A review of LCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

Low income kids do well when they are in a good well run school. Best example of this is ATS elementary school in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of posters in this thread come off Agent Smith. Passionately defending a system that isn’t genuinely concerned with their child’s wellbeing as much as their own paychecks lol
Notwithstanding most likely because of how little they actually invest with their own flesh and blood and are hoping that “teachers” and “admin” pick up the slack from home. Pathetic to say the least and albeit one of the most obvious reasons this country as a whole and its education system in particular is a laughing stock.

Huh??

It’s bizarre to see a bunch of anonymous folks defending LCPS because they’re rich. LCPS isn’t all of that. $25K per student/year is crazy for the continued drops in testing scores. Your kid is another number in a 25-30 class roster. You’re not getting top-notch education only because that’s what you want to believe. Been In lcps almost 15 years. Leaving this June and can’t wait.

I don’t think it’s “top notch” but my kids all did well on AP’s and SATs so they must have learned something.

Lmao your bar is low. And you sound like an average American parent “must’ve learned something” my god

Bar is high enough for a T20 college. I’ll take that over some internet troll’s opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

Low income kids do well when they are in a good well run school. Best example of this is ATS elementary school in Arlington.

Maybe that is the case in elementary. By the time they get to high school, it is a different story. Attendance starts to decline because they have to take care of younger siblings or work to help support the family. If students aren't in school, they can't learn. Parents are busy with 2-3 jobs and cannot support homework. After school jobs take the place of homework. It's about survival. Grades are no longer a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP put your kid in private school.

Moms4liberty religious private would be better for you and your family.

We see the racist, garbage you are.

That’s funny since I’m a person of color talking about the performative progressive posturing that lacks substance, and an education that lacks intellectual rigor or sophistication. Close-minded, small-minded, not at all inclusive, and unable to engage in complex and nuanced conversation. Thank you, NP for so effectively illustrating my point.

What does person of color really mean? Tbh light tan is still very much white... the only brown people are the African Americans who are various shades of brown. Most Latin and Indian American people check the white or Asian category and Persians/Iranians/Middle East check the white box generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have been here 5 years now and I wanted to summarize my thoughts for those who may also consider moving from a major metropolitan city to this area. For the urban mindset, maybe FCPS offers a better alternative? I haven’t experienced it so others can chime in.

I find this school district LCPS to be insular and unsophisticated, offering an uninspired and mechanistic education that teaches a very narrow world view with little exposure to broader intellectual currents. Certainly, global critical thinkers are not developed here. Yet paradoxically, there is also this very strange and performative progressive social posturing that feels vapid and dogmatic. It doesn’t seem to be driven by authentic core values, nor is it centered around student learning and development. It’s like an insulated small-town culture wrapped in some kind of robotic ideological shroud or script - devoid of substance. All in all, it’s really the worst of both worlds here. Provincial in perspective and performative in culture and inclusion.

Thank you op, this is one of the most humorous posts I've seen in a long time. I assume you forgot to include the "/s"?

It's so cute that you hold your opinion in such high regard. I know this will surprise you but these "pearls" of wisdom you've dumped here have more in common with what lands in a toilet in Chipotle after a very hot day. That you hold your opinion in such high regard means that you probably struggle with self reflection and personal growth. We know who you are when you criticize LCPs for having heaps of "performative progressive social posturing". Maga much? We can all guess your core values and how dare the rest of us not follow you like the prophet you think you are. Thanks for the laughs op. I've got to toddle off and practice my robotic ideological script.

Love and kisses,
LCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP put your kid in private school.

Moms4liberty religious private would be better for you and your family.

We see the racist, garbage you are.

That’s funny since I’m a person of color talking about the performative progressive posturing that lacks substance, and an education that lacks intellectual rigor or sophistication. Close-minded, small-minded, not at all inclusive, and unable to engage in complex and nuanced conversation. Thank you, NP for so effectively illustrating my point.

Please explain this "not at all inclusive" because that is more likely a description of yourself. It's difficult to have a complex and nuanced conversation with someone who speaks nonsense and assumes he knows all. You care more about being superior and lecturing than communicating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay but what about the academics? That mostly seems to be missing from your post.

OP said “offering an uninspired and mechanistic education that teaches a very narrow world view with little exposure to broader intellectual currents. Certainly, global critical thinkers are not developed here.”

Yeah, but most of K-12 is not about developing a world view or being exposed to broader intellectual currents. And I don’t need the schools to turn my kids into global critical thinkers; I can do that. I need math, science, ELA.

And therein lies the deep cultural chasm. I could not disagree more with every aspect of your statement.

Don't faint op. PP please step away from the discussion. Op has the vapors. Op, do you even math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have been here 5 years now and I wanted to summarize my thoughts for those who may also consider moving from a major metropolitan city to this area. For the urban mindset, maybe FCPS offers a better alternative? I haven’t experienced it so others can chime in.

I find this school district LCPS to be insular and unsophisticated, offering an uninspired and mechanistic education that teaches a very narrow world view with little exposure to broader intellectual currents. Certainly, global critical thinkers are not developed here. Yet paradoxically, there is also this very strange and performative progressive social posturing that feels vapid and dogmatic. It doesn’t seem to be driven by authentic core values, nor is it centered around student learning and development. It’s like an insulated small-town culture wrapped in some kind of robotic ideological shroud or script - devoid of substance. All in all, it’s really the worst of both worlds here. Provincial in perspective and performative in culture and inclusion.

I understand what you mean. A lot of teachers in the Humanities lack a wider subject knowledge and tend to teach the same curriculum (always American authors) every year through the lens of social mores - good/ bad, tolerant/ racist, feminist/ sexist. It is unsophisticated, but so is the DMV in many ways. It’s not NYC. If you are a teacher, I hope you don’t let your department prevent you from teaching a wider range of critical theories and literature. Be the one who challenges and makes students think beyond the standard paradigms. You will need to carry the torch, so to speak.

[Anonymous]

This is an extremely insightful and articulate critique of the prioritization of paint-by-number pedagogy over breadth and depth of knowledge in American education. I don’t think most of your audience, here, however, will be able to completely understand or appreciate it. Personally, I think you should develop on what you wrote here, and then look for the appropriate venue for publication. Unfortunately, I don’t know what that is. I don’t read education journals. You would definitely need to find one that explores outside the “Department of Education” type thinking. Good luck. Keep writing and keep teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

There is actual data on this. Years and decades of it. Income is the number one predictor of childhood health and academic outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

There is actual data on this. Years and decades of it. Income is the number one predictor of childhood health and academic outcomes.

(Relatively) poor kids of academics and high level feds/foreign service/military do just fine too. It’s not only income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

Low income kids do well when they are in a good well run school. Best example of this is ATS elementary school in Arlington.

Maybe that is the case in elementary. By the time they get to high school, it is a different story. Attendance starts to decline because they have to take care of younger siblings or work to help support the family. If students aren't in school, they can't learn. Parents are busy with 2-3 jobs and cannot support homework. After school jobs take the place of homework. It's about survival. Grades are no longer a priority.

It’s unrealistic and unreasonable to require every single student no matter their interest and intelligence etc to finish 12th grade. Kids should be allowed to graduate with a diploma after 10th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

There is actual data on this. Years and decades of it. Income is the number one predictor of childhood health and academic outcomes.

(Relatively) poor kids of academics and high level feds/foreign service/military do just fine too. It’s not only income.

Income correlates in that students in poverty (not “relatively poor kids of high level feds etc” have poorer academic outcomes. If you equate the two you’ve never stood in a school that is predominantly free lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

There is actual data on this. Years and decades of it. Income is the number one predictor of childhood health and academic outcomes.

(Relatively) poor kids of academics and high level feds/foreign service/military do just fine too. It’s not only income.

Income correlates in that students in poverty (not “relatively poor kids of high level feds etc” have poorer academic outcomes. If you equate the two you’ve never stood in a school that is predominantly free lunch.

Correct. We are not talking about “relatively poor” military kids with free healthcare and a base housing allowance to offset comparatively low federal pay. We are talking KIDS IN POVERTY. I have students whose families rent out and live in the *garage* of single family homes in the neighborhood, students who live in a 3 bedroom house with 4-5 families and have to work to help pay bills at age 15-16. Not one parent has ever completed above 3-5th grade of school. I had a mom come in to the school and not know how to sign her own name in the log. Sometimes the kids are here completely alone . Not even close to the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Income is the number one determiner of all life outcomes for all children , in all areas. Children with wealthy parents being more successful than children of lower income parents is not unique to LCPS . The many disadvantages that students of lower incomes face cannot single handedly addressed or fixed by LCPS. Admin is a mixed bag everywhere with some being excellent and some being paper pushers the county is hiding. None of this is special or unique to LCPS nor does it back up any of the OP’s silly little claims.

BS. It's not income, it's the IQ of the parents, which manifests in their income. Smart parents tend to both have smart kids, and dumb parents tend to both have dumb kids. These differences are accentuated, but not caused by, differences in income. Which is why all efforts to "fix" bad outcomes among lower-income kids fails spectacularly no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Need evidence? Look at what happens to the (almost exclusively) low-income people who have won the lottery.

I went to HYP with plenty of low income classmates who I doubt would agree with you. But what does HYP admissions know? I'm sure you know better!