Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any updates?

The Budget Task Force met last week and they walked through the Budget Tool. Scroll down to the August 20 meeting date to see the agenda and materials.

http://www.fcps.edu/news/fy2017/taskforce/meetings.shtml

The savings of cutting centers and keeping at all base schools is not that great (1.7M) - probably because the savings in transportation was eaten up by adding staff at base schools that don't have AAP. As for eliminating transportation for students that have local level IV is was .6M - that is minimal as well. You really need to bark up some other tree to get savings- these are just so incredibly small in the big scheme.

Most of the proposed cuts are small like this. In total they will add up to significant cuts, and if done right they will be evenly distributed to the whole student population. Every population will be effected if the budget deficit is not rectified.

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do cut them or make every school a center/LLIV. This board is just become riddled with the same info about how to get your kid in. All aspects of the program have changed so dramatically even in the 10 years we've had kids in it.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any updates?

The Budget Task Force met last week and they walked through the Budget Tool. Scroll down to the August 20 meeting date to see the agenda and materials.

http://www.fcps.edu/news/fy2017/taskforce/meetings.shtml

The savings of cutting centers and keeping at all base schools is not that great (1.7M) - probably because the savings in transportation was eaten up by adding staff at base schools that don't have AAP. As for eliminating transportation for students that have local level IV is was .6M - that is minimal as well. You really need to bark up some other tree to get savings- these are just so incredibly small in the big scheme.

It's a savings, nonetheless. The only way to find the necessary savings is to cut unnecessary programs - some are more expensive than others, but the cumulative savings is what matters. I find $2.3 million to be quite significant and hope they do follow through with their proposed cuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any updates?

The Budget Task Force met last week and they walked through the Budget Tool. Scroll down to the August 20 meeting date to see the agenda and materials.

http://www.fcps.edu/news/fy2017/taskforce/meetings.shtml

The savings of cutting centers and keeping at all base schools is not that great (1.7M) - probably because the savings in transportation was eaten up by adding staff at base schools that don't have AAP. As for eliminating transportation for students that have local level IV is was .6M - that is minimal as well. You really need to bark up some other tree to get savings- these are just so incredibly small in the big scheme.

I hope they do cut them or make every school a center/LLIV. This board is just become riddled with the same info about how to get your kid in. All aspects of the program have changed so dramatically even in the 10 years we've had kids in it.

Anonymous wrote:Any updates?

The Budget Task Force met last week and they walked through the Budget Tool. Scroll down to the August 20 meeting date to see the agenda and materials.

http://www.fcps.edu/news/fy2017/taskforce/meetings.shtml

Any updates?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: get rid of centers. Period. If you can accommodate those at the lower end of the spectrum and those with LD in an "average" classroom, you can certainly accommodate the highly intelligent.

FWIW, I've known at least two families who had kids with rather serious special needs. They fought to keep those kids in mainstream classes--meanwhile, they were sending their other kids to the GT centers--this was before the GT centers took the "twice exceptional". I couldn't believe the irony of these families--except, the special needs kids had issues that I knew I would have fought had mine had those same issues. However, I still couldn't get over the irony that they expected their 'low" kids to be in my kids' classroom-while their other kids were in the GT center.

If we are going to mainstream the special needs kids at the low end, then we must mainstream those at the upper end.

Bottom line: no need for the centers.

We don't mainstream kids at the extremely low (bottom 2%) of the spectrum. Just like we shouldn't mainstream kids at the very top. Have you ever Been is a standalone special Ed classroom or center? Because you have not idea about what you are blathering on about.

Not the PP, but everyone is well aware that the vast majority of kids in AAP are not "at the very top". That's just a ridiculous remark. There are some kids who could benefit from a GT program. Probably a tiny fraction of those currently in AAP. The rest of those kids should absolutely be in "mainstream" classrooms.

I don't think its a ridiculous remark. Students are not selected for AAP at random. Numbers are high because of the demographics of the area we live in.

The demographics AND the prepping. If they could find a way to thwart the preppers, I suspect we'd be back closer to previous levels.

+100

Anonymous wrote:effort is another word for prep. I don't think aap should only be for those who don't put in the effort and waltz in with innate ability. Effort alone will not get a child into AAP unless they are also somewhat gifted.

I don't believe this for one second and I have a kid in aap. There are kids that are highly intelligent and others that are smart, hard workers. I have one that is innately smart and one that is a hard worker, pleaser. I'd be fine if they limited it to the really smart kids because they actually need special ed. The hard worker kids, like my 2nd doesn't really need it.

effort is another word for prep. I don't think aap should only be for those who don't put in the effort and waltz in with innate ability. Effort alone will not get a child into AAP unless they are also somewhat gifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: get rid of centers. Period. If you can accommodate those at the lower end of the spectrum and those with LD in an "average" classroom, you can certainly accommodate the highly intelligent.

FWIW, I've known at least two families who had kids with rather serious special needs. They fought to keep those kids in mainstream classes--meanwhile, they were sending their other kids to the GT centers--this was before the GT centers took the "twice exceptional". I couldn't believe the irony of these families--except, the special needs kids had issues that I knew I would have fought had mine had those same issues. However, I still couldn't get over the irony that they expected their 'low" kids to be in my kids' classroom-while their other kids were in the GT center.

If we are going to mainstream the special needs kids at the low end, then we must mainstream those at the upper end.

Bottom line: no need for the centers.

We don't mainstream kids at the extremely low (bottom 2%) of the spectrum. Just like we shouldn't mainstream kids at the very top. Have you ever Been is a standalone special Ed classroom or center? Because you have not idea about what you are blathering on about.

Not the PP, but everyone is well aware that the vast majority of kids in AAP are not "at the very top". That's just a ridiculous remark. There are some kids who could benefit from a GT program. Probably a tiny fraction of those currently in AAP. The rest of those kids should absolutely be in "mainstream" classrooms.

I don't think its a ridiculous remark. Students are not selected for AAP at random. Numbers are high because of the demographics of the area we live in.

The demographics AND the prepping. If they could find a way to thwart the preppers, I suspect we'd be back closer to previous levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: get rid of centers. Period. If you can accommodate those at the lower end of the spectrum and those with LD in an "average" classroom, you can certainly accommodate the highly intelligent.

FWIW, I've known at least two families who had kids with rather serious special needs. They fought to keep those kids in mainstream classes--meanwhile, they were sending their other kids to the GT centers--this was before the GT centers took the "twice exceptional". I couldn't believe the irony of these families--except, the special needs kids had issues that I knew I would have fought had mine had those same issues. However, I still couldn't get over the irony that they expected their 'low" kids to be in my kids' classroom-while their other kids were in the GT center.

If we are going to mainstream the special needs kids at the low end, then we must mainstream those at the upper end.

Bottom line: no need for the centers.

We don't mainstream kids at the extremely low (bottom 2%) of the spectrum. Just like we shouldn't mainstream kids at the very top. Have you ever Been is a standalone special Ed classroom or center? Because you have not idea about what you are blathering on about.

Not the PP, but everyone is well aware that the vast majority of kids in AAP are not "at the very top". That's just a ridiculous remark. There are some kids who could benefit from a GT program. Probably a tiny fraction of those currently in AAP. The rest of those kids should absolutely be in "mainstream" classrooms.

I don't think its a ridiculous remark. Students are not selected for AAP at random. Numbers are high because of the demographics of the area we live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: get rid of centers. Period. If you can accommodate those at the lower end of the spectrum and those with LD in an "average" classroom, you can certainly accommodate the highly intelligent.

FWIW, I've known at least two families who had kids with rather serious special needs. They fought to keep those kids in mainstream classes--meanwhile, they were sending their other kids to the GT centers--this was before the GT centers took the "twice exceptional". I couldn't believe the irony of these families--except, the special needs kids had issues that I knew I would have fought had mine had those same issues. However, I still couldn't get over the irony that they expected their 'low" kids to be in my kids' classroom-while their other kids were in the GT center.

If we are going to mainstream the special needs kids at the low end, then we must mainstream those at the upper end.

Bottom line: no need for the centers.

Absolutely agree. It's the height of hypocrisy when parents of AAP kids insist that their kids be educated separately, yet they see no problem with the LD or special needs (low end of the spectrum) kids being mainstreamed with the Gen Ed classes. So it's ok for the Gen Ed classes to be pulled down, but no way would it be ok for their AAP kids to be "dragged down" with the masses. Complete double standard. Centers need to go and FCPS should have woken up to that fact several years ago.

What?

Kids on the low end of the special needs spectrum are at our base school and mainstreamed for some of the day (art, PE, lunch/recess, music) but are in pull outs for the academics (math, LAs). This is basically what happens at the center school as well. AAP kids are mainstreamed for specials and in their own classroom for academics. It's not an exact 1-to-1 match for classes, but if they did this at the base school I'd be more inclined to send my child (on the very high end of the spectrum) to the base school. Otherwise, she needs these centers to thrive in school. The very special needs kids (lower end) don't get completely mainstreamed in classes all day. You are wrong about this.

I'm sorry that you are so bitter about kids that actually need some semblance of a gifted program, but there are kids that actually do need something else besides the mainstream classroom and curriculum. It's so sad that parents are so misinformed about the needs of these kids. To clarify I also agree that not all kids in AAP "need" something beyond the mainstream class. I'd be fine if they limited it to the top 2%.

I have one in AAP (in the top of the 1%-ers) and one that is too young for AAP yet but doesn't "need" it. I can see him possibly getting in because he's a hard worker and a pleaser, so the teachers love him. But, he's most likely not a top 1%-er and I will most likely keep him in the base school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see fcps pot a program in the McLean arwa where one middle and one elememtary become a dedicated center school with only AAP level four students, and the other schools are all rezoned to fill the missing AAP spots and made into non AAP, non LLIV schools...only gen ed and level three pull outs.

They have the need for AAP in that part of the county to support such a school.

Then, leave the center models in pyramids like LB and WS where they have enough students to support robust centers but not so many that they coukd support dedicated magnets and areas like Lee and Mount Vernon pyramids where they need to centers to even have a viable AAP program.

Fabulous idea! You should post this on the FCPS UserVoice site. (I'd vote for it!)

https://fcps.uservoice.com/forums/302115-what-are-your-ideas-for-balancing-the-potential-1

Disagree. My neighborhood school is a center school. How would you choose which neighborhood school to take away? Right now people have options: you can buy in an area zoned for a center school. You can buy in an area not zoned for a center school. If your child is found eligible for additional services you can choose that they stay at their current school or you can choose to send them to a center school. Why reduce options?

The options only exist for kids in AAP - that is, the option to stay at their base school or go to the center. General Ed. students have no such option.

Please see bolder part

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: get rid of centers. Period. If you can accommodate those at the lower end of the spectrum and those with LD in an "average" classroom, you can certainly accommodate the highly intelligent.

FWIW, I've known at least two families who had kids with rather serious special needs. They fought to keep those kids in mainstream classes--meanwhile, they were sending their other kids to the GT centers--this was before the GT centers took the "twice exceptional". I couldn't believe the irony of these families--except, the special needs kids had issues that I knew I would have fought had mine had those same issues. However, I still couldn't get over the irony that they expected their 'low" kids to be in my kids' classroom-while their other kids were in the GT center.

If we are going to mainstream the special needs kids at the low end, then we must mainstream those at the upper end.

Bottom line: no need for the centers.

We don't mainstream kids at the extremely low (bottom 2%) of the spectrum. Just like we shouldn't mainstream kids at the very top. Have you ever Been is a standalone special Ed classroom or center? Because you have not idea about what you are blathering on about.

Not the PP, but everyone is well aware that the vast majority of kids in AAP are not "at the very top". That's just a ridiculous remark. There are some kids who could benefit from a GT program. Probably a tiny fraction of those currently in AAP. The rest of those kids should absolutely be in "mainstream" classrooms.