Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not need to "get mad". You clearly have a child in an AAP center that gets bussed and you don't want that to change. That's a pretty normal thought process but the school system has to think of all kids, not just yours.

What you want is not want is best for the entire school system, period. While AAP centers and bussing have been great perks, when there needs to be a budget realignment perks get put on the chopping block.

You are missing PP's point. Perhaps, to you, busing is a 'perk,' but for many families it is the only way that their kids can obtain the services that they need. There are some kids, the top 5% maybe, who really need these services. The people hurt by these cuts are those who can't afford to drive their kids around. So now you're basically just saying that Centers themselves are a 'perk,' or that they're a 'perk' that should only be supplied to wealthy families in FCPS.

I agree with others who say the AAP is bloated, but that's all the more reason to protect the Centers, IMHO. The kids who need AAP really need it. It shouldn't be a program for kinda smart kids with pushy parents. Stop over-identifying the # of kids for this program, and shrink it overall... but don't throw out the whole program. Centers are the basis of the program. Don't make hasty cuts that have long-reaching consequences.

Anonymous wrote:There is not need to "get mad". You clearly have a child in an AAP center that gets bussed and you don't want that to change. That's a pretty normal thought process but the school system has to think of all kids, not just yours.

What you want is not want is best for the entire school system, period. While AAP centers and bussing have been great perks, when there needs to be a budget realignment perks get put on the chopping block.

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

Anonymous wrote: Possibly if they could reduce the size of the program and assure appropriate differentiation, parents might have fewer problems with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have thought the folks on this board would be very, very upset about these recommendations. I certainly am. Now is the time to write letters to Dr. Garza & the School Board mentioning how important the AAP is to our kids, so they know parents support this program. No, it's not perfect by a long shot, but look at the recommendations, and their consequences: (1) cut busing to AAP where there's LLIV -- this hurts working families who can't provide their own transportation, and keeps everybody at their local schools regardless of whether that's best for the child. Stop pretending LLIV is the same as a Center. It's not. Even in wealthier areas, no elementary school has the kind of "critical mass" that Centers have. It's not the same. Perhaps the middle schools in our wealthier areas have "critical mass," but at the elementary level it's just not the case. More to the point, who's hurt by this? The very population who have historically been underrepresented in AAP -- kids from less privileged backgrounds. Rich moms & dads will find a way to get their kid to the Center if their kid needs it. It's the rest of the families who will be screwed. (2) have LLIV everywhere, no centers. That would honestly not be an AAP. The whole philosophy behind FCPS' current AAP is to gather together similar kids so they can support one another. It's the right approach, and it's been used as a model elsewhere; FCPS just did a study on our AAP in 2013, so they know this. Eliminating LLIV is just leaving kids where they are and pretending that we're providing services for them.

As other posters have mentioned, the so-called savings from either of these proposals don't even make sense. You've got to bus kids SOMEWHERE in elementary school... does it make sense that there are massive savings when you shift that bus from one school to another? This screws up all the capital planning the Board has done for years and likely means more trailers.... is that in the "savings?" If you have LLIV everywhere, don't we need more teachers to immediately be trained to educate AAP kids? Isn't that expensive?

Get mad, guys.

This isn't the right forum. Jeff separated out an AAP forum for the naysayers, not the boosters. That's why you're seeing such glee at the idea that FCPS might somehow take a step towards cutting AAP.

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 [b]simply track kids into the appropriate groups.


So easy to say, and people say it all the time on DCUM. If schools just "track kids into the appropriate group for them," what happens if that group is only four kids in the whole grade? Or only 12? Not enough for a class. Oh, yes! Teachers are supposed to "differentiate in the classroom" and keep up with teaching both the four kids who are able to move faster, take in more and understand more complex material -- and at the same time, the same teacher is supposed to meet all the needs of kids who are in the middle and kids who need remedial help as well. All in one package: The teacher who can meet the needs of every single level of learner, simultaneously, daily. But the teacher has to do it without much additional training or help or resources, because, by gosh, we can't afford that.

Pull-outs? Sure. Pull out the top math kids for more advanced math. Maybe, if the school has a teacher who can do that, or if logistics permit. And the kids who could benefit from pull-outs for more advanced work in other topics? Sorry, no such thing, except maybe a higher-level reading group. Or additional assignments that the kid is expected to do on his or her own to "stay challenged" while the teacher of necessity must give most of the focus to the kids who need more help.

That's why the centers work. They create classes with enough students who work at similar levels of understanding so the students can have more challenging work in depth. Just doing "differentiation in the classroom" with one teacher, or a few pull-outs, does not work, especially now that teachers are under so much pressure all year long to bring up overall test scores for the school's sake (and their jobs' sakes).

We were told over and over that keeping our kid at our base school (no level IV available there, then) would be fine as teachers would differentiate their instruction for all kids and meet all needs. Not doable and that's not the teachers' fault -- why do we expect one teacher to be able to work equally well with kids who need remedial help, kids who are doing fine and on level for their grade, and kids who can do more if they're challenged? And going to level IV at every school sounds nice and fair, but in reality, it's going to end up just as the "tracking" people here seem to want, since many schools will lack enough students to create AAP classrooms.