Equal outcomes?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.
Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable). I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is. For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense." So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs. |
Anonymous
You’re way overthinking this. Get a life. |
Anonymous
DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money. |
Anonymous
| Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow. |
Anonymous
+1 Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.? |
Anonymous
| I am livid at this. They can spend money on a consulting firm, but not teach my child to read. There will never be equal outcomes, just please finally start trying to improve education for those who struggle for various reasons (income, ESL, learning disabilities). |
Anonymous
DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc. Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired. No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy. |
Anonymous
|
It’s a nonsense platitude which in practice is unachievable, but we’re in this era where every fking policy must be beaten to death with an SJW bat, so there you go. I really wish we could have equal scholastic outcomes. I do. But what are you going to do? Forcefully ensure parents to read to their kids? Make sure they don’t eat Fruit Loops for every meal or ensure they get to eat meals before school at all? Help a kid with no dad around to be as productive as some rich family in McLean who can pay for tutors and who literally cracks down on their kids to succeed?
No. You get a bunch of overpaid paid consultants to come in and give power point presentation and you stop tracking and you get rid of AP classes out of fairness and you water down academic vigor. Long term it hurts America and we get less qualified engineers, but it looks good. |
Anonymous
Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs. |
Anonymous
Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities? How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students? |
Anonymous
+1 It's a ridiculous statement even as a platitude. I have two kids, raised in the same household and attended the same schools and they don't have "equal outcomes" because, you know, they are individuals with different aptitudes, interests, work ethics, etc. |
Anonymous
| Consultants are making money right now off messaging, not results. It's far more lucrative and easy to just say our goal is equal outcomes. If you get parents demanding results then you can just lower standards enough to have a 99.9% graduation rate which is the only stat that matters short term. It takes UVA years to send researchers to discover that a generation of students didn't actually learn foundational reading or math skills. |
Anonymous
+1 Please explain how FCPS is failing to meet Mt Vernon’s needs. |
Anonymous
|
FCPS’s job is to educate children. One major metric of their performance is graduation rates. If there are unacceptable graduation rates at a school, then FCPS has failed to do its job. Is one explanation for the failure that a school has a less-prepared-for-graduation population when compared to other schools? Of course. But that does not mean that FCPS can simply say, hey, it’s harder to graduate everyone at MVHS than at Langley, so don’t blame us. No, it’s their job to do whatever it takes to make sure that MVHS anD Langley both have acceptable graduation rates. Not doing whatever it takes would mean that FCPS failed MVHS.
Parents at Langley will complain that MVHS is given more resources and that it’s not fair. That’s the wrong way to look at it. FCPS may spend more at MVHS but if they do, it’s because they’re doing what they think is necessary to give FCPS the best shot at achieving its goal. FCPS’s goal is not to make sure per pupil funding is the same at every school - it’s to make sure success rates (in this example, graduation rates) are the same at every school. In an ideal world, that success would be achieved through having the same per pupil spending at ever6 school. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead, we live in a world where there are schools full of advantaged students and other schools full of disadvantaged students, and very few with a mix of students. Do you seriously want there to be different acceptable outcome metrics based on the advantaged status of schools? Langley must graduate 100% of kids, but MVHS only has to graduate a lower number? Really? If not, then you need to recognize that it costs more to attempt to level the playing field. |
Anonymous
Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs? |