Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^If student capacity increases, buses may very well need to be added to existing routes!

+1

The buses are already full now.

Anonymous wrote:

If you'd truly read this entire thread, you would have seen the multiple posts by people trying to label AAP a special needs program. I'm not "looking for an easy gotcha" at all. But I will absolutely correct those who insist on making AAP out to be something it's not. As for you - you're exhausting.

Just doing my part to clear out some of clutter. If you're still responding to something someone said pages back it's no wonder you're exhausted. And if you want to continue, do us a favor and indicate to whom you are responding, otherwise you look like a crazy person talking to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:^^^If student capacity increases, buses may very well need to be added to existing routes!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by "same curriculum" I mean there are many in gen ed who should have the AAP curriculum. I totally agree with that.

The schools formerly in Cluster 1 all have the AAP curriculum. So this does exist in FCPS.

What schools are in Cluster 1?

If you'd truly read this entire thread, you would have seen the multiple posts by people trying to label AAP a special needs program. I'm not "looking for an easy gotcha" at all. But I will absolutely correct those who insist on making AAP out to be something it's not. As for you - you're exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pointing out inequities in a public school system isn't "crying" about anything. The fact remains that FCPS should (and does) provide special education and programs to children who have special needs. Surely you can't, with a straight face, claim that the vast majority of AAP kids have "special needs"? I dare you to go make that claim on the Special Needs forum and see what kind of response you get from those parents.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that? Again, you or those like you seem determined to equate AAP with what is formally known as "special needs", or at least to get others to make such a connection. You're the one struggling to comprehend how AAP is able to exist. Some have attempted to draw loose analogies to other programs and are pounced upon in the manner you are doing now. In the end, it's not my or any AAP parent's job to explain it to you. You're hopeless. And yes, cherry picking programs to complain about as inequitable counts as crying in my book.

different PP here.

It isn't cherry picking when you are in a forum titled Advanced Academic Programs and the titled of the thread "New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers. There was a similar thread in VA Public schools that discussed the other programs on the chopping block.

No one said PP was being irrelevant or off topic. The cherry picking criticism stands up fine in the context of PP's reasoning.

Nope, sorry - it doesn't. There is a group of parents here trying to equate AAP to a special needs program. Since it clearly is not, it's fair game to criticize and demand reasons for its existence, or at the very least, its poor current implementation. Every taxpayer in FxCo should have a say regarding what programs their tax dollars pay for. I think I speak for many people who feel special needs education should absolutely be funded. However, since AAP doesn't fit that designation, it's questionable at best as to why it has been allowed to grow to such an extent, completely defeating the original purpose of serving kids who are actually gifted and unable to learn in a regular classroom. You seem to be the one who is hopelessly unable to draw these connections.

Nope sorry - it does. All I see is people talking past each other looking for an easy gotcha. You're doing it now. You don't have an argument UNLESS you can say someone equates AAP to untouchable special needs programs. So you latch on to any comment with the word "special" to keep the buzz alive. Pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pointing out inequities in a public school system isn't "crying" about anything. The fact remains that FCPS should (and does) provide special education and programs to children who have special needs. Surely you can't, with a straight face, claim that the vast majority of AAP kids have "special needs"? I dare you to go make that claim on the Special Needs forum and see what kind of response you get from those parents.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that? Again, you or those like you seem determined to equate AAP with what is formally known as "special needs", or at least to get others to make such a connection. You're the one struggling to comprehend how AAP is able to exist. Some have attempted to draw loose analogies to other programs and are pounced upon in the manner you are doing now. In the end, it's not my or any AAP parent's job to explain it to you. You're hopeless. And yes, cherry picking programs to complain about as inequitable counts as crying in my book.

different PP here.

It isn't cherry picking when you are in a forum titled Advanced Academic Programs and the titled of the thread "New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers. There was a similar thread in VA Public schools that discussed the other programs on the chopping block.

No one said PP was being irrelevant or off topic. The cherry picking criticism stands up fine in the context of PP's reasoning.

Nope, sorry - it doesn't. There is a group of parents here trying to equate AAP to a special needs program. Since it clearly is not, it's fair game to criticize and demand reasons for its existence, or at the very least, its poor current implementation. Every taxpayer in FxCo should have a say regarding what programs their tax dollars pay for. I think I speak for many people who feel special needs education should absolutely be funded. However, since AAP doesn't fit that designation, it's questionable at best as to why it has been allowed to grow to such an extent, completely defeating the original purpose of serving kids who are actually gifted and unable to learn in a regular classroom. You seem to be the one who is hopelessly unable to draw these connections.

Anonymous wrote:^^^If student capacity increases, buses may very well need to be added to existing routes!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that the proposal to put level 4 in every ES is just a backdoor way of saying "no more centers."

How would there be any savings if you are putting local level 4 classes in every ES and still keeping all the existing centers? Wouldn't that be more expensive???? Unless you are actually closing the centers -----> thereby saving the costs of busing and perhaps saving the costs of selecting kids for centers. Maybe part of the "savings" is that AARTs and teachers just place kids in local level 4s (no busing, no "in pool" committees)?

That couldn't be, that would just be tracking. I agree, not sure how it saves money and might even cost more (as centers may maximize economies of scale).

AAP as a whole is tracking! It's one big tracking program, so they might as well end it and simply track kids into the appropriate group for them in each subject.

I'm the PP, I think tracking was found to be illegal

You are living in a bucket if you really believe it is not tracking. It has become the PC way to track kids starting in K. Open your eyes LaLa. Its tracking gone wild. In public education I believe it is grounds for a lawsuit if your up for the fight of the crazy entitled parents. AAP is no different than the advanced track classes of my school aged years. They even identify Young Scholars (low income, disadvantaged, at risk) so it appears inclusive. It is all BD.It is tracking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by "same curriculum" I mean there are many in gen ed who should have the AAP curriculum. I totally agree with that.

The schools formerly in Cluster 1 all have the AAP curriculum. So this does exist in FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

There should not be bussing. Parents should be responsible for transportation just like they are for Immersion programs.

In fact, if you choose to send your child to a center, language immersion, or any school beside your assigned school you should pay a bus fee for busing your student(s). This would generate a little cash

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pointing out inequities in a public school system isn't "crying" about anything. The fact remains that FCPS should (and does) provide special education and programs to children who have special needs. Surely you can't, with a straight face, claim that the vast majority of AAP kids have "special needs"? I dare you to go make that claim on the Special Needs forum and see what kind of response you get from those parents.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that? Again, you or those like you seem determined to equate AAP with what is formally known as "special needs", or at least to get others to make such a connection. You're the one struggling to comprehend how AAP is able to exist. Some have attempted to draw loose analogies to other programs and are pounced upon in the manner you are doing now. In the end, it's not my or any AAP parent's job to explain it to you. You're hopeless. And yes, cherry picking programs to complain about as inequitable counts as crying in my book.

different PP here.

It isn't cherry picking when you are in a forum titled Advanced Academic Programs and the titled of the thread "New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers. There was a similar thread in VA Public schools that discussed the other programs on the chopping block.

No one said PP was being irrelevant or off topic. The cherry picking criticism stands up fine in the context of PP's reasoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than the cost of transportation which is about $1 million, I just don't see why there is so much hate for AAP programs.

The $1.2 million cost savings of eliminating transportation to Level IV Centers does not take into account the increased transportation costs of busing kids to their base schools for Local Level IV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that the proposal to put level 4 in every ES is just a backdoor way of saying "no more centers."

How would there be any savings if you are putting local level 4 classes in every ES and still keeping all the existing centers? Wouldn't that be more expensive???? Unless you are actually closing the centers -----> thereby saving the costs of busing and perhaps saving the costs of selecting kids for centers. Maybe part of the "savings" is that AARTs and teachers just place kids in local level 4s (no busing, no "in pool" committees)?

That couldn't be, that would just be tracking. I agree, not sure how it saves money and might even cost more (as centers may maximize economies of scale).

AAP as a whole is tracking! It's one big tracking program, so they might as well end it and simply track kids into the appropriate group for them in each subject.

I'm the PP, I think tracking was found to be illegal