Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miyares is suing Fairfax county schools over the scholarship thing

He’s conducting an investigation that may or may not result in charges. Don’t think anyone has been sued or charged yet over this.

He’s conducting a politically motivated witch hunt.

yeah but denying kid’s a chance for scholarships because they aren’t of the right race for your feel good moment is fine .

Two other schools in FCPS made the same mistake, is there a count for how many schools nation wide forgot to distribute information from a third party? Has VADOE or the attorney general even bothered trying to see if this is wide spread?

“forgot” 🤦‍♂️

Sure, it's totally random that in a state with 132 districts, the state AG has chosen to investigate two that are run by the democrats where state republicans are trying to make inroads based on education. Just a fluke. I'm sure the rest of the state is doing great, it must be if there are no issues outside of the top two ranked districts in the state.

Exactly. They are willing to use our kids as pawns in their political games.

I see Democrats as using kids as pawns in their political games when they announce a commitment to "equal outcomes" that implies, without expressly saying, that merit and hard work matter less than looking for new ways to favor supposedly "marginalized" groups when it comes to allocating educational resources and opportunities.

Ok, why are almost all of the top schools in the state in districts run by democrats? Shouldn't republican devotion to achievement lead to amazing schools in Danville or Waynesboro?

Richmond and Petersburg make Danville and Waynesboro look like Harvard and Yale.

[Anonymous]

So this lack of focus on academic excellence is in all the local school systems?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Unequal funding and time with teachers surely leads to better outcomes for high achieving kids and schools!

In reality, those kids would be even further ahead than they already are, and perhaps there would be less cram schools in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Graduation rates are unfortunately increasingly meaningless. What matters is proficiency. I agree that FCPS should spend differently at Langley than at MVHS, and that focused efforts required (not sure if this is happening) may cost more at MVHS than at other schools. About 10 years ago - back when FCPS actually posted school SAT scores - black students at MVHS outscored black students at South Lakes. To be fair, this was a two year phenomena, so someone at South Lakes must have reacted to what was happening. Or maybe it was a statistical anomaly. This was particularly interesting because Reston is really one the most supportive and socially conscious places in America. Nature trails? Check. Beautiful fitness centers? Check. Commitment to diversity? Absolutely. Quality (for the most part) Section 8 housing? Check. Asked a black fellow Duke alum in Reston if resources could quickly be made available at no cost for SAT test prep. She said you bet. Bi-racial marriages? Lots of them. Generally very tolerant? Yes. The point here is that SAT scores ought to be approaching the non-minority mean. And MVHS should not have had scores 50 points higher given the disparities in environment. I am supportive of the schools and I think casting aside the few dumb decisions every year Fairfax does a decent job. There is a lot of criticism of the SAT but the black kids who do well generally not only come from decent homes but also take classes where they really run up against rigor and competition - meaning like most everyone else they learn to deal with good days and bad days - and imperfect teachers. The answer is not to run away from the tests, but rather to put kids in an environment where they can in the short term hit bumps in the road and pick themselves back up again. Putting kids in safe spaces doesn't mean you don't challenge them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

What I am saying is maybe don’t confidently proclaim “no one is bringing down higher achieving kids and schools" and then when I post several different ways in my previous post in which it’s clear that higher achieving kids are being brought down (remedial with advanced learners in same class, eliminating gifted and talented or tracking) through progressive education reform. At least provide some kind of rebuttal and not just an aloof non response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

For the time being, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

FCPS has a bloated giant GT program, even if they cut it in half, it would still be larger than other GT programs in the area yet you single out FCPS even though you don't live here. FCPS has as many AP offering as any district anywhere and dual enrollment if that isn't enough yet you make up complaints about their offerings even though you don't live here? Are you sure you're not a conservative troll?

Any response to my other points? Remedial strident placed with advanced to force teaching to the lowest common denominator, ending race neutral entrance exam tests at the expense of Asian students, etc? You seem very reluctant to even debate the possibility that higher achieving kids are being done a disservice. Why can’t you even talk about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

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.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo.

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach. Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools".

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings

For the time being, anyway.

Right? Have you looked at other places instituting progressive education reform? They are eliminating these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Did the superintendent use that example? Source?

There is an article in the Fairfax Times https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-principals-admit-to-withholding-national-merit-awards-from-students/article_2e5ed028-8f01-11ed-997c-37c69ccfb584.html

From the article:

However, for parents in the school district these examples of merit withheld from students raises serious concerns, particularly amid news that the FCPS superintendent signed a contract of about nine months, paying a controversial contractor, Mutiu Fagbayi, and his company Performance Fact Inc., based in Oakland, Calif., $455,000 for “equity” training that includes a controversial “Equity-centered Strategic Plan” with this goal: “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.”

“The equity imperative is to give each student what they need to meet equal outcomes. The goal is not equitable outcomes,” Fagbayi said early last year, promoting an identical strategy at a meeting with officials in Princeton Public Schools. A video recording of the April 26, 2022, meeting is posted on YouTube.

“The goal is equal outcomes,” Fagbayi explained. “And what we need to be equitable about is the access. In a very real sense, many districts struggle with this. To have true equity, you have to be purposefully unequal when it comes to resources. I want to say that again because most districts struggle with that. To have an equity-centered organization, we have to have the courage and the willingness to be purposefully unequal when it comes to opportunities and access,”

Is this what equal outcomes will mean for FCPS going forward? Does this mean that a kid reading above grade level will get no teacher time, for example?

How can people not game out long term consequences. As one poster said, parents with means will simply pull their kids out for private or get tutors if it’s all about teaching to lowest common denominator or as Fagbae noted there is “purposeful inequity” which is nonsense.