispanics, a tiny smattering of asians, and mostly all white, upper class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, GBW is one of the schools that posters are saying is a toxic environment. The extreme overcrowding combined with the imbalance of aap to ge classes being 3:1 creates that.

We'll see if the new center makes much difference-the rumor is that we're going to be around 200 kids over capacity still.

But that sounds like a GBW specific problem (and 260+ kids over capacity is awful). Not a systemic AAP problem.

To be clear, I said I wasn't opposed to centers. The way ours has evolved is horrible.

But I do think it would be nice if people would acknowledge that certain center schools have some true issues to be addressed, not just say "well, my school isn't like that" and act like we're all crazy to be upset with this system.

But the way some LLIVs evolved is horrible too. The politics of principal placement got so ugly one year in DDs school, that it was stopped altogether. The next year 14 kids qualified, and no one was principal placed. Which meant that the AAP class had 14 kids and the Gen Ed classes were at 32+. The next year (DDs year) 30 kids qualified and it looked like things were going to work out. Except 2 years later kids have moved in or qualified in, and DDs class next year is slated to be 37. So to recap, first just about everyone was pissed about the principal placement process (and 3 years out, they still are), then the Gen Ed parents were up in arms about the class size disparity (and still are), and then the AAP parents were pissed about an unworkably large class (I certainly am, especially since DD has ADD). LLIV can also screw over AAP and Gen Ed kids alike and create a toxic environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't even get me started on that sham of a survey that they did during the GBW/poplar tree process.

I personally don't hate centers. But the overcrowding the center was creating was outrageous. And poplar tree was under enrolled. A redistrict of some sort needed to happen. Sending the poplar tree kids back to their base school was the most logical solution. My personal opinion was that they shouldn't have involved the Brookfield children or cub run (?) and made poplar tree the center for pt and Colin Powell AAP students.

Yes, redistricts suck. But if your school in your neighborhood was overcrowded by 260+ students, and there was an under enrolled school right down the street, what would you want done?

However, I still don't get why it is horrific to suggest kids be moved, especially in the scenario we were facing. I wanted them to go farther and move the rising 5th graders, as they had done a few years before in a non-center related redistrict. But apparently, that was just a step too far according to the school board. Can't overcrowd poor poplar tree - we'll just leave GBW 150+ kids over.

It's not at all horrific to suggest kids be moved. Especially when they'd simply be moving back to their base school. It's not like they have to all of a sudden go across town to a completely different neighborhood... kind of like when they are attending centers!

It would be pretty bad for my kid, who is one of 3 Center eligible students in the 4th grade at our base school. He finally has a peer group at the Center school and you want to kick him out?

To be clear, I thought we were talking about dismantling centers in which all of the base feeders have more than enough AAP kids to have their own LLIV. The centers that have been named are what we're talking about. Or at least, I am. Those centers need to go.

That makes some sense. And it seems like FCPS is headed there-- starting with the MS phase in. But there are parents in this thread saying completely dismantle every AAP Center in the county now. And that does not work.

Anonymous wrote:the post a while back about the person who bought a cheaper bigger house in another neighborhood because they were already set for their kids to attend the center rubs me the wrong way after the fight we just endured. The only people who have an absolute right to be in any school are the ones in that district (yes, I realize lines do change from time to time). In the overcrowding situation at GBW, the center was the issue, and it needed to be remedied. If you bought in another neighborhood and expected that your kids have a right to attend another school, you are wrong. If it is absolutely critically important that your children must attend one school only, please buy as close to that school as possible within the boundary line.

Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't even get me started on that sham of a survey that they did during the GBW/poplar tree process.

I personally don't hate centers. But the overcrowding the center was creating was outrageous. And poplar tree was under enrolled. A redistrict of some sort needed to happen. Sending the poplar tree kids back to their base school was the most logical solution. My personal opinion was that they shouldn't have involved the Brookfield children or cub run (?) and made poplar tree the center for pt and Colin Powell AAP students.

Yes, redistricts suck. But if your school in your neighborhood was overcrowded by 260+ students, and there was an under enrolled school right down the street, what would you want done?

However, I still don't get why it is horrific to suggest kids be moved, especially in the scenario we were facing. I wanted them to go farther and move the rising 5th graders, as they had done a few years before in a non-center related redistrict. But apparently, that was just a step too far according to the school board. Can't overcrowd poor poplar tree - we'll just leave GBW 150+ kids over.

It's not at all horrific to suggest kids be moved. Especially when they'd simply be moving back to their base school. It's not like they have to all of a sudden go across town to a completely different neighborhood... kind of like when they are attending centers!

It would be pretty bad for my kid, who is one of 3 Center eligible students in the 4th grade at our base school. He finally has a peer group at the Center school and you want to kick him out?

To be clear, I thought we were talking about dismantling centers in which all of the base feeders have more than enough AAP kids to have their own LLIV. The centers that have been named are what we're talking about. Or at least, I am. Those centers need to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, GBW is one of the schools that posters are saying is a toxic environment. The extreme overcrowding combined with the imbalance of aap to ge classes being 3:1 creates that.

We'll see if the new center makes much difference-the rumor is that we're going to be around 200 kids over capacity still.

But that sounds like a GBW specific problem (and 260+ kids over capacity is awful). Not a systemic AAP problem.

To be clear, I said I wasn't opposed to centers. The way ours has evolved is horrible.

But I do think it would be nice if people would acknowledge that certain center schools have some true issues to be addressed, not just say "well, my school isn't like that" and act like we're all crazy to be upset with this system.

Sure. Let's dismantle LA. But let's leave the other alone.

LA is not the only center that needs to be dismantled. Colvin Run, Westbriar, Haycock...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, GBW is one of the schools that posters are saying is a toxic environment. The extreme overcrowding combined with the imbalance of aap to ge classes being 3:1 creates that.

We'll see if the new center makes much difference-the rumor is that we're going to be around 200 kids over capacity still.

But that sounds like a GBW specific problem (and 260+ kids over capacity is awful). Not a systemic AAP problem.

The ratio problem is also a Colvin Run issue. 4:2 AAP/GE.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think it makes you a horrible person, but I do think it makes you relatively self-centered. Why couldn't the base boundary also be adjusted if AAP is an established program at the school? I'm not saying that's what they should do, but I don't understand the knee jerk reaction that it's your kid's school, not mine. My kid is also zoned for that school and I don't buy into the idea that your child has more of a right to be there than mine. Boundaries change and that means the base or the special program boundaries could change. I'm all for doing what makes the most sense in a particular situation and maybe that's changing the AAP boundary, maybe it's changing the AAP boundary -- depends on the situation. I firmly believe that when boundaries are changed all efforts should be made to keep kids where they are (through grandfathering), whether they be AAP or Gen Ed kids. We've moved a fair amount and I've seen first hand how hard it is for kids to change schools in grades 4-6.

so, you moved your kid to get in right under the 4th grade cutoff for when it is somehow too hard?

OK, it's an established program. That's fabulous. But does it make sense to rezone kids who live right next to the school to keep kids who do not in said program at an already overcrowded school? And I again say to you, 2 schools right down the road who regularly send large cohorts were under enrolled. Both of those schools already had LLIV programs, as well. Resources were already in place to host students and actually have room for them. Why Colin Powell was never brought into this discussion, I will never understand, but it wasn't/

The situation could not continue. If there is a way to alleviate overcrowding by moving children to a school that has extra room, that is what needs to occur. Had a center not been involved, this would have been an absolute no brainer to move some kids around. And yes, it's nice to grandfather kids, but doing so would not have made a DENT in the mess - GBW would have been forced to continue on for several years in a severe overcrowding situation while other schools nearby had vacant space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the post a while back about the person who bought a cheaper bigger house in another neighborhood because they were already set for their kids to attend the center rubs me the wrong way after the fight we just endured. The only people who have an absolute right to be in any school are the ones in that district (yes, I realize lines do change from time to time). In the overcrowding situation at GBW, the center was the issue, and it needed to be remedied. If you bought in another neighborhood and expected that your kids have a right to attend another school, you are wrong. If it is absolutely critically important that your children must attend one school only, please buy as close to that school as possible within the boundary line.

The person IS in the boundary line. They are in the center boundary. Sure, it could change same as a base boundary can change. I'm not sure why you think it's ok for one parent to buy within a specific boundary but not the other. Both are in boundary (different boundary criteria). You seem to think it's your kid's school and her kid is a guest. Guess what. . . It's her kid's school too! Your attitude is part of the problem.

again, if there isn't a problem like we had with overcrowding, that's all well and good. But, thinking logically, if a center school becomes overcrowded, the first segment of students that should be looked at for reassignment are those in the special program that is hosted at that school ESPECIALLY if there are under enrolled schools that have room for them nearby. It's great that it has become their school, but there was a choice made along the way to make a change to where the child attended school. If you think that makes me a horrible person to say this, so be it.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person, but I do think it makes you relatively self-centered. Why couldn't the base boundary also be adjusted if AAP is an established program at the school? I'm not saying that's what they should do, but I don't understand the knee jerk reaction that it's your kid's school, not mine. My kid is also zoned for that school and I don't buy into the idea that your child has more of a right to be there than mine. Boundaries change and that means the base or the special program boundaries could change. I'm all for doing what makes the most sense in a particular situation and maybe that's changing the AAP boundary, maybe it's changing the AAP boundary -- depends on the situation. I firmly believe that when boundaries are changed all efforts should be made to keep kids where they are (through grandfathering), whether they be AAP or Gen Ed kids. We've moved a fair amount and I've seen first hand how hard it is for kids to change schools in grades 4-6.

Oh, and I should add that my child is not at GBW and although I have one kid in AAP, I have another that is not, so I see both sides and am not necessarily sold on the idea of centers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the post a while back about the person who bought a cheaper bigger house in another neighborhood because they were already set for their kids to attend the center rubs me the wrong way after the fight we just endured. The only people who have an absolute right to be in any school are the ones in that district (yes, I realize lines do change from time to time). In the overcrowding situation at GBW, the center was the issue, and it needed to be remedied. If you bought in another neighborhood and expected that your kids have a right to attend another school, you are wrong. If it is absolutely critically important that your children must attend one school only, please buy as close to that school as possible within the boundary line.

The person IS in the boundary line. They are in the center boundary. Sure, it could change same as a base boundary can change. I'm not sure why you think it's ok for one parent to buy within a specific boundary but not the other. Both are in boundary (different boundary criteria). You seem to think it's your kid's school and her kid is a guest. Guess what. . . It's her kid's school too! Your attitude is part of the problem.

again, if there isn't a problem like we had with overcrowding, that's all well and good. But, thinking logically, if a center school becomes overcrowded, the first segment of students that should be looked at for reassignment are those in the special program that is hosted at that school ESPECIALLY if there are under enrolled schools that have room for them nearby. It's great that it has become their school, but there was a choice made along the way to make a change to where the child attended school. If you think that makes me a horrible person to say this, so be it.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person, but I do think it makes you relatively self-centered. Why couldn't the base boundary also be adjusted if AAP is an established program at the school? I'm not saying that's what they should do, but I don't understand the knee jerk reaction that it's your kid's school, not mine. My kid is also zoned for that school and I don't buy into the idea that your child has more of a right to be there than mine. Boundaries change and that means the base or the special program boundaries could change. I'm all for doing what makes the most sense in a particular situation and maybe that's changing the AAP boundary, maybe it's changing the AAP boundary -- depends on the situation. I firmly believe that when boundaries are changed all efforts should be made to keep kids where they are (through grandfathering), whether they be AAP or Gen Ed kids. We've moved a fair amount and I've seen first hand how hard it is for kids to change schools in grades 4-6.

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely agree that Greenbriar W overcrowding was atrocious and it absolutely made sense to alter the feeder system. (I'm not sure if the decision the School Board ultimately arrived at was the best decision, but it was at a minimum an improvement.)

Many of us agree. And, while the teachers are basically under a gag order, they feel the same. We were frankly shocked that the original proposal was to basically made zero change and keep all kids currently enrolled at our school - how the hell does that help anything? So, when they at least changed to include the rising 4th, it was a step in the right direction.

I still fail to understand why schools have so little say in how many out of boundary children are allowed to come to their school. There needs to be a cutoff. They actually had a great opportunity to make some changes to AAP starting with our center and feeder schools, but let's just open a new one and not address the bigger issues, shall we?

As I stated above, in my head, this was a redistrict and should have been treated as such. In a previous one that happened right before we moved here, they had grandfathered only the rising 6th graders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the post a while back about the person who bought a cheaper bigger house in another neighborhood because they were already set for their kids to attend the center rubs me the wrong way after the fight we just endured. The only people who have an absolute right to be in any school are the ones in that district (yes, I realize lines do change from time to time). In the overcrowding situation at GBW, the center was the issue, and it needed to be remedied. If you bought in another neighborhood and expected that your kids have a right to attend another school, you are wrong. If it is absolutely critically important that your children must attend one school only, please buy as close to that school as possible within the boundary line.

The person IS in the boundary line. They are in the center boundary. Sure, it could change same as a base boundary can change. I'm not sure why you think it's ok for one parent to buy within a specific boundary but not the other. Both are in boundary (different boundary criteria). You seem to think it's your kid's school and her kid is a guest. Guess what. . . It's her kid's school too! Your attitude is part of the problem.

again, if there isn't a problem like we had with overcrowding, that's all well and good. But, thinking logically, if a center school becomes overcrowded, the first segment of students that should be looked at for reassignment are those in the special program that is hosted at that school ESPECIALLY if there are under enrolled schools that have room for them nearby. It's great that it has become their school, but there was a choice made along the way to make a change to where the child attended school. If you think that makes me a horrible person to say this, so be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't even get me started on that sham of a survey that they did during the GBW/poplar tree process.

I personally don't hate centers. But the overcrowding the center was creating was outrageous. And poplar tree was under enrolled. A redistrict of some sort needed to happen. Sending the poplar tree kids back to their base school was the most logical solution. My personal opinion was that they shouldn't have involved the Brookfield children or cub run (?) and made poplar tree the center for pt and Colin Powell AAP students.

Yes, redistricts suck. But if your school in your neighborhood was overcrowded by 260+ students, and there was an under enrolled school right down the street, what would you want done?

However, I still don't get why it is horrific to suggest kids be moved, especially in the scenario we were facing. I wanted them to go farther and move the rising 5th graders, as they had done a few years before in a non-center related redistrict. But apparently, that was just a step too far according to the school board. Can't overcrowd poor poplar tree - we'll just leave GBW 150+ kids over.

It's not at all horrific to suggest kids be moved. Especially when they'd simply be moving back to their base school. It's not like they have to all of a sudden go across town to a completely different neighborhood... kind of like when they are attending centers!

It would be pretty bad for my kid, who is one of 3 Center eligible students in the 4th grade at our base school. He finally has a peer group at the Center school and you want to kick him out?

I am the original GBW poster above. You are responding to someone who responded to my post. I'm not sold on the dismantling of all centers, and certainly I can understand the situation where there aren't enough AAP children at your school. My beef was with the severe overcrowding and imbalance created by our bloated center. There were 2 schools sending 25-35 kids per year to our center, and they both are currently underenrolled. Does THAT make sense to you? Would you want to send your child to a severely overcrowded school?

Absolutely agree that Greenbriar W overcrowding was atrocious and it absolutely made sense to alter the feeder system. (I'm not sure if the decision the School Board ultimately arrived at was the best decision, but it was at a minimum an improvement.)