School board results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax Mk. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

^!My thoughts exactly. Im liberal BUT I just don’t like the trajectory our schools are going. HOW can we change that?

Keep voting for the people that put FCPS on the wrong trajectory.

How do these people not understand that their vote changes the trajectory more than anything else?

Does it matter?

I’ve accepted it and am just going to protect my own family and make money on the decline.

If this is what people really want they are welcome to it.

You sound like someone who can easily afford a change. I can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Repubs should have stayed away from book banning and crucifying trans kids. As well as slamming equity like it is a slur.

Maybe they would have had a chance.

This.

Until the Republican party as a whole comes to its senses, they are never going to win among an educated population.

They got bold and started saying the quiet part out loud. These are not new opinions. I hope they keep being honest about who they really are. There are no senses to "return" to.

This.

And here is something I also believe -- the amount of nonsense posting on DCUM made me MORE likely to support democrats, not less. The board went to high hell over the past year.

OK, glad to know you so easily dismiss the concerns of others as nonsense.

We will return the favor when you invariably complain about something going on within FCPS in the next four years, courtesy of the same folks (or types) you keep returning to office.

It's easy to dismiss mean spirited for right propaganda by those who don't even live in Fairfax county, apparently

I am a Fairfax resident and my kids are in AAP. So, no, I don't buy your astro-turfing either.

It's terrible. I will say what shocked me was that I am HAPPY with the schools. My kids have homework. They are thriving. Our schools are fine.

The amount of discord showing on this board made me incredibly skeptical. If the posters even tried to sound normal, I might believe it, but they got crazier and crazier.

You understand that this board is trying to dismantle the AAP program correct? Even if your kids get through, others won't because the program will be removed.

Why do you think that?

NP. Abrar Omeish brings it up often at board meetings. Others also have complained about it.

But she is gone. So… ???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

Oh come on, the schools focus on education--this is the vast majority of what they do. How exactly are they "dumbing down" education? I haven't seen it. I think they are focusing on equity and excellence. I've had 1 kid go through FCPS and 2 still in it and they all have received/are receiving solid educations. The eldest is succeeding at UVA now--well-prepared. And we didn't do any supplementing except for private music lessons and outdoorsy summer camps. There are nationwide teacher shortages and FCPS is handling staffing better than most districts. I honestly don't understand all the griping.

SPED kids are in desperate need of more Teachers, better trained Teachers, and county run programs for the kids with higher ED and learning needs.

ESL kids needs ESL classes that start in ES and not to be sent into a Gen Ed class room that they are not prepared for. You cannot expect success for a 9 year old who has barely been to school in their life and doesn’t speak the language when you put them in a Gen Ed 3rd grade classroom. But that is what we do. And then the Teachers need to get that child up to grade level so their focus os on that child and not the rst of the class. ESL classes are needed to meet the kids where they are. Help them learn English and build their skills and when they are ready they can move into Gen Ed classes.

We needed classes with fewer levels in them. Asking a Teacher to teach to 25 kids when some kids are 2 grade levels behind, some are a bit behind, some are on grade level, and some are a year ahead is ridiculous. Not one of those groups of kids is getting the attention they need. we need smaller classes for kids who are behind, a class for kids who are close to grade level, on grade level, and a bit ahead. The rest belong in LIV type classes. We don’t like the optics of it so we throw all of the kids in one class and wonder why parents are clamoring to get into LIV.

We have defined equity as everyone scoring well on the SOL and iReady and have lost the idea that equity should mean classes that meet the child's needs and help the child learn and get to a place where they can pass the SOL. We are so afraid of people visually seeing what we all know exists that we try and hide it behind Gen Ed classes. We all know that the education gap exists. We all know that it is mainly poor Black and Hispanic kids whoa re lagging behind and Asian and White kids who are on grade level or ahead. But we fear putting kids in classes based on ability and showing that gap.

And these issues are widespread and not just FCPS problems. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I agree with some of this and not others. But this point is wrong though. The reason students aren't "tracked" by ability by class is that it was shown to be really detrimental to the lower groups often with only tiny or no gains for the higher group when compared to flexible grouping--students who came to school less enriched but with academic potential found themselves trapped by early placement in lower classes which went slower, which meant that they rarely could catch up and switch groups. It has been replaced by flexible grouping which study after study shows works better both for academic growth and equity. The data when we used to track weren't as widely public and discussed, so people were generally less aware of these trends unless your kid was trapped in a lower group. No Child Left Behind--for all its flaws--was motivated by the extreme inequity along race, income level and disability status there was when we used to track by ability--far more than there is now.

I think we need to go all in on supporting teachers better with flexible grouping--including using specialists who form temporary class sessions for targeted whole class instruction--both for better instruction and some lessening of teachers' burdens. For instance, instead of data that goes nowhere, the specialists would use data to form groups that teach a group of kids x concept if iready or whatever shows they need it. This would go across classes and maybe even grades. For instance--the reading specialist identifies all kids who the data shows need targeted work on fluency and they are pulled out and taught that as a whole class while the remaining kids who don't have that issue have their free reading time/discussion groups/reading work with their classroom teacher. The next day might be phonemic awareness etc. where whoever needs work on that gets targeted help again in a whole class setting with the specialist aimed at that skill. There could be a targeted session for advanced learners on a particular skill--to focus on deeper comprehension, while their class was working on the concept on grade level. The current practice pulls out individual kids/small groups from a single class and expects the teacher to differentiate for the rest and there's just not enough staffing to get to all the kids' needs. The specialist could teach 1 or 2 large group pull outs of targeted instruction each day and then continue with their usual practice of individualized and small group instruction for kids who need more intensive supports. The reading specialist groups could collaborate to craft really masterful lessons on these topics and tweak them based on what is shown to be effective in their context.

Edu studies are all total garbage though. Really the worst of the worst. And are used to show all sorts of strange conflicting things.

We have results from the ten year San Francisco math pilot though - a total failure, harming both high and low performing students. People are trying to ignore the results, since they want to replicate the model everywhere.

[Anonymous]

If we want balance on the school board, it’s going to come between progressive democrats v moderate democrats. And we got some moderate democrats on the board this time. If the board veers too far left, we need to elect more moderates democrats.

It’s insane that people think the way to improve public education is to elect more Republicans. There’s a reason why they’re not being elected here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

Oh come on, the schools focus on education--this is the vast majority of what they do. How exactly are they "dumbing down" education? I haven't seen it. I think they are focusing on equity and excellence. I've had 1 kid go through FCPS and 2 still in it and they all have received/are receiving solid educations. The eldest is succeeding at UVA now--well-prepared. And we didn't do any supplementing except for private music lessons and outdoorsy summer camps. There are nationwide teacher shortages and FCPS is handling staffing better than most districts. I honestly don't understand all the griping.

SPED kids are in desperate need of more Teachers, better trained Teachers, and county run programs for the kids with higher ED and learning needs.

ESL kids needs ESL classes that start in ES and not to be sent into a Gen Ed class room that they are not prepared for. You cannot expect success for a 9 year old who has barely been to school in their life and doesn’t speak the language when you put them in a Gen Ed 3rd grade classroom. But that is what we do. And then the Teachers need to get that child up to grade level so their focus os on that child and not the rst of the class. ESL classes are needed to meet the kids where they are. Help them learn English and build their skills and when they are ready they can move into Gen Ed classes.

We needed classes with fewer levels in them. Asking a Teacher to teach to 25 kids when some kids are 2 grade levels behind, some are a bit behind, some are on grade level, and some are a year ahead is ridiculous. Not one of those groups of kids is getting the attention they need. we need smaller classes for kids who are behind, a class for kids who are close to grade level, on grade level, and a bit ahead. The rest belong in LIV type classes. We don’t like the optics of it so we throw all of the kids in one class and wonder why parents are clamoring to get into LIV.

We have defined equity as everyone scoring well on the SOL and iReady and have lost the idea that equity should mean classes that meet the child's needs and help the child learn and get to a place where they can pass the SOL. We are so afraid of people visually seeing what we all know exists that we try and hide it behind Gen Ed classes. We all know that the education gap exists. We all know that it is mainly poor Black and Hispanic kids whoa re lagging behind and Asian and White kids who are on grade level or ahead. But we fear putting kids in classes based on ability and showing that gap.

And these issues are widespread and not just FCPS problems. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I agree with some of this and not others. But this point is wrong though. The reason students aren't "tracked" by ability by class is that it was shown to be really detrimental to the lower groups often with only tiny or no gains for the higher group when compared to flexible grouping--students who came to school less enriched but with academic potential found themselves trapped by early placement in lower classes which went slower, which meant that they rarely could catch up and switch groups. It has been replaced by flexible grouping which study after study shows works better both for academic growth and equity. The data when we used to track weren't as widely public and discussed, so people were generally less aware of these trends unless your kid was trapped in a lower group. No Child Left Behind--for all its flaws--was motivated by the extreme inequity along race, income level and disability status there was when we used to track by ability--far more than there is now.

I think we need to go all in on supporting teachers better with flexible grouping--including using specialists who form temporary class sessions for targeted whole class instruction--both for better instruction and some lessening of teachers' burdens. For instance, instead of data that goes nowhere, the specialists would use data to form groups that teach a group of kids x concept if iready or whatever shows they need it. This would go across classes and maybe even grades. For instance--the reading specialist identifies all kids who the data shows need targeted work on fluency and they are pulled out and taught that as a whole class while the remaining kids who don't have that issue have their free reading time/discussion groups/reading work with their classroom teacher. The next day might be phonemic awareness etc. where whoever needs work on that gets targeted help again in a whole class setting with the specialist aimed at that skill. There could be a targeted session for advanced learners on a particular skill--to focus on deeper comprehension, while their class was working on the concept on grade level. The current practice pulls out individual kids/small groups from a single class and expects the teacher to differentiate for the rest and there's just not enough staffing to get to all the kids' needs. The specialist could teach 1 or 2 large group pull outs of targeted instruction each day and then continue with their usual practice of individualized and small group instruction for kids who need more intensive supports. The reading specialist groups could collaborate to craft really masterful lessons on these topics and tweak them based on what is shown to be effective in their context.

Edu studies are all total garbage though. Really the worst of the worst. And are used to show all sorts of strange conflicting things.

We have results from the ten year San Francisco math pilot though - a total failure, harming both high and low performing students. People are trying to ignore the results, since they want to replicate the model everywhere.

DP and I generally agree with this. I come from an interdisciplinary STEM/social science background and have delved into education research a bit. I was shocked by the lack of rigor in terms of methods and design. I went to a workshop run by education people and they were basically like “don’t worry about controlling for XYZ it’s fine. Just do the study ”. Um… no a study with multiple confounding variables is really not fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we want balance on the school board, it’s going to come between progressive democrats v moderate democrats. And we got some moderate democrats on the board this time. If the board veers too far left, we need to elect more moderates democrats.

It’s insane that people think the way to improve public education is to elect more Republicans. There’s a reason why they’re not being elected here.

Or some of us thought like you did before and realized it wasn't enough to change the direction of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted R to keep AAP intact and to stop E3 math. I also voted R to restore normal discipline in schools. I voted R to stop SBG. I voted R to bring back homework. I don’t know many average liberal parents who actually support these efforts when they actually know what they entail. Sadly, most just don’t know about these things in any detail.

Don’t care about any of the culture war issues and voted D elsewhere.

I am concerned about these issues, too. I am also concerned about how much FCPS spends on highly paid central office leadership - a category that keeps growing under Reid. None of the current board seem to care about the bloat at central office (some of them advocate for more central office specialists for their pet cause) so I was hoping someone would question it. I want the money to go to our school-based staff. Looks like that’s not going to happen.

Oh, and the renovation queue! Someone needs to pressure for that to be re-looked at but this board hasn’t.

Chantilly says Hi!m at 120% capacity. But neither person running for SB from Sully addressed Chantilly overcrowding. Much to my disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax Mk. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

^!My thoughts exactly. Im liberal BUT I just don’t like the trajectory our schools are going. HOW can we change that?

Lol You should have voted differently yesterday. That was your chance.

DP. Do you seriously think Republicans would have focused on education? I didn’t get the impression that they would care about getting all kids the education they need. They made me feel that they would spend all of their time focusing on how to not support LGBTQ+ kids, take away support for immigrant kids, and make sure no one learns about history that isn’t white American.

Because you want to think that. Deep down its about you feeling "moral" about your vote rather than actually thinking about what would happen. Any intelligent person would understand that one or two people would have no influence on these items in the same way a couple of democrats on a republican board might not be able to have much influence on these same topics. Zero Republicans got elected. Zero. The vote was to try to stop all the changes which Fairfax I guess decided they were just fine with.

If you want an alternate voice on the SB then scrape up someone normal next time.

Maybe FCPS doesn’t need as much change as you think it does.

I agree with the majority of Fairfax voters that people who align with the contemporary Republican party are not who the SB (or government overall) needs. There is enough diversity within the Democratic party that we can put forward candidates who represent a wider spectrum of perspectives and experiences of people who believe in democracy and governance--and this is what happened. The at-large candidates illustrate this: McDaniel was a Republican who realized his party was nuts and became Democrat--I'm sure the positions he holds/insights he brings will differ from someone who was a lifelong Progressive Democrat. Moon is a very centrist candidate, Democrat support for him was due to the long experience he holds/commitment he has on the School Board--many voted for him despite him also being "right" of their political views. McElveen is the only at-large member now that would be considered a progressive. I think this reflects the Fairfax voter population who mainly thinks we have good schools (which by all objective measures we do) and recognizes that education overall is experiencing challenges and pressures that need to be solved--due to changes in demographics, disruptions from the pandemic (not just the shift to virtual, but the actual pandemic upended lives), growing population of students eligible for special education services, the impact of social media on students social and emotional lives, the fast pace of technological disruptions and their impact on how we should be educating children (how does AI change the way we think about what people need to know/learn, how do we engage students in 'school learning' when many are used to immersive, emotional-charged learning in video games etc.). Then you throw in the usual massive challenge of managing buildings, staffing and enrollment in a big district. What we really need are people willing to work on these things, and the Republican party as it currently stands is a deeply, deeply unserious party. I don't know how anyone with sense and concern about governance can look at national politics and think differently. So until the Republican party is not held hostage by its chaotic, destructive, undemocratic wing--there are not likely to have any good candidates who want to align with them or seek their endorsement.

100%

It will be just more of the same. You can Republicans "deeply unserious," but that characterization applies equally well to the current Democrats.

The problem is simply not the party affiliation; it is also the fact that party loyalty trumps serious analysis at the School Board level. Some of us split our tickets this fall because we were desperate to see at least a few candidates elected to the School Board who would challenge the political orthodoxy and years-long pattern of self-dealing and returning favors. We lost, and we respect the results, but we also aren't going to pretend FCPS will emerge stronger as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

Oh come on, the schools focus on education--this is the vast majority of what they do. How exactly are they "dumbing down" education? I haven't seen it. I think they are focusing on equity and excellence. I've had 1 kid go through FCPS and 2 still in it and they all have received/are receiving solid educations. The eldest is succeeding at UVA now--well-prepared. And we didn't do any supplementing except for private music lessons and outdoorsy summer camps. There are nationwide teacher shortages and FCPS is handling staffing better than most districts. I honestly don't understand all the griping.

SPED kids are in desperate need of more Teachers, better trained Teachers, and county run programs for the kids with higher ED and learning needs.

ESL kids needs ESL classes that start in ES and not to be sent into a Gen Ed class room that they are not prepared for. You cannot expect success for a 9 year old who has barely been to school in their life and doesn’t speak the language when you put them in a Gen Ed 3rd grade classroom. But that is what we do. And then the Teachers need to get that child up to grade level so their focus os on that child and not the rst of the class. ESL classes are needed to meet the kids where they are. Help them learn English and build their skills and when they are ready they can move into Gen Ed classes.

We needed classes with fewer levels in them. Asking a Teacher to teach to 25 kids when some kids are 2 grade levels behind, some are a bit behind, some are on grade level, and some are a year ahead is ridiculous. Not one of those groups of kids is getting the attention they need. we need smaller classes for kids who are behind, a class for kids who are close to grade level, on grade level, and a bit ahead. The rest belong in LIV type classes. We don’t like the optics of it so we throw all of the kids in one class and wonder why parents are clamoring to get into LIV.

We have defined equity as everyone scoring well on the SOL and iReady and have lost the idea that equity should mean classes that meet the child's needs and help the child learn and get to a place where they can pass the SOL. We are so afraid of people visually seeing what we all know exists that we try and hide it behind Gen Ed classes. We all know that the education gap exists. We all know that it is mainly poor Black and Hispanic kids whoa re lagging behind and Asian and White kids who are on grade level or ahead. But we fear putting kids in classes based on ability and showing that gap.

And these issues are widespread and not just FCPS problems. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I agree with some of this and not others. But this point is wrong though. The reason students aren't "tracked" by ability by class is that it was shown to be really detrimental to the lower groups often with only tiny or no gains for the higher group when compared to flexible grouping--students who came to school less enriched but with academic potential found themselves trapped by early placement in lower classes which went slower, which meant that they rarely could catch up and switch groups. It has been replaced by flexible grouping which study after study shows works better both for academic growth and equity. The data when we used to track weren't as widely public and discussed, so people were generally less aware of these trends unless your kid was trapped in a lower group. No Child Left Behind--for all its flaws--was motivated by the extreme inequity along race, income level and disability status there was when we used to track by ability--far more than there is now.

I think we need to go all in on supporting teachers better with flexible grouping--including using specialists who form temporary class sessions for targeted whole class instruction--both for better instruction and some lessening of teachers' burdens. For instance, instead of data that goes nowhere, the specialists would use data to form groups that teach a group of kids x concept if iready or whatever shows they need it. This would go across classes and maybe even grades. For instance--the reading specialist identifies all kids who the data shows need targeted work on fluency and they are pulled out and taught that as a whole class while the remaining kids who don't have that issue have their free reading time/discussion groups/reading work with their classroom teacher. The next day might be phonemic awareness etc. where whoever needs work on that gets targeted help again in a whole class setting with the specialist aimed at that skill. There could be a targeted session for advanced learners on a particular skill--to focus on deeper comprehension, while their class was working on the concept on grade level. The current practice pulls out individual kids/small groups from a single class and expects the teacher to differentiate for the rest and there's just not enough staffing to get to all the kids' needs. The specialist could teach 1 or 2 large group pull outs of targeted instruction each day and then continue with their usual practice of individualized and small group instruction for kids who need more intensive supports. The reading specialist groups could collaborate to craft really masterful lessons on these topics and tweak them based on what is shown to be effective in their context.

Edu studies are all total garbage though. Really the worst of the worst. And are used to show all sorts of strange conflicting things.

We have results from the ten year San Francisco math pilot though - a total failure, harming both high and low performing students. People are trying to ignore the results, since they want to replicate the model everywhere.

I mean, there is really no point in a discussion if you're only going to believe the studies you choose to consider and believe. (NP). This is the problem with a bunch of armchair experts in every field dismissing facts, studies, and observations except the ones they want. This is true whether it's education, vaccines, covid, or anything else.

Saying something is "garbage" is an opinion and really a worthless one. And it is why we cannot have reasonable discussions or find any sort of middle grounds anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax Mk. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

^!My thoughts exactly. Im liberal BUT I just don’t like the trajectory our schools are going. HOW can we change that?

Lol You should have voted differently yesterday. That was your chance.

DP. Do you seriously think Republicans would have focused on education? I didn’t get the impression that they would care about getting all kids the education they need. They made me feel that they would spend all of their time focusing on how to not support LGBTQ+ kids, take away support for immigrant kids, and make sure no one learns about history that isn’t white American.

Because you want to think that. Deep down its about you feeling "moral" about your vote rather than actually thinking about what would happen. Any intelligent person would understand that one or two people would have no influence on these items in the same way a couple of democrats on a republican board might not be able to have much influence on these same topics. Zero Republicans got elected. Zero. The vote was to try to stop all the changes which Fairfax I guess decided they were just fine with.

If you want an alternate voice on the SB then scrape up someone normal next time.

Maybe FCPS doesn’t need as much change as you think it does.

I agree with the majority of Fairfax voters that people who align with the contemporary Republican party are not who the SB (or government overall) needs. There is enough diversity within the Democratic party that we can put forward candidates who represent a wider spectrum of perspectives and experiences of people who believe in democracy and governance--and this is what happened. The at-large candidates illustrate this: McDaniel was a Republican who realized his party was nuts and became Democrat--I'm sure the positions he holds/insights he brings will differ from someone who was a lifelong Progressive Democrat. Moon is a very centrist candidate, Democrat support for him was due to the long experience he holds/commitment he has on the School Board--many voted for him despite him also being "right" of their political views. McElveen is the only at-large member now that would be considered a progressive. I think this reflects the Fairfax voter population who mainly thinks we have good schools (which by all objective measures we do) and recognizes that education overall is experiencing challenges and pressures that need to be solved--due to changes in demographics, disruptions from the pandemic (not just the shift to virtual, but the actual pandemic upended lives), growing population of students eligible for special education services, the impact of social media on students social and emotional lives, the fast pace of technological disruptions and their impact on how we should be educating children (how does AI change the way we think about what people need to know/learn, how do we engage students in 'school learning' when many are used to immersive, emotional-charged learning in video games etc.). Then you throw in the usual massive challenge of managing buildings, staffing and enrollment in a big district. What we really need are people willing to work on these things, and the Republican party as it currently stands is a deeply, deeply unserious party. I don't know how anyone with sense and concern about governance can look at national politics and think differently. So until the Republican party is not held hostage by its chaotic, destructive, undemocratic wing--there are not likely to have any good candidates who want to align with them or seek their endorsement.

100%

It will be just more of the same. You can Republicans "deeply unserious," but that characterization applies equally well to the current Democrats.

The problem is simply not the party affiliation; it is also the fact that party loyalty trumps serious analysis at the School Board level. Some of us split our tickets this fall because we were desperate to see at least a few candidates elected to the School Board who would challenge the political orthodoxy and years-long pattern of self-dealing and returning favors. We lost, and we respect the results, but we also aren't going to pretend FCPS will emerge stronger as a result.

I'm a dem and never used to be that way. But when you propose crazy candidates, with crazy fascist agendas and agendas that target LGBTQ and other groups, you forced my hand. I will not vote for people who allow those ideas, and those types of candidates, in their party. YOu want a seat at the table? Dial the crazy back and condone the scary ones. There are plenty of them on the R side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

Oh come on, the schools focus on education--this is the vast majority of what they do. How exactly are they "dumbing down" education? I haven't seen it. I think they are focusing on equity and excellence. I've had 1 kid go through FCPS and 2 still in it and they all have received/are receiving solid educations. The eldest is succeeding at UVA now--well-prepared. And we didn't do any supplementing except for private music lessons and outdoorsy summer camps. There are nationwide teacher shortages and FCPS is handling staffing better than most districts. I honestly don't understand all the griping.

SPED kids are in desperate need of more Teachers, better trained Teachers, and county run programs for the kids with higher ED and learning needs.

ESL kids needs ESL classes that start in ES and not to be sent into a Gen Ed class room that they are not prepared for. You cannot expect success for a 9 year old who has barely been to school in their life and doesn’t speak the language when you put them in a Gen Ed 3rd grade classroom. But that is what we do. And then the Teachers need to get that child up to grade level so their focus os on that child and not the rst of the class. ESL classes are needed to meet the kids where they are. Help them learn English and build their skills and when they are ready they can move into Gen Ed classes.

We needed classes with fewer levels in them. Asking a Teacher to teach to 25 kids when some kids are 2 grade levels behind, some are a bit behind, some are on grade level, and some are a year ahead is ridiculous. Not one of those groups of kids is getting the attention they need. we need smaller classes for kids who are behind, a class for kids who are close to grade level, on grade level, and a bit ahead. The rest belong in LIV type classes. We don’t like the optics of it so we throw all of the kids in one class and wonder why parents are clamoring to get into LIV.

We have defined equity as everyone scoring well on the SOL and iReady and have lost the idea that equity should mean classes that meet the child's needs and help the child learn and get to a place where they can pass the SOL. We are so afraid of people visually seeing what we all know exists that we try and hide it behind Gen Ed classes. We all know that the education gap exists. We all know that it is mainly poor Black and Hispanic kids whoa re lagging behind and Asian and White kids who are on grade level or ahead. But we fear putting kids in classes based on ability and showing that gap.

And these issues are widespread and not just FCPS problems. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I agree with some of this and not others. But this point is wrong though. The reason students aren't "tracked" by ability by class is that it was shown to be really detrimental to the lower groups often with only tiny or no gains for the higher group when compared to flexible grouping--students who came to school less enriched but with academic potential found themselves trapped by early placement in lower classes which went slower, which meant that they rarely could catch up and switch groups. It has been replaced by flexible grouping which study after study shows works better both for academic growth and equity. The data when we used to track weren't as widely public and discussed, so people were generally less aware of these trends unless your kid was trapped in a lower group. No Child Left Behind--for all its flaws--was motivated by the extreme inequity along race, income level and disability status there was when we used to track by ability--far more than there is now.

I think we need to go all in on supporting teachers better with flexible grouping--including using specialists who form temporary class sessions for targeted whole class instruction--both for better instruction and some lessening of teachers' burdens. For instance, instead of data that goes nowhere, the specialists would use data to form groups that teach a group of kids x concept if iready or whatever shows they need it. This would go across classes and maybe even grades. For instance--the reading specialist identifies all kids who the data shows need targeted work on fluency and they are pulled out and taught that as a whole class while the remaining kids who don't have that issue have their free reading time/discussion groups/reading work with their classroom teacher. The next day might be phonemic awareness etc. where whoever needs work on that gets targeted help again in a whole class setting with the specialist aimed at that skill. There could be a targeted session for advanced learners on a particular skill--to focus on deeper comprehension, while their class was working on the concept on grade level. The current practice pulls out individual kids/small groups from a single class and expects the teacher to differentiate for the rest and there's just not enough staffing to get to all the kids' needs. The specialist could teach 1 or 2 large group pull outs of targeted instruction each day and then continue with their usual practice of individualized and small group instruction for kids who need more intensive supports. The reading specialist groups could collaborate to craft really masterful lessons on these topics and tweak them based on what is shown to be effective in their context.

Edu studies are all total garbage though. Really the worst of the worst. And are used to show all sorts of strange conflicting things.

We have results from the ten year San Francisco math pilot though - a total failure, harming both high and low performing students. People are trying to ignore the results, since they want to replicate the model everywhere.

I mean, there is really no point in a discussion if you're only going to believe the studies you choose to consider and believe. (NP). This is the problem with a bunch of armchair experts in every field dismissing facts, studies, and observations except the ones they want. This is true whether it's education, vaccines, covid, or anything else.

Saying something is "garbage" is an opinion and really a worthless one. And it is why we cannot have reasonable discussions or find any sort of middle grounds anymore.

And discounting all of them is what led to the garbage reading programs that came out of the past 10 years. It's taken a full 15-20 years to get any change back to phonics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we want balance on the school board, it’s going to come between progressive democrats v moderate democrats. And we got some moderate democrats on the board this time. If the board veers too far left, we need to elect more moderates democrats.

It’s insane that people think the way to improve public education is to elect more Republicans. There’s a reason why they’re not being elected here.

Who are these "moderate Democrats"? There's Moon and....?

Calling McDaniel a "moderate Democrat," as some have done, is an exercise in self-delusion. He is a political opportunist, and he perceived correctly that there was a lot more to be gained in Fairfax by aligning himself with far-left Democrats than remaining a moderate Republican. Why would he switch his stripes now and recast himself in the mold of Megan McLaughlin or Chap Peterson?

Sizemore-Heizer, Anderson, Frisch, and Meren are all far-left. McElveen may be slightly less far-left now that he has kids and lives in the Langley district, but he's far-left as well. The other newcomers have every incentive to glom onto to whatever the incumbents want to keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another all democratic board

Race to the bottom, cracks are already showing in the rankings even for tj

Current TJ ranking is very consistent with previous rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

Oh come on, the schools focus on education--this is the vast majority of what they do. How exactly are they "dumbing down" education? I haven't seen it. I think they are focusing on equity and excellence. I've had 1 kid go through FCPS and 2 still in it and they all have received/are receiving solid educations. The eldest is succeeding at UVA now--well-prepared. And we didn't do any supplementing except for private music lessons and outdoorsy summer camps. There are nationwide teacher shortages and FCPS is handling staffing better than most districts. I honestly don't understand all the griping.

SPED kids are in desperate need of more Teachers, better trained Teachers, and county run programs for the kids with higher ED and learning needs.

ESL kids needs ESL classes that start in ES and not to be sent into a Gen Ed class room that they are not prepared for. You cannot expect success for a 9 year old who has barely been to school in their life and doesn’t speak the language when you put them in a Gen Ed 3rd grade classroom. But that is what we do. And then the Teachers need to get that child up to grade level so their focus os on that child and not the rst of the class. ESL classes are needed to meet the kids where they are. Help them learn English and build their skills and when they are ready they can move into Gen Ed classes.

We needed classes with fewer levels in them. Asking a Teacher to teach to 25 kids when some kids are 2 grade levels behind, some are a bit behind, some are on grade level, and some are a year ahead is ridiculous. Not one of those groups of kids is getting the attention they need. we need smaller classes for kids who are behind, a class for kids who are close to grade level, on grade level, and a bit ahead. The rest belong in LIV type classes. We don’t like the optics of it so we throw all of the kids in one class and wonder why parents are clamoring to get into LIV.

We have defined equity as everyone scoring well on the SOL and iReady and have lost the idea that equity should mean classes that meet the child's needs and help the child learn and get to a place where they can pass the SOL. We are so afraid of people visually seeing what we all know exists that we try and hide it behind Gen Ed classes. We all know that the education gap exists. We all know that it is mainly poor Black and Hispanic kids whoa re lagging behind and Asian and White kids who are on grade level or ahead. But we fear putting kids in classes based on ability and showing that gap.

And these issues are widespread and not just FCPS problems. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I agree with some of this and not others. But this point is wrong though. The reason students aren't "tracked" by ability by class is that it was shown to be really detrimental to the lower groups often with only tiny or no gains for the higher group when compared to flexible grouping--students who came to school less enriched but with academic potential found themselves trapped by early placement in lower classes which went slower, which meant that they rarely could catch up and switch groups. It has been replaced by flexible grouping which study after study shows works better both for academic growth and equity. The data when we used to track weren't as widely public and discussed, so people were generally less aware of these trends unless your kid was trapped in a lower group. No Child Left Behind--for all its flaws--was motivated by the extreme inequity along race, income level and disability status there was when we used to track by ability--far more than there is now.

I think we need to go all in on supporting teachers better with flexible grouping--including using specialists who form temporary class sessions for targeted whole class instruction--both for better instruction and some lessening of teachers' burdens. For instance, instead of data that goes nowhere, the specialists would use data to form groups that teach a group of kids x concept if iready or whatever shows they need it. This would go across classes and maybe even grades. For instance--the reading specialist identifies all kids who the data shows need targeted work on fluency and they are pulled out and taught that as a whole class while the remaining kids who don't have that issue have their free reading time/discussion groups/reading work with their classroom teacher. The next day might be phonemic awareness etc. where whoever needs work on that gets targeted help again in a whole class setting with the specialist aimed at that skill. There could be a targeted session for advanced learners on a particular skill--to focus on deeper comprehension, while their class was working on the concept on grade level. The current practice pulls out individual kids/small groups from a single class and expects the teacher to differentiate for the rest and there's just not enough staffing to get to all the kids' needs. The specialist could teach 1 or 2 large group pull outs of targeted instruction each day and then continue with their usual practice of individualized and small group instruction for kids who need more intensive supports. The reading specialist groups could collaborate to craft really masterful lessons on these topics and tweak them based on what is shown to be effective in their context.

Edu studies are all total garbage though. Really the worst of the worst. And are used to show all sorts of strange conflicting things.

We have results from the ten year San Francisco math pilot though - a total failure, harming both high and low performing students. People are trying to ignore the results, since they want to replicate the model everywhere.

I mean, there is really no point in a discussion if you're only going to believe the studies you choose to consider and believe. (NP). This is the problem with a bunch of armchair experts in every field dismissing facts, studies, and observations except the ones they want. This is true whether it's education, vaccines, covid, or anything else.

Saying something is "garbage" is an opinion and really a worthless one. And it is why we cannot have reasonable discussions or find any sort of middle grounds anymore.

Read what they said. "We didn't have data re tracking but it was bad so now we don't track. We have data now but we don't look at it" because it doesn't show the improvement we want to see.

But tracking is bad for students. Nevermind that not tracking is bad for teachers and causes them to be overwhelmed and quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about whether they are R or D but hate that the trajectory seems to be dumbing down education for "equity," and forcing teachers to deal with untenable classroom situations. We'll do the best we can to support our kids's education by providing them with as much supplemental education as we can. Sadly, we can't afford "private" as we're trying to save for four college educations, nor can we move as our jobs are based in Fairfax Mk. We'll survive, but it would be nice to see the schools start focus on educating again instead of spending money on wasteful renaming projects, consultants, etc.

^!My thoughts exactly. Im liberal BUT I just don’t like the trajectory our schools are going. HOW can we change that?

Lol You should have voted differently yesterday. That was your chance.

DP. Do you seriously think Republicans would have focused on education? I didn’t get the impression that they would care about getting all kids the education they need. They made me feel that they would spend all of their time focusing on how to not support LGBTQ+ kids, take away support for immigrant kids, and make sure no one learns about history that isn’t white American.

Because you want to think that. Deep down its about you feeling "moral" about your vote rather than actually thinking about what would happen. Any intelligent person would understand that one or two people would have no influence on these items in the same way a couple of democrats on a republican board might not be able to have much influence on these same topics. Zero Republicans got elected. Zero. The vote was to try to stop all the changes which Fairfax I guess decided they were just fine with.

If you want an alternate voice on the SB then scrape up someone normal next time.

Maybe FCPS doesn’t need as much change as you think it does.

I agree with the majority of Fairfax voters that people who align with the contemporary Republican party are not who the SB (or government overall) needs. There is enough diversity within the Democratic party that we can put forward candidates who represent a wider spectrum of perspectives and experiences of people who believe in democracy and governance--and this is what happened. The at-large candidates illustrate this: McDaniel was a Republican who realized his party was nuts and became Democrat--I'm sure the positions he holds/insights he brings will differ from someone who was a lifelong Progressive Democrat. Moon is a very centrist candidate, Democrat support for him was due to the long experience he holds/commitment he has on the School Board--many voted for him despite him also being "right" of their political views. McElveen is the only at-large member now that would be considered a progressive. I think this reflects the Fairfax voter population who mainly thinks we have good schools (which by all objective measures we do) and recognizes that education overall is experiencing challenges and pressures that need to be solved--due to changes in demographics, disruptions from the pandemic (not just the shift to virtual, but the actual pandemic upended lives), growing population of students eligible for special education services, the impact of social media on students social and emotional lives, the fast pace of technological disruptions and their impact on how we should be educating children (how does AI change the way we think about what people need to know/learn, how do we engage students in 'school learning' when many are used to immersive, emotional-charged learning in video games etc.). Then you throw in the usual massive challenge of managing buildings, staffing and enrollment in a big district. What we really need are people willing to work on these things, and the Republican party as it currently stands is a deeply, deeply unserious party. I don't know how anyone with sense and concern about governance can look at national politics and think differently. So until the Republican party is not held hostage by its chaotic, destructive, undemocratic wing--there are not likely to have any good candidates who want to align with them or seek their endorsement.

100%

It will be just more of the same. You can Republicans "deeply unserious," but that characterization applies equally well to the current Democrats.

The problem is simply not the party affiliation; it is also the fact that party loyalty trumps serious analysis at the School Board level. Some of us split our tickets this fall because we were desperate to see at least a few candidates elected to the School Board who would challenge the political orthodoxy and years-long pattern of self-dealing and returning favors. We lost, and we respect the results, but we also aren't going to pretend FCPS will emerge stronger as a result.

I'm a dem and never used to be that way. But when you propose crazy candidates, with crazy fascist agendas and agendas that target LGBTQ and other groups, you forced my hand. I will not vote for people who allow those ideas, and those types of candidates, in their party. YOu want a seat at the table? Dial the crazy back and condone the scary ones. There are plenty of them on the R side.

+1