Draft of equity policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"The Chief Equity Office will design and execute an Equity plan-with an accompanying framework-to build capacity in the skills and dispositions of cultural proficiency which are necessary to create and nurture equitable educational and work environments."

Could someone please translate this for me?

Meaningless gobbledygook. When a sentence is filled with such complex babble, you know somebody is up to no good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"The Chief Equity Office will design and execute an Equity plan-with an accompanying framework-to build capacity in the skills and dispositions of cultural proficiency which are necessary to create and nurture equitable educational and work environments."

Could someone please translate this for me?

Meaningless gobbledygook. When a sentence is filled with such complex babble, you know somebody is up to no good.

If you keep electing the same type of “progressive” Democrats to the School Board, there will be even more gobbledygook. And it won’t just be the written policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"The Chief Equity Office will design and execute an Equity plan-with an accompanying framework-to build capacity in the skills and dispositions of cultural proficiency which are necessary to create and nurture equitable educational and work environments."

Could someone please translate this for me?

Meaningless gobbledygook. When a sentence is filled with such complex babble, you know somebody is up to no good.

If you keep electing the same type of “progressive” Democrats to the School Board, there will be even more gobbledygook. And it won’t just be the written policy.

This has been the major problem with FCPS for the last 10 years at least. Progressive school board the selects progressively worse superintendent each time then rubber stamps dump idea after dumb idea.

Time for a clean slate on the board. Hard to imagine it could get worse.

[Anonymous]

I just got an emailed from the principal they did say promoting, the 6th graders were the ones calling it a graduation..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are some parts of the policy that are sensible and actionable, and will therefore likely be ignored if this policy is adopted.

"All students deserve a safe, well-equipped comfortable physical space for learning and innovation."

"The Chief Operations Office will guarantee safe and well equipped facilities, safe and efficient transportation, and nutritious meals for all students and staff."

It's just words. They will never make those lines actual rules let alone give parents recourse if they are violated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This looks like it's aimed to create handcuffs to force other decisions. I don't like it since it seems aimed at creating other policy changes but isn't clear in what those are.

On top of that shoot me but i'm firmly of the view that the disproportionate discipline records are because some kids act up more than others not because some are being discriminated against. Lowering the discipline bar even further to get to the same outcomes will NOT be a good thing for FCPS.

+1

"Restorative justice" my arse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some parts of the policy that are sensible and actionable, and will therefore likely be ignored if this policy is adopted.

"All students deserve a safe, well-equipped comfortable physical space for learning and innovation."

"The Chief Operations Office will guarantee safe and well equipped facilities, safe and efficient transportation, and nutritious meals for all students and staff."

It's just words. They will never make those lines actual rules let alone give parents recourse if they are violated.

It’s unfortunate that things they could accomplish are treated as gauzy aspirational goals just like the vague concepts (for example, “equal outcomes”) they have no ability to achieve. And so the race to the bottom continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This looks like it's aimed to create handcuffs to force other decisions. I don't like it since it seems aimed at creating other policy changes but isn't clear in what those are.

On top of that shoot me but i'm firmly of the view that the disproportionate discipline records are because some kids act up more than others not because some are being discriminated against. Lowering the discipline bar even further to get to the same outcomes will NOT be a good thing for FCPS.

+1

"Restorative justice" my arse.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

Maybe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

It doesn't mean anyone will get anything, just that if you ask for something they will tell you no because there is a system of marginalization elsewhere that occupies their decision-making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

This is already the case, although it is usually stated as the inverse: Title 1 schools have smaller class sizes. We can check this box now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

This is already the case, although it is usually stated as the inverse: Title 1 schools have smaller class sizes. We can check this box now.

I have absolutely no problem giving more resources to the schools with poorer kids. What I do have a problem with is how the resources are used. I taught in Title I. Sometimes, the funds do not get where they need to go.

What people do not realize when they say "give more funding to the schools" is that the funds do not necessarily go where they need to go. FCPS is known for funding programs that require empires at Gatehouse and the other administrative offices. The money needs to get to the schools. More funds for teachers who TEACH--not teachers who advise other teachers. Too often "specialists" are hired who do very little to help the kids.

This is not rocket science. Poor kids can learn. But, they frequently begin at a lower level and need to be brought up. The "equity" proponents can say we need to take their "culture" into consideration. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to backgrounds. However, too often it results in the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I fear that is what is going to occur with FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity policy has that "The Chief Operations Office will ensure equitable distribution of resources. Student and community needs and systems of marginalization will be a driving force for equitable resource allocation in all facets of the division decision-making."

Does this mean larger class sizes in wealthier areas?

This is already the case, although it is usually stated as the inverse: Title 1 schools have smaller class sizes. We can check this box now.

I have absolutely no problem giving more resources to the schools with poorer kids. What I do have a problem with is how the resources are used. I taught in Title I. Sometimes, the funds do not get where they need to go.

What people do not realize when they say "give more funding to the schools" is that the funds do not necessarily go where they need to go. FCPS is known for funding programs that require empires at Gatehouse and the other administrative offices. The money needs to get to the schools. More funds for teachers who TEACH--not teachers who advise other teachers. Too often "specialists" are hired who do very little to help the kids.

This is not rocket science. Poor kids can learn. But, they frequently begin at a lower level and need to be brought up. The "equity" proponents can say we need to take their "culture" into consideration. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to backgrounds. However, too often it results in the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I fear that is what is going to occur with FCPS.

Too late. This phrase perfectly sums up what has been going on within FCPS for the past decade or two.
DP

[Anonymous]

Local elections matter! Vote in the current democratic primary as a starting point.