Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

It’s all politics and it’s backfiring badly, as the policies imposed on teachers by central administration is doing more than anything else to drive teachers out of the profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc.

Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired.

No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy.

Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs.

Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities?

How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students?

Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs?

Boosters are parents and alums donating $ to teams. If a school's booster funds are problematic, that is not an area the district must resolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+100

[Anonymous]

How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc.

Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired.

No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy.

Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs.

Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities?

How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students?

Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs?

Boosters are parents and alums donating $ to teams. If a school's booster funds are problematic, that is not an area the district must resolve.

Boosters fund athletics and ECs which FCPS views as part of high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

Closing the gap doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. Nothing will cause equal outcomes is fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

Closing the gap has long been a goal but it generally coincided with academic excellence. Equal outcomes now replaces equal opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc.

Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired.

No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy.

Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs.

Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities?

How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students?

Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs?

Boosters are parents and alums donating $ to teams. If a school's booster funds are problematic, that is not an area the district must resolve.

Some school board members wanted all the schools’ PTA money, booster money and money from ticket sales to go into a single pot that can be redistributed across schools. But they haven’t pursued it because they know most people will just stop contributing if the money won’t benefit their own schools. Sometimes reality kicks in, and sometimes it doesn’t, which is why we still end up paying for huckster consultants pushing the notion of “equal outcomes for all, without exception.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

Equal outcomes will never happen, no matter what FCPS policies are. Closing the gap can be achieved by bringing some high achievers down, which would be unfortunate. I'd like to see a FCPS program like Young Scholars which does not discriminate by race, free summer STEM programs where rich kids and poor kids have equal access, etc. If FCPS insists on bringing down the quality of education so it can achieve equally poor results for all, wealthy families will reject that by sending their kids to private school or providing tutoring at home so their kids still have a chance at elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc.

Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired.

No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy.

Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs.

Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities?

How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students?

Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs?

Boosters are parents and alums donating $ to teams. If a school's booster funds are problematic, that is not an area the district must resolve.

Some school board members wanted all the schools’ PTA money, booster money and money from ticket sales to go into a single pot that can be redistributed across schools. But they haven’t pursued it because they know most people will just stop contributing if the money won’t benefit their own schools. Sometimes reality kicks in, and sometimes it doesn’t, which is why we still end up paying for huckster consultants pushing the notion of “equal outcomes for all, without exception.”

I think it just proves that it's all lip service, but that they know that certain voters expect them to do something and the easiest thing to do is hire consultants and then never follow through on reccomendations.

[Anonymous]

So basically they are saying mentally deficient children should have the same opportunities as geniuses? Makes no sense at all... I don't want my next car designed by a mentally challenged individual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that really what they’re saying now? Wow.

+1

Who said that? Where and what was the context, OP.?

DP, but the phrase "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" was in a Power Point presentation made recently by one of FCPS's equity consultants, Performance Fact, Inc.

Dr. Reid made similar comments about how her "life's work" had been to "ensure equitable opportunities and equal outcomes for each and every student" shortly after she was hired.

No one knows how you ensure "equal outcomes," or what it even means, but it's a convenient justification to spend more on students in poorer areas and deny resources to other schools deemed too wealthy.

Do you genuinely think Langley and Mt. Vernon should be given the same amount of resources? FCPS hardly needs to lift a finger in order to meet most of Langley's needs. They already offer a wide variety of AP, post-calculus math, unique world languages, etc. On the other hand, FCPS is completely failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs.

Not enough teachers? Non-working bathrooms and dirty classrooms? Unequal opportunities?

How is FCPS failing to meet Mt. Vernon's needs? Do you mean that students are not getting the same grades? Is that due to the school, or due to the students?

Do you want to compare the course catalog to Langley's (or Marshall's if you prefer another IB school)? Do you want to compare booster funding for athletics to McLean or Langley? The availability of after school clubs?

Boosters are parents and alums donating $ to teams. If a school's booster funds are problematic, that is not an area the district must resolve.

Some school board members wanted all the schools’ PTA money, booster money and money from ticket sales to go into a single pot that can be redistributed across schools. But they haven’t pursued it because they know most people will just stop contributing if the money won’t benefit their own schools. Sometimes reality kicks in, and sometimes it doesn’t, which is why we still end up paying for huckster consultants pushing the notion of “equal outcomes for all, without exception.”

I think it just proves that it's all lip service, but that they know that certain voters expect them to do something and the easiest thing to do is hire consultants and then never follow through on recommendations.

Yes - hiring consultants is basically a "reputation insurance" premium paid by taxpayers on behalf of SB members and Gatehouse leadership. It's too bad the beneficiaries aren't taxed on it; if they had to pay taxes on the money we are throwing away on their behalf, perhaps they would spend less of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're not going to vote anyone out. These are the board members FCPS parents want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're not going to vote anyone out. These are the board members FCPS parents want.

NP They WERE, but I'm not so sure they are anymore. At least not the worst of them. Reading this thread makes me so angry, because so many of the accusations are completely true. Reid has just come in and reaffirmed the worst ideas. We need a completely new and different kind of board, and every single one of the current members needs to go. I don't mean swapping democrats for republicans (the only possible way the board could get worse). I mean non-partisan independents every one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're not going to vote anyone out. These are the board members FCPS parents want.

NP They WERE, but I'm not so sure they are anymore. At least not the worst of them. Reading this thread makes me so angry, because so many of the accusations are completely true. Reid has just come in and reaffirmed the worst ideas. We need a completely new and different kind of board, and every single one of the current members needs to go. I don't mean swapping democrats for republicans (the only possible way the board could get worse). I mean non-partisan independents every one.

+1000. The candidates endorsed by the parties have been disasters (Democrats) or nut jobs (Republicans). It would be great if some truly independent folks decide to run.