School board results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

TJ rankings don't have anything to do yet with the TJ admissions changes, as they are based on test scores for classes admitted under the old system. When people bring this up, it's like putting a "stupid" sign on their forehead.

[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'm the PP and I work in data analysis/policy (PhD in econ, shifted to broader public policy for work--work area includes ed but not exclusively). I start as skeptical about educational research (all social science research actually including econ--but for different reasons). Quantitative educational research is always going to be a challenge because it is very hard to randomly assign to groups and have instructional fidelity etc. and there are a lot of complex social factors that affect outcomes that are difficult to measure. Privacy measures stymie access to data. Qualitative educational research may often be more appropriate to inform local decisions but it's context-specific/not generalizable and challenging to do rigorously so usually not part of the broader conversation. But contemporary quantitative educational research is increasingly using more sophisticated statistical models for analysis and measurement--Bayesian, SEM, HLM, IRT etc. They conduct systematic meta-analyses. There's a growing foundational body of knowledge about learning in cognitive science. It's not all total garbage, though it's important to understand its limits and differentiate based on the quality of the evidence. The biggest issue is that school districts use of research is usually poorly informed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never vote for another R again in any capacity. J6 an Roe are too much, and they don't repudiate it.

Trump has said he will pardon -WITH APOLOGIES TO THEM- those convicted for J6. Including the Proud Boys.

He has also said he will use the Insurrection Act to quell public protests. And purge the government ranks and instill loyalists.

It’S jUsT a DIfFeRenT oPinIOn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote Blue No Matter Who will now finish killing FCPS. Residents get what they deserve. More people with means will abandon public schools.

Don't let the door hit you. . .

Happy to support independents with some traditionally Republican positions. But if you’re fine aligning yourself with the craziness that is the current Republican Party, yeah, I will never vote for you. See ya!

[Anonymous]

In the past, I rarely if ever voted in the school board elections. I did not know the candidates or issues well enough to vote. Although I am fairly liberal, I never took a D ballot with me in to vote.

That changed this year for two reasons. Initially I was concerned with the R focus on parental choice (i.e., removing books and pronouns). However, when the local repubs AND MY NEIGHBORS (!) filed suit to remove the D candidate from the ballot late in the season and throw out early votes, I recognized that our local R party had internalized the voter suppression tactics of the national Rs and then I voted D straight down the ticket.

I know the Pinkney family and thought Kevin Pinkney might be someone I could consider. Once the lawsuits were filed, that went out the door. We don't need national R party tactics in Fairfax county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just sad that academic progress is ceasing to be an important goal for the schools along with the anything goes mentality of kids getting involved in bad behavior with no consequence. The most discriminatory people I know are the ones that say they are liberal but then only actually associate with a small group of people on a day to day basis.

I think this crop of at large members- despite being associated with Democrats- are more focused on academics.

I think Moon is but the other two seemed very political, not academic, focused.

My kid, who was in HS at the time, loved McElveen and strongly supported him in 2019. He still has a McEleveen for SB sticker in his room (that will never come off the closet door, Ugghh). Now, this may be because he was Mr. Snow Day and had a very active social media presence, but he had a lot of student support. I know someone will jump on and say what kids want on the SB shouldn’t count and kids don’t know what’s best for them. But my kid was 17 and a senior at TJ and had some very strong, well informed feelings about FCPS education and issues. And I do think it’s important for students, especially older ones, to feel like someone with a vote is in their corner on the board. Just like I voted for the independent teacher and was happy to see a school admin (Robyn Lady) win. One way to avoid group think and get good decisions is to have people from different types of stake holders bringing different perspectives. Someone dialed into the HS students is a good thing. They are the ones who know first hand what works and what doesn’t.

[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.

Where is E3 math? In a wide range of schools or just schools with many kids who are struggling with math?

E3 math is a pilot program in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms at 20-ish schools. My student did it and his 5th grade advanced math teacher says his whole group is way behind and she's having to teach them all the 5th grade curriculum in addition to the 6th grade curriculum they should be learning to take the 6th grade SOL this year. Not impressed.

Which schools though?

It only goes through 4th grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the past, I rarely if ever voted in the school board elections. I did not know the candidates or issues well enough to vote. Although I am fairly liberal, I never took a D ballot with me in to vote.

That changed this year for two reasons. Initially I was concerned with the R focus on parental choice (i.e., removing books and pronouns). However, when the local repubs AND MY NEIGHBORS (!) filed suit to remove the D candidate from the ballot late in the season and throw out early votes, I recognized that our local R party had internalized the voter suppression tactics of the national Rs and then I voted D straight down the ticket.

I know the Pinkney family and thought Kevin Pinkney might be someone I could consider. Once the lawsuits were filed, that went out the door. We don't need national R party tactics in Fairfax county.

What the heck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's an easy fix. Most of the schools are less crowded now that school population and Fairfax County population is declining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a plan to address the overcrowding at Chantilly hiding in plain sight. It's the approved expansion of Centreville HS to 3000 kids.

It was obviously not in the interests of the winning Democrat to bring that up. First, a lot of Centreville parents don't want a mega-school, but weren't really consulted by the Democratic School Board. Second, a lot of Chantilly parents don't want to get moved to Centreville, and every boundary change generates angst. Third, it underscores that the proposed "new western high school" that has been referenced in the Capital Improvement Programs for over a decade is a farce that the Democrats on the School Board perpetuated at worst and tolerated at best.

It might have been in the interests of the Republican candidate to bring all this up, but Walsh wasn't well informed enough to do much other than parrot GOP talking points and focus on the one issue that she knew a bit about (special education).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most interesting thing to me will be to see how a School Board with five men and seven women functions differently than the last one with 11 women and the one gay guy. The politics probably won’t change much, since it’s still just one-party rule, but maybe it will get more done and be less like a bad episode of “The View.”

It’s 2023 - it’s not cool to be a misogynist.

Source: VA election results.

[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.

So they were complaining about AAP or were they “trying to dismantle” it as the PP claimed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a plan to address the overcrowding at Chantilly hiding in plain sight. It's the approved expansion of Centreville HS to 3000 kids.

It was obviously not in the interests of the winning Democrat to bring that up. First, a lot of Centreville parents don't want a mega-school, but weren't really consulted by the Democratic School Board. Second, a lot of Chantilly parents don't want to get moved to Centreville, and every boundary change generates angst. Third, it underscores that the proposed "new western high school" that has been referenced in the Capital Improvement Programs for over a decade is a farce that the Democrats on the School Board perpetuated at worst and tolerated at best.

It might have been in the interests of the Republican candidate to bring all this up, but Walsh wasn't well informed enough to do much other than parrot GOP talking points and focus on the one issue that she knew a bit about (special education).

The western high school should just be taken out of the CIP at this point.

[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: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.

So they were complaining about AAP or were they “trying to dismantle” it as the PP claimed?

Trying to dismantle it and remove centers.

[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. 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.

Again, this is not conducive to a discussion. You have your view. You discount anything that doesn't conform to that bias. Fine. But there is not a discussion to be had given that.