Anonymous wrote:She is a McLean resident and I believe her kids went to Haycock. She is as entitled as the rest of us to her opinion, even though I don't agree with her. I had a few teachers write the board on the behalf of the cluster two students, but did not announce their views in public. The hard part for me would be if my child was in her class.

My child IS in her class. I was astonished last night to see her stand, and am literally feeling sick today that my son has to spend the rest of the school year with a teacher who has publicly declared that he is unvalued and unwanted at his current school.

Anonymous wrote:I think the FCPS punishes the AAP kids in so many different ways.

I think the FCPS punishes the AAP kids in so many different ways.

Thank God the School Board listened to the voices of reason and decided that the prospect of a 1000-plus student school in the midst of a renovation on a 10-acre site would be too "special."

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that shouting neighborhood group of parents has really wrecked our school's community feeling, even among neighborhood families.

I am afraid that this is true. For what it's worth, I supported grandfathering because I think the first priority should be taking care of all of our community. I am in boundary and my kids are younger, are not best friends with out of boundary AAP kids, so I am not personally affected by their departure. However, they are part of our community as much as any in boundary kids. We truly lose by losing them--they are very much what makes Haycock special. I don't pretend to know the answers. I just want to say to the Cluster 2 parents that I am very sorry.

There are several ways there could be fewer trailers at Kilmer and more students at Cooper.

SB could open an AAP center at Cooper. It could restrict AAP eligibilty so more base Cooper students do not have an AAP option at Kilmer. It could redraw the base boundaries and send more Kilmer students to Cooper.

Right now the SB has a split between members who think the current AAP model is fine and should just be expanded to additional schools and those who think it may be broken and in need of serious reform or simply are wary of concentrating new centers in the areas that already have the highest-performing schools. The latter prevailed last night. Right now there's no consensus as to the best way forward at the MS level other than to conduct a study.

If enough people at Kilmer feel as 9:52 does, and overcrowding at Kilmer becomes bad enough, there will eventually be an outcry, and Patty Reed will get to play the same role on Kilmer's behalf that Janie Strauss just played on Haycock's behalf. But the conditions aren't that bad - while there are many trailers already at Kilmer, it has been renovated within the past 5-10 years and is not about to be a giant construction site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, PP. I felt like Dr. Dale was really dancing around that issue last night. Schultz asked the direct question about what is done if the school is closed to transfers and he didn't ask it directly. I took that to mean that they actually do pupil place at schools closed for transfer (as is evident on the Haycock dashboard). I sure hope that's right. It would be a travesty to move those children again because FCPS can't get its SH&T together. I think it's only 4-6 kids.

FCPS should have done a large scale boundary process in fall 2012 including AAP. Not left AAP instruction and facilities under Carol Horn who now for some elementary and middle schools has a scope of authority covering almost 35% of students. She runs the locations, curriculum, facilities, and buses.

Her program is putting a squeeze on budgets and facilties. Those ex Freedom Hill base school students are actually better off than the crew left in the overcrowded Haycok for that renovation. They get a place that is renovated with a new addition. They get Kilmer and Marshall. I suspect the Cluster 2 parents and board members will bounce out Cluster1.

Guess it has to come out of your own mouths. We've been telling you for months you weren't getting such a raw deal.

I have no idea what the last comment means. Lemon Road is a Cluster 2 school but it's physically located in Cluster 1. The neighborhood kids at LR go to Cluster 1 middle and high schools.

My own mouth resides in a house assigned to none of these schools but does pay taxes that support all the nonsense. The soon to be overcrowded Kilmer is in Cluster 2 and is one of Patty Reed's schools. It receives a portion of Jane Strauss' Cooper students for AAP. Voting against any sort of Cooper AAP does a disservice to Reed's constituents. Trailers at Kilmer or trailers at Cooper?

Anonymous wrote:I think we heard that all from Dr. Sheers at the work session.

I also think the poster was thinking about the emotional toll it will take on a cluster two child in her class for the next five months if that child is aware that the teacher testified that she wanted that child to leave the school. Kids don't get it. They don't understand renovation queues and zoning. They don't comprehend the nuances behind all of this. And that is where the difficulty lies.

So, be kind. On both sides of the issue.

These are AAP kids. It can and should be explained using basic concepts of mathematics, economics, and geography. This has nothing to do with who is smarter or better. If there were more space, and we lived closer to the school, we would not be moved. There is space at another school that we have all paid for and do not want to waste. We know it may be hard to switch schools and leave friends, but some of your other friends will also be moving and everyone is going to work extra hard to make sure you have a great year next year. Similar conversations will need to take place with students who are remaining at Haycock.

The problem is that some parents simply want to school the kids in the language of victimhood. If they smoulder with resentment and tell their kids that their teacher wants them to go away, of course they will be sad and confused.

I think we heard that all from Dr. Sheers at the work session.

I also think the poster was thinking about the emotional toll it will take on a cluster two child in her class for the next five months if that child is aware that the teacher testified that she wanted that child to leave the school. Kids don't get it. They don't understand renovation queues and zoning. They don't comprehend the nuances behind all of this. And that is where the difficulty lies.

So, be kind. On both sides of the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a McLean resident and I believe her kids went to Haycock. She is as entitled as the rest of us to her opinion, even though I don't agree with her. I had a few teachers write the board on the behalf of the cluster two students, but did not announce their views in public. The hard part for me would be if my child was in her class.

I'm absolutely shocked that a teacher would put her own desires and her own property values above the needs of her students.

Yes, how terrible that the School Board would hear directly from a teacher in concrete terms about how the current conditions at Haycock affect the faculty and the learning environment. We can't have that. Better to have Reed and Schultz pontificating about "doing no harm" with no idea what they are talking about.

If any of your kids are headed to Churchill, you will really like that school. It's great. (I personally think it is the best in the area.)

Anonymous wrote:She is a McLean resident and I believe her kids went to Haycock. She is as entitled as the rest of us to her opinion, even though I don't agree with her. I had a few teachers write the board on the behalf of the cluster two students, but did not announce their views in public. The hard part for me would be if my child was in her class.

I'm absolutely shocked that a teacher would put her own desires and her own property values above the needs of her students.

She is a McLean resident and I believe her kids went to Haycock. She is as entitled as the rest of us to her opinion, even though I don't agree with her. I had a few teachers write the board on the behalf of the cluster two students, but did not announce their views in public. The hard part for me would be if my child was in her class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:24, you clearly did not watch the meeting. A 3rd grade teacher testified at the meeting in support of Strauss's amendment. Letters are fine but public testimony! And today she is going to teach those Cluster 2 kids!

That is highly inappropriate and unprofessional.

Fcps needs to get rid of the teacher!

Anonymous wrote:8:24, you clearly did not watch the meeting. A 3rd grade teacher testified at the meeting in support of Strauss's amendment. Letters are fine but public testimony! And today she is going to teach those Cluster 2 kids!

Sorry we started watching at 745 and the Aap proposals were not brought up until 9. So yes I must have clearly missed something before. I was referring to when board members stated they visited the school and talked to the teachers. Your post is no better than all of these "shouting" Haycock parents(which is about 10 families who actually need to be a lot nicer in approach). Calling a specific teacher out when no one else here has is stirring the pot even more. We need to move on and get through this year. I have kids and friends of my own that need comforting about this move and mess. That is what needs to be the focus now.