Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The staffing formula for classroom teachers is the problem, especially 1-6. They just give principals a number of teachers based off total from 1-6. The principal then gets to decide how to allocate. That is why you can gave grades with classes 28-31 and others with 18-22. The staffing formula should be by grade level. Example- if 5th grade has 85 kids they could have three classes of 28-29 kids or 4 classes of about 21-22. The needs per grade level vary too. Some years we gave gad a ton of sped/esol in a grade and the next year a smaller amount.

There's also the AAP component. In our school, the AAP class has 18-20 kids and the regular classes have almost 30 kids. It's incredibly unfair and I wish they'd get rid of LLIV and go back to having only centers. LLIV is a waste.

This too. And AAP parents will be like “oh my kid scored this on this assessment” - yeah, more kids could do that if they weren’t in a class with 29 kids, 15 of whom have an IEP. Class size matters tremendously yet the advanced classes are small and Gen Ed are big.

For al this talk of equity, I find it irritating that FCPS prioritizes the AAP kids over everyone else. The reason that low income, learning disabled, and english language learners aren't doing so well is because they are pouring unnecessary money into advanced academics when it needs to be going to kids who really need help, not just kids who aren't feeling challenged enough.

Queue the AAP mom who is going to talk about how her kids needs the extra emphasis on PBL and critical thinking, blah blah.

Okay. Try this. Queue the UMC AAP parents who would move their kids out of FCPS without AAP, either to a different school system that prioritized GT, or private. How well do you think FCPs does if there is an exodus of the UMC highly educated families?

So AAP isn’t a program for the gifted but for UMC to be segregated from the common folk?

Basically, yes. How do you not know this?

Most people try not to say it out loud but yeah. Same goes for most honors / AP classes too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The staffing formula for classroom teachers is the problem, especially 1-6. They just give principals a number of teachers based off total from 1-6. The principal then gets to decide how to allocate. That is why you can gave grades with classes 28-31 and others with 18-22. The staffing formula should be by grade level. Example- if 5th grade has 85 kids they could have three classes of 28-29 kids or 4 classes of about 21-22. The needs per grade level vary too. Some years we gave gad a ton of sped/esol in a grade and the next year a smaller amount.

There's also the AAP component. In our school, the AAP class has 18-20 kids and the regular classes have almost 30 kids. It's incredibly unfair and I wish they'd get rid of LLIV and go back to having only centers. LLIV is a waste.

This too. And AAP parents will be like “oh my kid scored this on this assessment” - yeah, more kids could do that if they weren’t in a class with 29 kids, 15 of whom have an IEP. Class size matters tremendously yet the advanced classes are small and Gen Ed are big.

For al this talk of equity, I find it irritating that FCPS prioritizes the AAP kids over everyone else. The reason that low income, learning disabled, and english language learners aren't doing so well is because they are pouring unnecessary money into advanced academics when it needs to be going to kids who really need help, not just kids who aren't feeling challenged enough.

Queue the AAP mom who is going to talk about how her kids needs the extra emphasis on PBL and critical thinking, blah blah.

Okay. Try this. Queue the UMC AAP parents who would move their kids out of FCPS without AAP, either to a different school system that prioritized GT, or private. How well do you think FCPs does if there is an exodus of the UMC highly educated families?

So AAP isn’t a program for the gifted but for UMC to be segregated from the common folk?

Basically, yes. How do you not know this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destaff is also used to get rid of employees that aren’t good.

Since it’s done by the employee’s hire date, can you explain how it’s done based on performance? Or are you just here sharing your unfounded theories?

The principal can appeal to keep the employee and move FTEs around in the other grades.

So what’s your position that you know this?

DP, I've had a coworker that was on the destaff list twice but was never let go and other, more senior, people were.

De-staffing is not the same as terminating.

I understand, I meant that they were de-staffed to other schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destaff is also used to get rid of employees that aren’t good.

Since it’s done by the employee’s hire date, can you explain how it’s done based on performance? Or are you just here sharing your unfounded theories?

The principal can appeal to keep the employee and move FTEs around in the other grades.

So what’s your position that you know this?

DP, I've had a coworker that was on the destaff list twice but was never let go and other, more senior, people were.

De-staffing is not the same as terminating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The staffing formula for classroom teachers is the problem, especially 1-6. They just give principals a number of teachers based off total from 1-6. The principal then gets to decide how to allocate. That is why you can gave grades with classes 28-31 and others with 18-22. The staffing formula should be by grade level. Example- if 5th grade has 85 kids they could have three classes of 28-29 kids or 4 classes of about 21-22. The needs per grade level vary too. Some years we gave gad a ton of sped/esol in a grade and the next year a smaller amount.

There's also the AAP component. In our school, the AAP class has 18-20 kids and the regular classes have almost 30 kids. It's incredibly unfair and I wish they'd get rid of LLIV and go back to having only centers. LLIV is a waste.

This too. And AAP parents will be like “oh my kid scored this on this assessment” - yeah, more kids could do that if they weren’t in a class with 29 kids, 15 of whom have an IEP. Class size matters tremendously yet the advanced classes are small and Gen Ed are big.

For al this talk of equity, I find it irritating that FCPS prioritizes the AAP kids over everyone else. The reason that low income, learning disabled, and english language learners aren't doing so well is because they are pouring unnecessary money into advanced academics when it needs to be going to kids who really need help, not just kids who aren't feeling challenged enough.

Queue the AAP mom who is going to talk about how her kids needs the extra emphasis on PBL and critical thinking, blah blah.

Okay. Try this. Queue the UMC AAP parents who would move their kids out of FCPS without AAP, either to a different school system that prioritized GT, or private. How well do you think FCPs does if there is an exodus of the UMC highly educated families?

So AAP isn’t a program for the gifted but for UMC to be segregated from the common folk?

There are basically two groups of parents who want AAP for their kids, with very little overlap:
1. The parents of kids in higher SES schools who want the distinction for their above average kids. Usually TJ is on the radar by 1st or 2nd grade.
2. The parents of kids in lower SES schools whose above average kids are in classes where 10-20% of the students are at least one grade level behind.

There's a third group of parents with highly, highly gifted kids (top 5% on WISC and no prepping on any admission tests) who are also interested in AAP. There are fewer of these kids than DCUM would have you believe.

FCPS does not want to lose the AAP crowd because those kids keep the test scores high across the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The staffing formula for classroom teachers is the problem, especially 1-6. They just give principals a number of teachers based off total from 1-6. The principal then gets to decide how to allocate. That is why you can gave grades with classes 28-31 and others with 18-22. The staffing formula should be by grade level. Example- if 5th grade has 85 kids they could have three classes of 28-29 kids or 4 classes of about 21-22. The needs per grade level vary too. Some years we gave gad a ton of sped/esol in a grade and the next year a smaller amount.

There's also the AAP component. In our school, the AAP class has 18-20 kids and the regular classes have almost 30 kids. It's incredibly unfair and I wish they'd get rid of LLIV and go back to having only centers. LLIV is a waste.

This too. And AAP parents will be like “oh my kid scored this on this assessment” - yeah, more kids could do that if they weren’t in a class with 29 kids, 15 of whom have an IEP. Class size matters tremendously yet the advanced classes are small and Gen Ed are big.

For al this talk of equity, I find it irritating that FCPS prioritizes the AAP kids over everyone else. The reason that low income, learning disabled, and english language learners aren't doing so well is because they are pouring unnecessary money into advanced academics when it needs to be going to kids who really need help, not just kids who aren't feeling challenged enough.

Queue the AAP mom who is going to talk about how her kids needs the extra emphasis on PBL and critical thinking, blah blah.

Okay. Try this. Queue the UMC AAP parents who would move their kids out of FCPS without AAP, either to a different school system that prioritized GT, or private. How well do you think FCPs does if there is an exodus of the UMC highly educated families?

So AAP isn’t a program for the gifted but for UMC to be segregated from the common folk?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destaff is also used to get rid of employees that aren’t good.

Since it’s done by the employee’s hire date, can you explain how it’s done based on performance? Or are you just here sharing your unfounded theories?

The principal can appeal to keep the employee and move FTEs around in the other grades.

So what’s your position that you know this?

DP, I've had a coworker that was on the destaff list twice but was never let go and other, more senior, people were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destaff is also used to get rid of employees that aren’t good.

Since it’s done by the employee’s hire date, can you explain how it’s done based on performance? Or are you just here sharing your unfounded theories?

The principal can appeal to keep the employee and move FTEs around in the other grades.

“Can” but almost never actually happens because it subverts the process way too much and opens the door for targeted harassment claims.

Anonymous wrote:Destaff is also used to get rid of employees that aren’t good.

Wrong. They are usually the ones who have the years in to not be destaffed. A principal has to pull a lot of strings to justify getting rid of someone with seniority over someone who the system says goes by time in. In fact, destaffing changed because of this - it used to be more subjective and was known as “pass the trash.” That’s why HR switched to the time in system. It’s more cut and dry now. Shortest time in the county goes first. The bad ones hang around forever.