Equity-grading/ SBG - all FCPS high schools? (or only some)

[Anonymous]

For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

The college is not being fair! What about equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

The college is not being fair! What about equity?

What is wrong with you? Why are you such a dick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

The college is not being fair! What about equity?

Some people are smarter than others, get used to it. Everyone can reach their full potential. The problem is with equity no one reaches their potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

Haha, yeah we're at an E3 pilot and from what I've heard from the other parents only one student pass advanced the 4th grade math SOL last year. It worked great! (sarcasm)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

If you listen closely to the astroturfers, you’ll realize they are totally full of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

If you listen closely to the astroturfers, you’ll realize they are totally full of crap.

I think they mean that AAP math will be replaced by E3. FCPS website says that advanced math will be replaced with something. Doesn’t say E3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

If you listen closely to the astroturfers, you’ll realize they are totally full of crap.

I think they mean that AAP math will be replaced by E3. FCPS website says that advanced math will be replaced with something. Doesn’t say E3.

Right. They are full of crap.

And they say “the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math“ which is also crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

This is exactly what you should expect from electing an all-Democratic school board that hired someone like Michelle Reid.

But you couldn't listen to the candidates who wanted to restore academic rigor because someone else you think is too far right supported them.

Guess the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

If you listen closely to the astroturfers, you’ll realize they are totally full of crap.

I think they mean that AAP math will be replaced by E3. FCPS website says that advanced math will be replaced with something. Doesn’t say E3.

Right. They are full of crap.

And they say “the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math“ which is also crap.

This is what happens when the school system isn’t transparent with fairly major changes.

PP isn’t wrong. E3 is nonsense math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

So weird how they made a decision based on educational research and child psychology instead of parents and kids' opinions.

Also weird: implementing the alleged "equity" grading system in a school that doesn't have a large group of lower performing students.

Maybe this policy (ill-advised or not) is intended to help all students learn more, not equalize them. And really...think about this argument that SBG is just a veiled attempt to create "equity"...that doesn't even make sense at the HS level: the kids who need a GPA boost aren't in the same classes as the kids who are supposedly being down-graded by SBG. How would the admin be engineering "equity" when students are pre-sorting themselves by the classes they take. Colleges look at the difficulty of classes you take, not just your gpa.

All of this was just demonstrated by Rick Wormelis talk today. He didn't mention equity once so it doesn't seem like that was a major goal of his. He didnt seem to know anything about FCPSs implementation. He talked about how colleges look at the courses taught and not the GPA. He taught about the importance of high level classes for college which with AP and IB already have their pre-programmed learning material and end of year tests and are already graded strictly.
He based his entire claim on needing standards based grading on needing to measure students evidence of learning because teachers didnt get enough training on grading and were too subjective in the past. Wait. Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah SOLs which testing was removed for over the past 10 years. So instead of taking SOLs which many were against being reported to the state, there are now SOLs turned into grades rather than tests so that kids can learn all the basics of the SOLs before taking their end of year tests and before completing the grade.

This all makes some basic sense if you don't have SOL tests to measure standards and are worried about kids meeting some basic achievement level by the state, but gives less flexibility to the teacher and student and once the child achieves the basic mastery. I thought we wanted the child to have more ways not less to explore learning. It seems to be a program geared more to making sure all the basic standards are taught and achieved and have no real benefit for anything else. The previous tools FCPS was using were superior to this grading system.

Since RIck didn't know anything about the way FCPS is implementing it he didn't endorse the program and in fact spoke out often against the way it was being implemented even if he didn't know he was doing so.

It all just seems like an effort to do something new to show the school system is progressive. SBG does not match up with other recent initiatives. I think it was just started to make people feel like they were trying something new rather than something needed.

I agree. It boils down to progressive virtue-signaling and pointless performance-theater. And it comes at the expense of our children’s education. The quality of an FCPS education is getting lower and lower with each passing year.

If you listen to what the “equity proponents” themselves say, it makes little sense. It is just pleasant-sounding, but vague, fluff which conveys little concrete information. It is obvious they intentionally conceal the details.

I just copied this quote from the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math for elementary schools (this math curriculum will eventually replace the AAP program):

“E3 actualizes educational equity by reframing excellence. Through training, coaching, and specialized tools, E3 supports educators to embrace the diverse lived experiences of all students, and supports students in realizing their brilliance.“

If you listen closely to the astroturfers, you’ll realize they are totally full of crap.

I think they mean that AAP math will be replaced by E3. FCPS website says that advanced math will be replaced with something. Doesn’t say E3.

Right. They are full of crap.

And they say “the commercial site for FCPS’s new equity math“ which is also crap.

This is what happens when the school system isn’t transparent with fairly major changes.

PP isn’t wrong. E3 is nonsense math.

PP is full of crap. Period.

Republicans only know how to push lies, twist the truth, and complain hysterically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For kids with retakes in HS, how do they do in college where it’s a one and done test or are colleges now doing variations of retakes too?

One of my kids is a freshman in college, graduated from Madison last year. At freshman orientation, they were told no retakes and all late work is automatically 25% off no matter what the excuse. DC said it was a shock. DC is doing fine, but was used to strict rules/traditional grading from attending a private middle school. From what DC tells me, the college may reevaluate test optional because a lot of kids seem unprepared/unable to handle work, but so far no talk of changing grading policy at college level. Because of test optional, colleges may not yet realize the impact of the changes in grading and instruction at the high school level. High schools all over VA are implementing some form of SBG/equity grading and reducing academic rigor.

This is exactly what you should expect from electing an all-Democratic school board that hired someone like Michelle Reid.

But you couldn't listen to the candidates who wanted to restore academic rigor because someone else you think is too far right supported them.

Guess the chickens are coming home to roost.

Is that a joke? The most recent Republican-endorsed school board members were all terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the policy now county-wide in FFX?

Or, are only certain high schools doing this? Is there a list??

(anyone know specifically if McLean HS is implementing equity/SBG trading?

This is my fondest hope. That this madness will extend to the schools with powerful PTAs who will lobby against it for the rest of us.

i'm confused why you think a public PTA is "powerful" or will have the money to take this on????

I have faith in the Langley parents.

You're mistaken. At Madison, it was presented to the parents after the school hired outside people to explore how to implement it. I believe they even have information they presented to the admin that was released explaining how to respond when parents push back. Parents were only told about it after it was going to happen. Last year's seniors spoke at a PTA meeting and explained it is horrible. Parents complain. Teachers complain. The admin is in la la land and thinks it is great because the bottom is brought up. PERIOD. There was never a period where they solicited input from parents or students and then considered what to do. Instead, it was 100% a done deal and presented only after it was being implemented. There is no push back. There is no powerful PTA who can override this.

This is what happened at Edison. Don't know about hiring a third-party, but it was sprung on parents. My son is dealing with the repercussions now. They are in their second year with this. There is an attitude that C's and low B's are ok in for the students in the first half of the year bc the grade will eventually float up to an A-.... Except my son is a senior and will be required to send his first semester grades to at least one school. Here's hoping he's not showing any C+'s.... which we can't know because despite a rolling gradebook, teachers still feel the need to give a bunch of tests the 10 day period before the quarter ends.

The principal at the time somehow didn't think parents were stakeholders. Even though it affects our kids' education. Even though we will continue to live in the community long after she leaves. Which she did at the end of the year. So much for "stakeholders."