Is FCPS overhyped? even top rated schools seem meh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS awful. It was good 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, by its a lot of politics and bs now.

FCPS truly is awful. Specifically Pyramid 5-a mess. If you can go private do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest attends a NOVA Catholic high school (certainly a sports-focused environment) where the class sizes are reasonable and we don't get phone calls or emails about poor performance. The thing to remember is that the kids are in high school now so they're expected to manage their work load and be proactive in reaching out to the teacher for help if they need it.

Ew. Any public school comment always brings out the supposed non MAGA Catholics.

DP. I’m not a MAGA Catholic, but I am a person who has taught in both public and Catholic high schools. They simply don’t compare. In public, I was tasked with performing miracles with no resources. I burned out. In private, I am given the resources and respect to do my job well.

It’s about teacher support and teacher morale, and the publics aren’t doing well on either front right now.

And this has nothing to do with politics or religion. It’s about resources.

But, no when you teach or have your kids attend a Catholic school, it absolutely IS about the religion. That is the point of their religion classes and chapel. It is very, very clear. You may be happier with being able to kick behavior issues out, or problem parents out or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that religious schools teach religion. They aren’t sponsoring public schools, they aren’t tending to the poor students en mass. These are Catholics who accept money from people to teach their children reading, writing, socialstudies and religion.

The question was about teacher support and morale, which is absolutely about resources and not religion.

At the Catholic school, I’m provided with time to grade papers (additional planning periods), whereas in the public it had to be done at home.

At the Catholic school, I have a max of 90 students, whereas my largest load in the public was 176.

At the Catholic school, I have a small administration tasked with supporting teachers. At the public, I had a large admin and a ton of “specialists” who created work for me in order to justify their positions outside of the classroom.

At the Catholic school, I can be intentional with my curriculum. At the public, I was given a poor curriculum I had to spend time tailoring and altering to fit the needs of my students.

And you’re wrong about kicking kids out. We have many students with learning plans and behavioral issues. The difference is we can help them better because teachers have more time and more supports.

So say what you will about Catholic schools, but my direct experience with both leads me to believe teachers are better supported in Catholic. That can lead, understandably, to better student outcomes.

It explains why grading is so slow, which is the only tool parents have to monitor their kid's progress here. It's a huge issue, if it's not timely then parents have little they can do in terms of allocating any resources to help their kid. Grading has to be fast, no matter what and it's asinine that over-bloated FCPS administration doesn't f-ing understand this. I am beyond mad. Half of these people should be fired and don't deserve half of their salary if they don't understand this.

Teachers are often used as an easy “free labor pool” for various administrative responsibilities. At my school, I’m required to spend a quarter of my planning time hall monitoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here.

If teachers had all of the TWD/ER days with no meetings/PD a lot more could be done. We have a ridiculous amount of TWD and honestly the days that we have PD are mostly a waste of time. Teachers on Monday will be doing another equity training when they could be grading/planning.

Class sizes should be maxed at certain levels. IMO all classes should be capped at 25 kids. If teachers go above that cap they should be paid more and have additional planning time.

I wish that stupid diversity training thing was it for Monday. It would still be most of a day free. Some teachers have meetings for the rest of the day as well, and many of us have to drive 30 minutes to another school for an another completely useless, poorly done PD. They talk about equity, but there is none for us - some teachers have 1 prep and hardly any PD or meetings, and others have 4 preps and meetings and PD for two departments. I'm so over this.

Public schools continue to decrease in relevance among those with choices. Good teachers will do well in the private/homeschooling/co-op sector.

Most of us do not have money to pay for private schools in addition to high RE taxes. Even for old homes taxes doubled in last 10 years. And quality of education is just going down while stupid admin is still focusing on dated woke agendas like you all say and who knows what. It's sort of annoying to have to hear that in order to get quality education we have to pay for private schools, what's the point of moving to a "good school district"? Merely for peer pressure to have to tutor your kids to keep up with other tutored kids higher standards?

What are dated woke agendas? Can you give specific examples?

Did you read the previous post replied to? "Teachers on Monday will be doing another equity training when they could be grading/planning"






It's been posted here, read other replies not too far back. Someone posted I won't be engaging in political discussions. What I see is overcrowded schools with too few teachers for too few students, inconsistent approach to testing and HW and very slow grading that makes it difficult for parents to know soon enough when kids need help even if they have ability to help their kids. This is especially challenging for transient crowd (which DC metro area has plenty of), kids who relocated from other districts and especially other metro areas with different schools, standards, parent body, resources, etc. Multiple posts here pointed out bloated admin, too many things teachers have to keep up with

I don’t know why wealthy white families think their kids don’t also benefit from discussions on equity.


When we have “equity trainings”, it’s not at all what the naysayers here are thinking. It’s generally centered around looking at our own schools specific testing data and recognizing areas with disproportionate low scores. It’s an opportunity for middle and high school staffs to have teachers collaborate who typically aren’t able to meet with each other and they’ll share various strategies with each other that have worked while also seeking out ideas on how to better support areas we’re struggling. The thing about effective educational practices is they are almost always applicable to all levels. My strategies for SpEd. are useful for the MLL teachers, and AAP teachers hear them and with slight modifications potentially apply them to AAP curriculum.


Also academics is a small part of the puzzle; addressing disproportionate data in behavior, social interactions, school culture, etc. helps ALL students learn in a happy and healthy environment. And if the data is showing minority students feel like other students are increasingly engaging in prejudiced behaviors, then yes, that’s also an area where I as a shire parent probably want my school to have targeted interventions (but I also don’t want racist kids, so results may very here).

It's also teachers that are saying these things are a waste of time.

Equity is mostly about achieving equality of results and that is not really the purpose of public education or education in general. Stay in your lane.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest attends a NOVA Catholic high school (certainly a sports-focused environment) where the class sizes are reasonable and we don't get phone calls or emails about poor performance. The thing to remember is that the kids are in high school now so they're expected to manage their work load and be proactive in reaching out to the teacher for help if they need it.

Ew. Any public school comment always brings out the supposed non MAGA Catholics.

DP. I’m not a MAGA Catholic, but I am a person who has taught in both public and Catholic high schools. They simply don’t compare. In public, I was tasked with performing miracles with no resources. I burned out. In private, I am given the resources and respect to do my job well.

It’s about teacher support and teacher morale, and the publics aren’t doing well on either front right now.

And this has nothing to do with politics or religion. It’s about resources.

Interesting. Can you please elaborate more on resources with specific examples? What resources did parochial schools provide specifically that public schools do not? Or was this mostly smaller class sizes? Was it 2 teachers per class (teacher and assistant)? Was it involvement and help of parent volunteers in each classroom? We had "class parents" in early elementary out of state (public) and volunteering was very much expected, although led to a lot of grumbling between FT working moms vs. SAHMs. Our class sizes were large and in early elementary there was at first an assistant per each class to help out the teacher. Later it went downhill and assistants disappeared.

Of COURSE. It has to do with religion. That is why the schools exist. They offer discounted tuition to clergy members. The entire premise of the school is based on religion and people paying to have their kids go to the school because of the religion.

Of COURSE your workload is better. You aren’t in a union. You get little retirement. You don’t have to pay for children with profound disabilities because the weird intrepretation of the Bible religious schools use says that you should pay to be educated and not take care of everyone.

You aren’t using resources better. You are relying on private money and church money to pay for your salary and “resources.”

You clearly have NO IDEA what you’re talking about. Your post isn’t even comprehensible to me.

From what I can gather from your far-reaching post:

1. High schools don’t offer discounted tuition to parish members. K-8 schools often do.

2. My school is less than 50% Catholic, so your argument that people pick it for faith purposes is invalid.

3. I don’t remotely get your union argument. You are correct; I do not have a union. Public schools do. Wouldn’t that mean their workload would be better than mine cause they have an organization fighting for it? Yet it’s the opposite. My workload is better without the union.

4. Retirement: my work contributes to my retirement. I no longer contribute to a pension, but my retirement is growing quite well because of these contributions.

5. Your argument about “profound disabilities” is incoherent, but we (Catholic schools) do take students with severe disabilities. And we serve them well. We even have an entire wing of our school devoted to special education services.

So my point stands: teachers in private Catholic schools have access to stronger resources. I’ll add that is, at least in part, because we don’t have to waste resources on a central office full of people avoiding classrooms.

I’m not sure you have sufficient access
to reliable experiences or information to make your arguments.

My argument boils down to your funding stream. It comes from private money and church money. Parents pay your salary and the church pays some as well.

Your point: “Teachers have access to stronger resources” and that is THE most OBVIOUS thing in the world because parents are PAYING and the church is PAYING for your school. You aren’t relying on tax payer money and you are having to deal with tax payers who don’t want to pay taxes as a funding stream.


The school claims to be Christian and want to help all, but in actuality you are sitting in a school where you aren’t using a collective strategy in our society to educate kids. You are using a capitalistic, private pay structure to pay for the school. You aren’t helping all of society, you are just helping those who can pay or the church deems they want to pay for (if they are scholarship students). Using a capitalistic structure to pay for academic (and religious) training instead of acting on the principles in the Bible and trying to help ALL kids is ridiculous and hypocritical.

Unions don’t help with pay as much as they provide a lawyer if a teacher is ever accused by a student of inappropriate behavior. We all know how the Catholic Church handles that, so you are right, you don’t need one.

You claim it is central office that is the difference. You have a central office and it in part falls under the church as they help with the grounds keeping, and can provide . You don’t necessarily see how the priest is paid, or the custodians because that sometimes comes from the church part, not just the school.

Please link me to Catholic run ABA centers or centers for profoundly disabled children (life skills curriculum)

You can’t brag about “better resources” when you are charging tuition. Really simple. It is self explanatory that you would have better resources. Not because of better management, but because you are charging people to use the school and have church donations to help you out.

I am no particular fan of Catholic schools but you don’t understand economics. Catholic schools may be supported by private funds, but they have better outcomes with far less per capita spending.

Now some of the per capita gap may be explained by the fact that the public schools have to take in students the Catholic schools do not. But even with this factor no one can plausibly claim the public schools here are economically efficient. The outcomes obtained for the funds expended matter. One only need look at my hometown of Chicago with over 30k per student in spending and some of the worst outcomes in the nation. Yes they have difficult students but also have schools built for 2000 with 75 students in them. Demand of Catholic education is over the top in the city. The Catholic Church does not fund these schools very well, contrary to your conclusions.

Moreover, as regards special needs or special ed students, there is almost universal agreement that teachers and programs are exceedingly random in quality. This isn’t unique to FCPS but lots of public funding alone doesn’t answer the mail. Special ed is a highly people dependent enterprise and attracting and retaining talent can’t be easy, no matter public or private. It is not a political concept to find a way to hire and retain special ed talent without bureaucracy getting in the way. In a very difficult job work conditions often matter as much as pay, although that is needed too. If a school has this dynamic right public or private many are going to send their kids there.

I am a poor public school grad. Went to excellent universities and am very well off now and would never have entertained private schools for a moment for my kids (they ended up at Princeton through no effort on my part). My poor single mother was all about being tough and adaptable - my job for school - not hers. Public school was a wellspring of opportunity.

I never had any complaints about FCPS. It was my kids’ job to navigate through it. My interaction with school personnel were favorable.

This having been said I can see where private schools can work for some. But questions of fit for a student have virtually nothing to do with the points you raise.

[Anonymous]

I don't think FCPS is as good as it pretends to be - the only thing saving it are AP classes. The SOL are set artificially low so FPCS can brag about student performance when we are like 49th in the country for standards for proficiency.

[Anonymous]

On the other hand most private schools aren’t great around here either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think FCPS is as good as it pretends to be - the only thing saving it are AP classes. The SOL are set artificially low so FPCS can brag about student performance when we are like 49th in the country for standards for proficiency.

SOLs are set at the state level,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes this is why we went private

+1

Best decision we ever made.

Keep telling yourself that. There are maybe 6 private schools in the DMV area that are worth the money, the rest is just paying more money so your kids can go to school with richer kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a HS freshman, and her grades are up to date. So far, she has had no academic need for extras from a teacher or from us.

All the info is in color coded folders in schoology for each class (school wide syste) and we were instructed as parents in every class (7 times) how to get the information during back to school night.

It has been pretty clearly laid out even for a new high school parent like me.

My kid is a freshman and their school is nothing like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a HS freshman, and her grades are up to date. So far, she has had no academic need for extras from a teacher or from us.

All the info is in color coded folders in schoology for each class (school wide syste) and we were instructed as parents in every class (7 times) how to get the information during back to school night.

It has been pretty clearly laid out even for a new high school parent like me.

My kid is a freshman and their school is nothing like this.

Same here. Our high school is a hot mess for our freshman and junior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think FCPS is as good as it pretends to be - the only thing saving it are AP classes. The SOL are set artificially low so FPCS can brag about student performance when we are like 49th in the country for standards for proficiency.

The SOL is indeed set artificially low, and it harms the whole state. Republican governor Youngkin and his VDOT is set to fix that problem, by raising SOL standards.

But who is fighting for lower standards? Progressive FCPS leadership, of course. Just watch: with their new social-justice-warrior governor, the progressives will keep lowering standards even further after Spanberger takes over.

If you care about your children’s future in Fairfax county, put them in private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think FCPS is as good as it pretends to be - the only thing saving it are AP classes. The SOL are set artificially low so FPCS can brag about student performance when we are like 49th in the country for standards for proficiency.

Do you have a cite that puts Virginia at 49th educationally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest attends a NOVA Catholic high school (certainly a sports-focused environment) where the class sizes are reasonable and we don't get phone calls or emails about poor performance. The thing to remember is that the kids are in high school now so they're expected to manage their work load and be proactive in reaching out to the teacher for help if they need it.

Ew. Any public school comment always brings out the supposed non MAGA Catholics.

DP. I’m not a MAGA Catholic, but I am a person who has taught in both public and Catholic high schools. They simply don’t compare. In public, I was tasked with performing miracles with no resources. I burned out. In private, I am given the resources and respect to do my job well.

It’s about teacher support and teacher morale, and the publics aren’t doing well on either front right now.

And this has nothing to do with politics or religion. It’s about resources.

Interesting. Can you please elaborate more on resources with specific examples? What resources did parochial schools provide specifically that public schools do not? Or was this mostly smaller class sizes? Was it 2 teachers per class (teacher and assistant)? Was it involvement and help of parent volunteers in each classroom? We had "class parents" in early elementary out of state (public) and volunteering was very much expected, although led to a lot of grumbling between FT working moms vs. SAHMs. Our class sizes were large and in early elementary there was at first an assistant per each class to help out the teacher. Later it went downhill and assistants disappeared.

Of COURSE. It has to do with religion. That is why the schools exist. They offer discounted tuition to clergy members. The entire premise of the school is based on religion and people paying to have their kids go to the school because of the religion.

Of COURSE your workload is better. You aren’t in a union. You get little retirement. You don’t have to pay for children with profound disabilities because the weird intrepretation of the Bible religious schools use says that you should pay to be educated and not take care of everyone.

You aren’t using resources better. You are relying on private money and church money to pay for your salary and “resources.”

You clearly have NO IDEA what you’re talking about. Your post isn’t even comprehensible to me.

From what I can gather from your far-reaching post:

1. High schools don’t offer discounted tuition to parish members. K-8 schools often do.

2. My school is less than 50% Catholic, so your argument that people pick it for faith purposes is invalid.

3. I don’t remotely get your union argument. You are correct; I do not have a union. Public schools do. Wouldn’t that mean their workload would be better than mine cause they have an organization fighting for it? Yet it’s the opposite. My workload is better without the union.

4. Retirement: my work contributes to my retirement. I no longer contribute to a pension, but my retirement is growing quite well because of these contributions.

5. Your argument about “profound disabilities” is incoherent, but we (Catholic schools) do take students with severe disabilities. And we serve them well. We even have an entire wing of our school devoted to special education services.

So my point stands: teachers in private Catholic schools have access to stronger resources. I’ll add that is, at least in part, because we don’t have to waste resources on a central office full of people avoiding classrooms.

I’m not sure you have sufficient access
to reliable experiences or information to make your arguments.

My argument boils down to your funding stream. It comes from private money and church money. Parents pay your salary and the church pays some as well.

Your point: “Teachers have access to stronger resources” and that is THE most OBVIOUS thing in the world because parents are PAYING and the church is PAYING for your school. You aren’t relying on tax payer money and you are having to deal with tax payers who don’t want to pay taxes as a funding stream.


The school claims to be Christian and want to help all, but in actuality you are sitting in a school where you aren’t using a collective strategy in our society to educate kids. You are using a capitalistic, private pay structure to pay for the school. You aren’t helping all of society, you are just helping those who can pay or the church deems they want to pay for (if they are scholarship students). Using a capitalistic structure to pay for academic (and religious) training instead of acting on the principles in the Bible and trying to help ALL kids is ridiculous and hypocritical.

Unions don’t help with pay as much as they provide a lawyer if a teacher is ever accused by a student of inappropriate behavior. We all know how the Catholic Church handles that, so you are right, you don’t need one.

You claim it is central office that is the difference. You have a central office and it in part falls under the church as they help with the grounds keeping, and can provide . You don’t necessarily see how the priest is paid, or the custodians because that sometimes comes from the church part, not just the school.

Please link me to Catholic run ABA centers or centers for profoundly disabled children (life skills curriculum)

You can’t brag about “better resources” when you are charging tuition. Really simple. It is self explanatory that you would have better resources. Not because of better management, but because you are charging people to use the school and have church donations to help you out.

I am no particular fan of Catholic schools but you don’t understand economics. Catholic schools may be supported by private funds, but they have better outcomes with far less per capita spending.

Now some of the per capita gap may be explained by the fact that the public schools have to take in students the Catholic schools do not. But even with this factor no one can plausibly claim the public schools here are economically efficient. The outcomes obtained for the funds expended matter. One only need look at my hometown of Chicago with over 30k per student in spending and some of the worst outcomes in the nation. Yes they have difficult students but also have schools built for 2000 with 75 students in them. Demand of Catholic education is over the top in the city. The Catholic Church does not fund these schools very well, contrary to your conclusions.

Moreover, as regards special needs or special ed students, there is almost universal agreement that teachers and programs are exceedingly random in quality. This isn’t unique to FCPS but lots of public funding alone doesn’t answer the mail. Special ed is a highly people dependent enterprise and attracting and retaining talent can’t be easy, no matter public or private. It is not a political concept to find a way to hire and retain special ed talent without bureaucracy getting in the way. In a very difficult job work conditions often matter as much as pay, although that is needed too. If a school has this dynamic right public or private many are going to send their kids there.

I am a poor public school grad. Went to excellent universities and am very well off now and would never have entertained private schools for a moment for my kids (they ended up at Princeton through no effort on my part). My poor single mother was all about being tough and adaptable - my job for school - not hers. Public school was a wellspring of opportunity.

I never had any complaints about FCPS. It was my kids’ job to navigate through it. My interaction with school personnel were favorable.

This having been said I can see where private schools can work for some. But questions of fit for a student have virtually nothing to do with the points you raise.

NP.

One key takeaway here is your statement; private schools achieve far better student outcomes for much lower costs than comparable public schools.

A major reason for this success is the tendency of private schools to cut waste and eliminate the unnecessary administrative positions, opting instead for efficient administration.

Public schools are heading in the opposite direction:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes this is why we went private

+1

Best decision we ever made.

Keep telling yourself that. There are maybe 6 private schools in the DMV area that are worth the money, the rest is just paying more money so your kids can go to school with richer kids.

Bingo! Richer kids in private AND public schools have much better outcomes.

This thread does not seem to grasp that the parents are the key to success. It is not just the teachers or the school system. This is why more affluent part of the county with motivated parents (and PTA) have good results. The secret sauce is the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think FCPS is as good as it pretends to be - the only thing saving it are AP classes. The SOL are set artificially low so FPCS can brag about student performance when we are like 49th in the country for standards for proficiency.

SOL threshold scores are set by the state, not the county.