Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I'm the poster you quoted. I'm savvy enough to know who posted the comments(or at least narrow it down to a small group of folks). I vehemently disagree with them, but don't feel the need to call them out publicly on what is supposed to be an anonymous board.

How could you possibly know who is posting out of 180,000 kids in FCPS and their families?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, just don't make it mandatory for those who would prefer the known quantity at Longfellow.

....and are so insecure about their children's intelligence that they fear they can't make it without whatever the heck that "known" quantity is. How absurd. If your child belongs in AAP chances are they're steering their own learning at a higher level anyway.

what hooey!

Oh, kids who are in AAP are supposed to be "steering their own learning"? Our mistake! Some of us actually thought that the school system was supposed to help steer student learning! Apparently we're wrong and the school system is just there to provide roofs over their heads while the kids themselves steer their own learning!

Even AAP kids need to be taught. And I'd question whether this very sudden expansion of "middle school local Level IV' is going to include much, or any, retraining for teachers or moving of teachers who are already trained to teach AAP or experienced in teaching it. But the haters would say that teacher training and experience aren't needed since, after all, our AAP snowflakes are clearly capable of teaching themselves, right? Just hand 'em the curriculum and let them have at it!

Why should money (that doesn't exist in the FCPS budget) continue to be spent on training AAP teachers and expanding LLIV? Are there not many more pressing concerns for FCPS to worry about, such as overcrowded classrooms for [b]all children, and improving the Gen Ed curriculum? [/b] Frankly, if you're that concerned that your snowflake isn't getting what they "need" (ahem), homeschool or go private. This is a public school system with many kids to serve, not just the AAP contingent.

The problem is, certain school board members have publically stated that they would rather have McLean/Great Falls schools overcrowded at the expense of other county schools in "poorer" neighborhoods-we are talking class sizes of 28-30 versus 14 or so-so if you think there is equal access for all in FCPS, you have another think coming...it is not just AAP that is sucking up resources and all animals are equal though some are more equal than others, to quote Orwell...

How does having McLean and Great Falls schools overcrowded come "at the expense of" schools in "poorer" neighborhoods? Seems like some twisted syntax.

This poster has posted similar statements many times. The gist is that the poster believes she is paying very high taxes to live in an expensive area and she gets ripped off because there are Title 1 schools, where the families pay much lower taxes because the property values are lower, yet that have smaller class sizes (presumably because more students are challenged by the stresses of poverty). The poster thinks because she pays "more" (because her house is more expensive), she is entitled to equal (if not smaller?) class sizes. Personally, I'm blown away at the poster's lack of empathy and social responsibility, but her views are her views and she's entitled to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/gop-strategist-a-key-actor-in-fairfax-school-election/2011/10/06/gIQAVMX4hL_story.html

Anonymous wrote:PP, I'm the poster you quoted. I'm savvy enough to know who posted the comments(or at least narrow it down to a small group of folks). I vehemently disagree with them, but don't feel the need to call them out publicly on what is supposed to be an anonymous board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you fear having anything less than the most experienced teachers with the most training is going to keep your AAP child from reaching his/her potential in an area as educated as this one, you've got bigger problems.

I think this has to be the reasonable middle ground. The notion that AAP kids who aren't on that much of a higher plain than most of the other students in these pyramids are going to be woefully underserved unless their teachers receive oodles of specialiazed training, and have already spent years in other AAP centers, seems informed more by a sense of entitlement than by actual pedagogy.

Voice of reason: you'll need to exit this thread. Thanks.

Is someone actually instructing another poster not to comment on an open forum? I'm not the PP, but I completely agree with him/her. IMO, the bolded is the voice of reason.

No. It's called sarcasm. Which, admittedly, is hard to convey here. I agree with the bolded voice of reason too.

Sorry! I realized it was sarcasm right after I posted. It's sometimes hard to read tone here online.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you fear having anything less than the most experienced teachers with the most training is going to keep your AAP child from reaching his/her potential in an area as educated as this one, you've got bigger problems.

I think this has to be the reasonable middle ground. The notion that AAP kids who aren't on that much of a higher plain than most of the other students in these pyramids are going to be woefully underserved unless their teachers receive oodles of specialiazed training, and have already spent years in other AAP centers, seems informed more by a sense of entitlement than by actual pedagogy.

Voice of reason: you'll need to exit this thread. Thanks.

Is someone actually instructing another poster not to comment on an open forum? I'm not the PP, but I completely agree with him/her. IMO, the bolded is the voice of reason.

No. It's called sarcasm. Which, admittedly, is hard to convey here. I agree with the bolded voice of reason too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you fear having anything less than the most experienced teachers with the most training is going to keep your AAP child from reaching his/her potential in an area as educated as this one, you've got bigger problems.

I think this has to be the reasonable middle ground. The notion that AAP kids who aren't on that much of a higher plain than most of the other students in these pyramids are going to be woefully underserved unless their teachers receive oodles of specialiazed training, and have already spent years in other AAP centers, seems informed more by a sense of entitlement than by actual pedagogy.

Voice of reason: you'll need to exit this thread. Thanks.

Is someone actually instructing another poster not to comment on an open forum? I'm not the PP, but I completely agree with him/her. IMO, the bolded is the voice of reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you fear having anything less than the most experienced teachers with the most training is going to keep your AAP child from reaching his/her potential in an area as educated as this one, you've got bigger problems.

I think this has to be the reasonable middle ground. The notion that AAP kids who aren't on that much of a higher plain than most of the other students in these pyramids are going to be woefully underserved unless their teachers receive oodles of specialiazed training, and have already spent years in other AAP centers, seems informed more by a sense of entitlement than by actual pedagogy.

Voice of reason: you'll need to exit this thread. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you fear having anything less than the most experienced teachers with the most training is going to keep your AAP child from reaching his/her potential in an area as educated as this one, you've got bigger problems.

I think this has to be the reasonable middle ground. The notion that AAP kids who aren't on that much of a higher plain than most of the other students in these pyramids are going to be woefully underserved unless their teachers receive oodles of specialiazed training, and have already spent years in other AAP centers, seems informed more by a sense of entitlement than by actual pedagogy.

Anonymous wrote:Further frightening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, just don't make it mandatory for those who would prefer the known quantity at Longfellow.

....and are so insecure about their children's intelligence that they fear they can't make it without whatever the heck that "known" quantity is. How absurd. If your child belongs in AAP chances are they're steering their own learning at a higher level anyway.

what hooey!

Oh, kids who are in AAP are supposed to be "steering their own learning"? Our mistake! Some of us actually thought that the school system was supposed to help steer student learning! Apparently we're wrong and the school system is just there to provide roofs over their heads while the kids themselves steer their own learning!

Even AAP kids need to be taught. And I'd question whether this very sudden expansion of "middle school local Level IV' is going to include much, or any, retraining for teachers or moving of teachers who are already trained to teach AAP or experienced in teaching it. But the haters would say that teacher training and experience aren't needed since, after all, our AAP snowflakes are clearly capable of teaching themselves, right? Just hand 'em the curriculum and let them have at it!

Why should money (that doesn't exist in the FCPS budget) continue to be spent on training AAP teachers and expanding LLIV? Are there not many more pressing concerns for FCPS to worry about, such as overcrowded classrooms for [b]all children, and improving the Gen Ed curriculum? [/b] Frankly, if you're that concerned that your snowflake isn't getting what they "need" (ahem), homeschool or go private. This is a public school system with many kids to serve, not just the AAP contingent.

The problem is, certain school board members have publically stated that they would rather have McLean/Great Falls schools overcrowded at the expense of other county schools in "poorer" neighborhoods-we are talking class sizes of 28-30 versus 14 or so-so if you think there is equal access for all in FCPS, you have another think coming...it is not just AAP that is sucking up resources and all animals are equal though some are more equal than others, to quote Orwell...

How does having McLean and Great Falls schools overcrowded come "at the expense of" schools in "poorer" neighborhoods? Seems like some twisted syntax.

This poster has posted similar statements many times. The gist is that the poster believes she is paying very high taxes to live in an expensive area and she gets ripped off because there are Title 1 schools, where the families pay much lower taxes because the property values are lower, yet that have smaller class sizes (presumably because more students are challenged by the stresses of poverty). The poster thinks because she pays "more" (because her house is more expensive), she is entitled to equal (if not smaller?) class sizes. Personally, I'm blown away at the poster's lack of empathy and social responsibility, but her views are her views and she's entitled to them.