Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

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.

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.

People in that area know that's how FCPS thinks. It's one, though not the only, reason why the percentage of kids in the Langley district going to private schools is so high.

Mt. Vernon fails because FCPS saddled it with IB, and then builds a huge addition to West Potomac so kids don't get redistricted to Mt. Vernon - all while talking about its commitment to "equity" and "equal outcomes." It reinforces the message that even FCPS thinks the school is to be avoided.

Step by step, FCPS leadership is ensuring the system's decline.

[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.

By implementing the 50% rule, FCPS increased the graduation rates at high schools. Does that mean that high school graduates are now more educated, better prepared for the working world, college, being good citizens? Just look at DCPS graduates who are functionally illiterate but still have a high school diploma.

FCPS's job is to educate children - but schools can only do so much. It takes two to tango - the student needs to put in a little bit of effort too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

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.

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.

People in that area know that's how FCPS thinks. It's one, though not the only, reason why the percentage of kids in the Langley district going to private schools is so high.

Mt. Vernon fails because FCPS saddled it with IB, and then builds a huge addition to West Potomac so kids don't get redistricted to Mt. Vernon - all while talking about its commitment to "equity" and "equal outcomes." It reinforces the message that even FCPS thinks the school is to be avoided.

Step by step, FCPS leadership is ensuring the system's decline.

Your first point is bs. Your second point is mostly bs too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

It's a foolish and dangerous goal. As such, it should never be set out as one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

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.

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.

People in that area know that's how FCPS thinks. It's one, though not the only, reason why the percentage of kids in the Langley district going to private schools is so high.

Mt. Vernon fails because FCPS saddled it with IB, and then builds a huge addition to West Potomac so kids don't get redistricted to Mt. Vernon - all while talking about its commitment to "equity" and "equal outcomes." It reinforces the message that even FCPS thinks the school is to be avoided.

Step by step, FCPS leadership is ensuring the system's decline.

Your first point is bs. Your second point is mostly bs too.

Truth hurts. But I get these are hard times to be defending the faux progressives running FCPS.

[Anonymous]

They should start, at the high school level, by going back to all AP. Drop IB. That right off the bat is not equal opportunity since the programs are very different.

Language programs could be more balanced - they are very different across the high schools. This would likely require some online options since some schools won't be able to support full classes.

Put AAP in all middle schools.

As for 'equal outcomes' - this is just stupid talk. Tell me how the Langley kid with two English speaking professional parents is likely going to have the same outcome as the Central American kid who got his first formal schooling at age 13 or 14. This is the current reality in Fairfax and other localities. Some of those kids will beat the odds and excel, but from a larger numbers game equal outcomes is nothing but a pipe dream and virtue signaling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

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.

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.

People in that area know that's how FCPS thinks. It's one, though not the only, reason why the percentage of kids in the Langley district going to private schools is so high.

Mt. Vernon fails because FCPS saddled it with IB, and then builds a huge addition to West Potomac so kids don't get redistricted to Mt. Vernon - all while talking about its commitment to "equity" and "equal outcomes." It reinforces the message that even FCPS thinks the school is to be avoided.

Step by step, FCPS leadership is ensuring the system's decline.

Your first point is bs. Your second point is mostly bs too.

Truth hurts. But I get these are hard times to be defending the faux progressives running FCPS.

Richies put their kids in private school instead of Langley because they're richies, not because of Langley. And MVHS isn't "failing" because of another HS. When you consider what schools actually do, teach the students who attend, you can see that doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should start, at the high school level, by going back to all AP. Drop IB. That right off the bat is not equal opportunity since the programs are very different.

Language programs could be more balanced - they are very different across the high schools. This would likely require some online options since some schools won't be able to support full classes.

Put AAP in all middle schools.

As for 'equal outcomes' - this is just stupid talk. Tell me how the Langley kid with two English speaking professional parents is likely going to have the same outcome as the Central American kid who got his first formal schooling at age 13 or 14. This is the current reality in Fairfax and other localities. Some of those kids will beat the odds and excel, but from a larger numbers game equal outcomes is nothing but a pipe dream and virtue signaling.

Agree with the idea of offering online language options. Langley can support Russian and Japanese 1-4 on site; a Mt. Vernon or Justice could not.

But as for AAP, would Glasgow MS even be accredited if the AAP kids from Holmes and Poe were moved back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

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.

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.

People in that area know that's how FCPS thinks. It's one, though not the only, reason why the percentage of kids in the Langley district going to private schools is so high.

Mt. Vernon fails because FCPS saddled it with IB, and then builds a huge addition to West Potomac so kids don't get redistricted to Mt. Vernon - all while talking about its commitment to "equity" and "equal outcomes." It reinforces the message that even FCPS thinks the school is to be avoided.

Step by step, FCPS leadership is ensuring the system's decline.

Your first point is bs. Your second point is mostly bs too.

Truth hurts. But I get these are hard times to be defending the faux progressives running FCPS.

Richies put their kids in private school instead of Langley because they're richies, not because of Langley. And MVHS isn't "failing" because of another HS. When you consider what schools actually do, teach the students who attend, you can see that doesn't make sense.

You don't know what you're talking about. Many parents in the Langley pyramid won't send their kids to the public schools because the class sizes are so large (both in absolute terms and compared to schools elsewhere in the county, courtesy of FCPS). Some have money to burn; others sacrifice for privates because they know their kids can get ignored in 30-kid classrooms.

As for Mount Vernon, there's no need to put "failing" in quotations. FCPS would not hesitated for a moment to reassign some West Potomac kids to under-enrolled MVHS but for the fact that the latter's reputation is so bad, and the fact that it balked only reinforces that perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should start, at the high school level, by going back to all AP. Drop IB. That right off the bat is not equal opportunity since the programs are very different.

Language programs could be more balanced - they are very different across the high schools. This would likely require some online options since some schools won't be able to support full classes.

Put AAP in all middle schools.

As for 'equal outcomes' - this is just stupid talk. Tell me how the Langley kid with two English speaking professional parents is likely going to have the same outcome as the Central American kid who got his first formal schooling at age 13 or 14. This is the current reality in Fairfax and other localities. Some of those kids will beat the odds and excel, but from a larger numbers game equal outcomes is nothing but a pipe dream and virtue signaling.

Agree with the idea of offering online language options. Langley can support Russian and Japanese 1-4 on site; a Mt. Vernon or Justice could not.

But as for AAP, would Glasgow MS even be accredited if the AAP kids from Holmes and Poe were moved back?

Don't know if it would be accredited, but if the only reason it is accredited is because of students from other pyramids then we know where FCPS has some work to do (well, we already know that).

[Anonymous]

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.

Thank you for reinforcing my default assumption of the level of engagement I could expect.

Thank you more genuinely to others who have chimed in thus far, the conversation has gotten on a few tangents but my main takeaway is that thus far nobody really knows what the phrase is supposed to actually mean in practice.

[Anonymous]

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.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

It's a foolish and dangerous goal. As such, it should never be set out as one.

Dangerous? GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

How much of this angst would dissipate if Dr. Reid and School Board members committed that, for them, "equal outcomes" means that every student who graduates from FCPS feels they now have the tools to pursue what they next want to accomplish in their lives?

That might be sensible. As it stands, it seems to mean that FCPS should allocate as many resources as possible to the poorest schools to "ensure" that students at, say, Mount Vernon perform at the same academic level as students at, say, Langley. Which we all know is never going to happen.