Equal outcomes?

[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: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.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

No elephant in the Langley pyramid. Elaine Tholen keeps Langley free of any housing diversity so it's 3% FARMS even though it shares a boundary with 50% FARMS Herndon.

Most of the school board voted for it.

If you care so much you should emphasize that fact.

Throw them all out.
Even Omeish, who voted against, was not exactly form on the “equity” argument.

Omeish took a lot of sh*t from Langley because she did an interview on cable TV with a guy from Reston when she was running in 2019 where she nodded when he complained about the Langley boundaries compared to Herndon and South Lakes. Probably didn’t want to have to deal with them again.

It’s not her job to kowtow to the “lily white” (the description to which she nodded in agreement when so characterized by the interviewer) parents of Langley. She’s an at large rep who ran largely on the boundary issue (check videos of her announcement)

She’s supposed to represent the interests and balance the needs of the entire county.

If she’s so weak as to bend before a few grumpy parents in a single pyramid then that’s yet another reason why she deserves to lose her seat.

Langley is not lily white. It has people of color, just not many black students. There are plenty of Asians and Middle Eastern families in McLean.

It's not the racial make up that people find absurd, it's the utter lack of farms students in a county where 1/3 of students receive free and reduced meals. It's not just a school board problem, it's a county council problem. They choose to approve and subsidize large affordable housing projects, but only in certain zip codes. Even though Metro runs through McLean and out past Tysons now, those areas are largely exempt

They are planning to add quite a bit of affordable housing in Tysons, which spans McLean and Vienna. However, things being what they are in Fairfax, the vast bulk of it will feed to Marshall, the rest will feed to McLean, and none will feed to Langley.

The current Democrats are hypocrites and Elaine Tholen in particular went out of her way to keep Langley free of any apartments and condos. It turns out you can hug trees and push energy efficiency and still be a segregationist.

[Anonymous]

Equal outcome = removing AAP and this is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcome = removing AAP and this is not going to happen.

Guess this falls into the "necessary but not sufficient" category.

It's a joke to think you can have equal outcomes with a two-track academic program.

On the other hand, you can eliminate AAP and some kids are still going to do better than others. What's a good equity warrior to do then?

[Anonymous]

OP,

The text you cite is code for “levelling down”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many AAP parents, the board would go red the very next election after such a decision lol.

Don’t give the RWNJs any ideas. They love pushing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many AAP parents, the board would go red the very next election after such a decision lol.

Don’t give the RWNJs any ideas. They love pushing lies.

Plenty of LWNJ parents support AAP. But you knew that.
DP

[Anonymous]

I'm all for this. If one FCPS grad ends up working at McD's then all of them should as well. This would model TJ where every single grad has an equal Google job.

[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: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.

FCPS stopped publishing SAT scores disaggregated by race and other factors on school profiles several years ago. I don't think they ever explained why. It's possible they were concerned that they don't allow for as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as one might assume if, for example, one school really encourages Black students to take SATs and another doesn't (in which case the scores of the more motivated students who sign up to take the SATs may be higher).

FCPS has long had, and continues to have, special programs like AVID that are geared towards motivating Black and Hispanic kids and putting them on the course to attend college. They also arrange college tours that are unique to AVID programs. Langley doesn't need, and therefore doesn't have, a similar program, as it's understood that Langley families know what needs to be done to ready their kids for college. And there are other ways in which FCPS spends more per student at schools with more low-income kids.

No one has objected to that until relatively recent, when FCPS appeared to be embracing "anti-racist" and "pro-equity" rhetoric (of which "equal outcomes for all students, without exception" is just one example) that suggests that the differential in spending per student should be vastly increased in favor of kids in lower-income schools. Given that this is happening at the same time as FCPS continues to refuse to address severe overcrowding at some of its higher-performing high schools like Chantilly and McLean, and has these weird incidents like a few schools not providing timely notice to students commended by the NMSF, it is starting to come across as if FCPS wants to encourage higher-income families to pull their kids out of FCPS.

Somehow they have to figure out how to strike the right tone again. I really believe that the vast majority of FCPS families support the past and current policy of spending more on kids with greater educational needs. But they would be so better off if they could figure out a common-sense way to articulate realistic and achievable goals without all the equity babble.

It is also relatively recently (within the past 5 years or so) that disparities between top and bottom schools have ballooned to staggering differences. 10 years ago even low performing schools still had sizable student cohorts at every level. Sports and activities had parity. Now the general trend is that the low performing schools have college-track cohorts measured in the tens of students. MVHS has advanced math (calculus) senior enrollment in the single digits. FCPS is very top heavy and scores at low-SES schools are dropping off a cliff. That's why there is such a big push to lift those schools up again.

At least where I am, there has been a sizable increase in low income students in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

No elephant in the Langley pyramid. Elaine Tholen keeps Langley free of any housing diversity so it's 3% FARMS even though it shares a boundary with 50% FARMS Herndon.

Most of the school board voted for it.

If you care so much you should emphasize that fact.

Throw them all out.
Even Omeish, who voted against, was not exactly form on the “equity” argument.

Omeish took a lot of sh*t from Langley because she did an interview on cable TV with a guy from Reston when she was running in 2019 where she nodded when he complained about the Langley boundaries compared to Herndon and South Lakes. Probably didn’t want to have to deal with them again.

It’s not her job to kowtow to the “lily white” (the description to which she nodded in agreement when so characterized by the interviewer) parents of Langley. She’s an at large rep who ran largely on the boundary issue (check videos of her announcement)

She’s supposed to represent the interests and balance the needs of the entire county.

If she’s so weak as to bend before a few grumpy parents in a single pyramid then that’s yet another reason why she deserves to lose her seat.

Langley is not lily white. It has people of color, just not many black students. There are plenty of Asians and Middle Eastern families in McLean.

I know that.

You know that.

The sneering host of Reston Impact did not, and Omeish was all too happy to agree.

+1
He was awful. She IS awful. Hope she's voted out.
DP

[Anonymous]

Statistically speaking, intelligence is equally distributed across the human race. If you dispute me on this, maybe go check on your whatever makes you think like that (racism? elitism? who knows?...). So to spell equal outcome to those of you too who benefitted from your shiny education but choose to feign ignorance: similar graduation rates, access to similar types of higher education, access to internships and exchange programs... statistically speaking.

So yes, kids at Mt Vernon will need more resources to get there. And that's exactly what FCPS ought to be doing. (My kid is in one of the "richer" side of the pyramids. The parents around here do a great job of setting the kids on their paths. They don't need, and will not use *more*.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistically speaking, intelligence is equally distributed across the human race. If you dispute me on this, maybe go check on your whatever makes you think like that (racism? elitism? who knows?...). So to spell equal outcome to those of you too who benefitted from your shiny education but choose to feign ignorance: similar graduation rates, access to similar types of higher education, access to internships and exchange programs... statistically speaking.

So yes, kids at Mt Vernon will need more resources to get there. And that's exactly what FCPS ought to be doing. (My kid is in one of the "richer" side of the pyramids. The parents around here do a great job of setting the kids on their paths. They don't need, and will not use *more*.)

Sounds like more of the race to the bottom.

If FCPS really wants to improve MVHS it can get rid of the largely useless IB program and reassign some West Potomac neighborhoods there. That might improve the school without so obviously embracing a race to the bottom to improve graduation rates, etc. If intelligence is so equally distributed there should be no need to lower standards just to engineer the equal outcomes you desire.

[Anonymous]

I think a county should not have 1/3 of their students on free and reduced lunch. Why is this? More poor people coming across the border? Why can't families afford food for their kids? I came from a very middle class background where people's parents worked a manual labor jobs and don't remember any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a county should not have 1/3 of their students on free and reduced lunch. Why is this? More poor people coming across the border? Why can't families afford food for their kids? I came from a very middle class background where people's parents worked a manual labor jobs and don't remember any of this.

Fairfax has some generational poverty, especially along the Route 1 corridor, but the spike in FARMS rates in Fairfax is overwhelmingly due to immigrants. These people often take the jobs that no one else wants, but in many cases they are still eligible for public assistance like FARMS.

FARMS eligibility in FCPS is currently based on incomes below 130% of the poverty level. If you reduced the defined poverty level, or set FARMS eligibility at a lower threshold (i.e., below the poverty level vs. below 130% threshold), you wouldn't have 1/3 of the students receiving FARMS but you might also have more kids who are food-insecure and local employers might find it even more difficult to fill low-paying jobs.

The existence of the program is just further evidence, however, that the county already spends more per student for lower-income students, and there are many other ways in which FCPS spends more on schools with higher percentages of low-income kids. The equity consultants pushing "equal outcomes" as if disproportionate spending to benefit lower-income kids is some new idea they came up with on their own are basically just hired to give School Board representatives in the poorer FCPS districts (Franconia, Mason, and Mount Vernon, in particular) more ammunition to demand a further reallocation of resources and opportunities away from the wealthier districts towards theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistically speaking, intelligence is equally distributed across the human race. If you dispute me on this, maybe go check on your whatever makes you think like that (racism? elitism? who knows?...). So to spell equal outcome to those of you too who benefitted from your shiny education but choose to feign ignorance: similar graduation rates, access to similar types of higher education, access to internships and exchange programs... statistically speaking.

So yes, kids at Mt Vernon will need more resources to get there. And that's exactly what FCPS ought to be doing. (My kid is in one of the "richer" side of the pyramids. The parents around here do a great job of setting the kids on their paths. They don't need, and will not use *more*.)

You're clearly a complete moron. Intelligence is not "distributed equally" by any stretch of the imagination. Have you been drinking? Or maybe you just don't know what the word "distribution" even means.

[Anonymous]

A call for UMC FCPS to enroll their students in private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a county should not have 1/3 of their students on free and reduced lunch. Why is this? More poor people coming across the border? Why can't families afford food for their kids? I came from a very middle class background where people's parents worked a manual labor jobs and don't remember any of this.

Fairfax has some generational poverty, especially along the Route 1 corridor, but the spike in FARMS rates in Fairfax is overwhelmingly due to immigrants. These people often take the jobs that no one else wants, but in many cases they are still eligible for public assistance like FARMS.

FARMS eligibility in FCPS is currently based on incomes below 130% of the poverty level. If you reduced the defined poverty level, or set FARMS eligibility at a lower threshold (i.e., below the poverty level vs. below 130% threshold), you wouldn't have 1/3 of the students receiving FARMS but you might also have more kids who are food-insecure and local employers might find it even more difficult to fill low-paying jobs.

The existence of the program is just further evidence, however, that the county already spends more per student for lower-income students, and there are many other ways in which FCPS spends more on schools with higher percentages of low-income kids. The equity consultants pushing "equal outcomes" as if disproportionate spending to benefit lower-income kids is some new idea they came up with on their own are basically just hired to give School Board representatives in the poorer FCPS districts (Franconia, Mason, and Mount Vernon, in particular) more ammunition to demand a further reallocation of resources and opportunities away from the wealthier districts towards theirs.

What opportunity is taken away from wealthy pyramids? Poorer pyramids get additional resources and connections to community programs like the AVID program, Young Scholars, GMU Early Identification Program, NVCC's pathway to the baccalaureate, etc. These are all catered towards first-gen kids from immigrant families who see NVCC and Mason as hitting the jackpot. A wealthy pyramid wouldn't benefit from these resources even if they were allocated evenly to everyone. The main thing wealthy pyramids could use extra funding on is additional acceleration. At that point if a student base is so accelerated they may as well dual enroll into college courses. My point is there are diminishing returns to funding acceleration beyond the norm.