Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of this angst would dissipate if Dr. Reid and School Board members committed that, for them, "equal outcomes" means that every student who graduates from FCPS feels they now have the tools to pursue what they next want to accomplish in their lives?

That might be sensible. As it stands, it seems to mean that FCPS should allocate as many resources as possible to the poorest schools to "ensure" that students at, say, Mount Vernon perform at the same academic level as students at, say, Langley. Which we all know is never going to happen.

Parents have seen how allocation works within schools and within classrooms. The last thing that any parent would want would be for the county to allocate resources to schools in the same way. Kids at Navy would be sharing a tent listening to a single teacher while kids at Hybla valley would each get their own teachers.

You are forgetting about the impact of the PTA. Most Title 1 schools do not have PTAs. I have no idea what the PTA budget is at Navy, but our MC elementary has a 5-figure budget, I'm sure that Navy's is much higher. They also have parents fundraising or donating supplies for classroom parties/activities. Parents buy out teacher wish lists.

The equity (or lack thereof) extends far beyond per pupil spending allocated by the school board.

I'm not advocating for Navy classrooms to be stuffed to the gills and Hybla Valley to have single-digit class sizes. But let's all remember, equity != equality

if you want equity, it’s going to take stuffing schools like Navy to the gills and slashing class size in schools like Hybla Valley. Personally, I think it’s all somewhere between aspirational and lip service

There are already huge disparities in class sizes and schools like Justice get preferential treatment when it comes to facilities. One suspects they've pulled that thread about as much as they can, so the next logical step is to do things like the minimum 50% and stripping test scores from school profiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

It's a foolish and dangerous goal. As such, it should never be set out as one.

It isn’t a foolish goal. We should want everyone to succeed. If you don’t, you hate America and all that it stands for. Why do you hate America, pp? Where did America hurt you?

Not PP - I don't have a problem with equal opportunities however, I believe equal outcomes is quite a stretch. I also don't trust FCPS to implement in a way that doesn't bring others down. The AAP overhaul is an example. FCPS wants to see current demographics reflected in program participants. Their charts showed a sharp decline in other demographic groups in order to achieve this goal.

Another example occurred when "equipping students with the skills to recognize multiple perspectives, analyze bias, and examine privilege as 21st century learners." (Fcps' words), they choose to have students play privilege bingo, where being a member of the military or employed is considered privileged. Remember that?

[Anonymous]

*chose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

McAullife was right. Parents shouldn’t have a say. Truth hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

McAullife was right. Parents shouldn’t have a say. Truth hurts.

He certainly exercised his right to parental choice when he sent all but one of his kids to privates (and the other to a private school masquerading as a public school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

McAullife was right. Parents shouldn’t have a say. Truth hurts.

Parents disagreed and it cost him the governorship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

McAullife was right. Parents shouldn’t have a say. Truth hurts.

Parents disagreed and it cost him the governorship

Lying liars who lie did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a goal. It's aspirational. Will it happen? No, of course not. But it's fine to have it as a goal. We SHOULD want equal outcomes.

Getting your panties in a bunch because it means your precious little snowflake might lose some edge just makes you a nasty sort of person who is destined to burn in Hell for all of eternity.

It's a foolish and dangerous goal. As such, it should never be set out as one.

It isn’t a foolish goal. We should want everyone to succeed. If you don’t, you hate America and all that it stands for. Why do you hate America, pp? Where did America hurt you?

Why do you keep reframing the discussion?

"It's not an objective, just an aspirational goal." "It's not really a commitment to equal outcomes, just a desire for everyone to succeed."

I'm hard-pressed to understand why parents should be comfortable with a school system that traffics in slogans and leaves everyone in the dark as to their real intentions.

You seem to lack an understanding of a lot of basic things.

In other words, you can't answer the question. That's what happens when you only know how to repeat the same few clichés.

I answered the question, numbnuts. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

+1 this is what makes the rhetoric problematic, even as a goal, especially when the goal then drives practices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

That’s what the local Democrats are all about these days - they think they deserve a blank check when all they’ve been doing for years is running FCPS into the ground with their incompetence, empty promises, and obsession with buzzwords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

That’s what the local Democrats are all about these days - they think they deserve a blank check when all they’ve been doing for years is running FCPS into the ground with their incompetence, empty promises, and obsession with buzzwords.

+100
I just realized, this is the year we get to vote them all out. Hooray!
NP

[Anonymous]

No, they won't be voted out. Most people don't follow the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of this angst would dissipate if Dr. Reid and School Board members committed that, for them, "equal outcomes" means that every student who graduates from FCPS feels they now have the tools to pursue what they next want to accomplish in their lives?

That might be sensible. As it stands, it seems to mean that FCPS should allocate as many resources as possible to the poorest schools to "ensure" that students at, say, Mount Vernon perform at the same academic level as students at, say, Langley. Which we all know is never going to happen.

Parents have seen how allocation works within schools and within classrooms. The last thing that any parent would want would be for the county to allocate resources to schools in the same way. Kids at Navy would be sharing a tent listening to a single teacher while kids at Hybla valley would each get their own teachers.

You are forgetting about the impact of the PTA. Most Title 1 schools do not have PTAs. I have no idea what the PTA budget is at Navy, but our MC elementary has a 5-figure budget, I'm sure that Navy's is much higher. They also have parents fundraising or donating supplies for classroom parties/activities. Parents buy out teacher wish lists.

The equity (or lack thereof) extends far beyond per pupil spending allocated by the school board.

I'm not advocating for Navy classrooms to be stuffed to the gills and Hybla Valley to have single-digit class sizes. But let's all remember, equity != equality

if you want equity, it’s going to take stuffing schools like Navy to the gills and slashing class size in schools like Hybla Valley. Personally, I think it’s all somewhere between aspirational and lip service

There are already huge disparities in class sizes and schools like Justice get preferential treatment when it comes to facilities. One suspects they've pulled that thread about as much as they can, so the next logical step is to do things like the minimum 50% and stripping test scores from school profiles.

As to the bolded: Have you been paying attention? You *know* why certain schools have some lower class sizes.

And… find me one person who thinks Justice has nicer facilities than Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

That’s what the local Democrats are all about these days - they think they deserve a blank check when all they’ve been doing for years is running FCPS into the ground with their incompetence, empty promises, and obsession with buzzwords.

Yes, please. Get rid of these folks who want to destroy what used to be a well regarded school system. I'm all for equal "opportunity" but totally against the "equal outcome" mandate. It's wrong headed (not to mention a losing battle since not all students have the same aptitudes, abilities, or work ethics).