School board results?

[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.

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

But not Chantilly. The Western county is exploding. And not more than 20%. In fact, the population is growing high now, because the artificial caps on TJ admits out of RRMS and Carson means more kids from those MSs are going to Chantilly, where they would have gone to a TJ. Stick with what you know.

[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'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.

Thank you for this. Obviously, there are so many complicating factors to running a study with human children (not even adults). It’s very simplistic to just point to hard science as having matter research methods, like educational researchers are purposeful yo-yos who have no idea what they’re doing.

[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.

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?

Goal 2 has a tiny bit of info on E3 math.
https://www.fcps.edu/node/44416

All I know is my student did it in 4th grade (not third) as an advanced math student. He did extensions within the classroom, no dedicated pull outs with the teacher as an advanced math group. And he bombed the 4th grade SOL. All the advanced math kids did. They kept them in advanced math in 5th grade and are trying to get them up to speed to learn the 6th grade curriculum.

[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.

giant echo chambers only support the teacher's union, don't be surprised when education and overcrowding are the last priorities.

[Anonymous]

I'm disappointed the Independent teacher didn't win. I hope he runs again, although I wonder if being an independent is just a deal breaker in this polarized era.

[Anonymous]

Herdon Westfield, Madison, and Langley are all under capacity. There is also an approved expansion at Centreville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree totally. It's just a distraction that's been mooted by the expansions of South Lakes, Oakton, Herndon, Madison, and now Centreville (each to 2500-3000 students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm disappointed the Independent teacher didn't win. I hope he runs again, although I wonder if being an independent is just a deal breaker in this polarized era.

I tried to look him up but couldn't even find a website. He had issues getting his name out there.

I'm a lifelong D who considered not even voting this year. I did end up going to vote for my Supervisor, bonds and two school board members. I voted for Moon and Hussein, as I couldn't stomach the rest. If there had been a non-insane R, I'd have voted for him/her. Priscilla DeStafano was on my ballot and while I don't like Rachna at all, I couldn't vote for Prscilla either. Moon seems reasonable. Everyone else is extreme.

At least Cohen and Omeish will be gone. I disliked both of them greatly, though Cohen is now in leg which may be more troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But not Chantilly. The Western county is exploding. And not more than 20%. In fact, the population is growing high now, because the artificial caps on TJ admits out of RRMS and Carson means more kids from those MSs are going to Chantilly, where they would have gone to a TJ. Stick with what you know.

DP. That will just provide more justification for moving some of Chantilly to Centreville when the latter's expansion to 3000 is finished. Each school would be about 2700 to 2750 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These terms are subjective but if you think McElveen is far left then we obviously have different ideas on what that means. But regardless of however you or I define these terms, the fact remains that Republicans have taken themselves out of the running in this area. Maybe their views would be considered moderately conservative in places like Mississippi, but not here. So people who think the board is too far left need to support people like Moon and McElveen. A vote for a Republican is like a vote for Mickey Mouse, a throwaway vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm disappointed the Independent teacher didn't win. I hope he runs again, although I wonder if being an independent is just a deal breaker in this polarized era.

Of course it is. Ardavan Mobasheri and Kyle McDaniel found that out in 2019 when they ran as independents in Dranesville and Springfield and were beaten soundly. All the independents running this fall, including Peter Gabor, fared just as poorly. Very few people have any idea who you are or what you stand for, the FCDC operatives will beat the crap out of you, and most people just vote a party line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These terms are subjective but if you think McElveen is far left then we obviously have different ideas on what that means. But regardless of however you or I define these terms, the fact remains that Republicans have taken themselves out of the running in this area. Maybe their views would be considered moderately conservative in places like Mississippi, but not here. So people who think the board is too far left need to support people like Moon and McElveen. A vote for a Republican is like a vote for Mickey Mouse, a throwaway vote.

That's a different issue, but please explain why you consider McElveen a moderate.

[Anonymous]

It is a shame that the Demo party even backed Rachna Sizemore Heizer. She was a HUGE part of the school closure issue with COVID and is only politically driven and does not care about the children at all. I am still in shock that she won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a shame that the Demo party even backed Rachna Sizemore Heizer. She was a HUGE part of the school closure issue with COVID and is only politically driven and does not care about the children at all. I am still in shock that she won.

You are stupid.

Fixed it for you.

Clearly you need to go to school and learn science.

Leave and move to Mississippi they like your kind or Alabama with both states horrible in education but love Jim Criow

[Anonymous]

All around the country voters found their brains

Maga and Moms 4 Liberty out.

Book banners out.

If you voted republican you are literally a Nazi supporter and stupid.