Article detailing the decline and fall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Signal? Total garbage.

The MAGA infestation continues on DCUM. I miss the days when we could have real discussions about our schools without this absurdity.

YOU are the one who is keeping us from having a "real discussion."

The discussion here should be what we can do to improve our schools.

Yes. We all know the demographics have changed. That does not excuse failing schools. The question should be what we can do to improve the education of all children.

I taught Title I. The purpose of Title I funds is to aid local schools in improving the performance of those struggling students. Sadly, the funds are not always used properly.

One of the initial purposes of the boundary study was "equity." Honestly, they want to spread around the underperforming students and put in higher achievers so that the scores look better in the struggling schools.
Unfortunately, that does not help the performance of the underperforming students--it only makes the scores look better.

The answer: good, strong and direct instruction. Teach the students rather than scheme the system.
It is hard work.

So, what does our School Board do?

Put in special programs like a "leadership academy" to make the school appealing to others. This does NOT work.
Propose a redistricting to make the scores appear better. Very expensive and ineffective results.
Spend needed funds on legal cases defending the use of what they deem as proper pronouns, bio boys in girls' bathrooms and sports.
Spend funds on renaming schools. Please tell me which schools have improved with this action? And, FWIW, no one has to honor the original namesakes. They could have just called it generic Stuart (as the community preferred) or Lee.
Spend hours at School Board meetings opening with resolutions that take forever and accomplish little. Are people really thrilled to come to a SB meeting and have their picture taken?
The School Board added about a million dollars worth of staff for themselves this last year. Interesting that most of the newly hired staff are political activists with the Democratic Party. (Wonder if the PP who protests against Stephanie so much is one of them?)


etc, etc

"Real discussions" can only happen when all actors act in good faith. Ideological propaganda outlets like the Daily Signal, which is aligned with the right-wing quisling factory Heritage Foundation does not. Ergo, it is excluded from the discussion. It simply isn't worthy.

It's like thinking Nick Shirley was on to something in Minnesota.

*yawn*

Exactly. We're yawning at your nonsense. At least you understand now how and why you've been summarily dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Signal? Total garbage.

The MAGA infestation continues on DCUM. I miss the days when we could have real discussions about our schools without this absurdity.

YOU are the one who is keeping us from having a "real discussion."

The discussion here should be what we can do to improve our schools.

Yes. We all know the demographics have changed. That does not excuse failing schools. The question should be what we can do to improve the education of all children.

I taught Title I. The purpose of Title I funds is to aid local schools in improving the performance of those struggling students. Sadly, the funds are not always used properly.

One of the initial purposes of the boundary study was "equity." Honestly, they want to spread around the underperforming students and put in higher achievers so that the scores look better in the struggling schools.
Unfortunately, that does not help the performance of the underperforming students--it only makes the scores look better.

The answer: good, strong and direct instruction. Teach the students rather than scheme the system.
It is hard work.

So, what does our School Board do?

Put in special programs like a "leadership academy" to make the school appealing to others. This does NOT work.
Propose a redistricting to make the scores appear better. Very expensive and ineffective results.
Spend needed funds on legal cases defending the use of what they deem as proper pronouns, bio boys in girls' bathrooms and sports.
Spend funds on renaming schools. Please tell me which schools have improved with this action? And, FWIW, no one has to honor the original namesakes. They could have just called it generic Stuart (as the community preferred) or Lee.
Spend hours at School Board meetings opening with resolutions that take forever and accomplish little. Are people really thrilled to come to a SB meeting and have their picture taken?
The School Board added about a million dollars worth of staff for themselves this last year. Interesting that most of the newly hired staff are political activists with the Democratic Party. (Wonder if the PP who protests against Stephanie so much is one of them?)


etc, etc

"Real discussions" can only happen when all actors act in good faith. Ideological propaganda outlets like the Daily Signal, which is aligned with the right-wing quisling factory Heritage Foundation does not. Ergo, it is excluded from the discussion. It simply isn't worthy.

It's like thinking Nick Shirley was on to something in Minnesota.

*yawn*

Exactly. We're yawning at your nonsense. At least you understand now how and why you've been summarily dismissed.

No. We’re yawning at your lame efforts to discredit anyone whose positions you find inconvenient.

Go away, shill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

Asking seriously, do you have any reason to believe the children were prioritized over teachers in these decisions? Because I have seen no evidence in my short time following this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

It’s just a fact that FCPS has been losing a lot of kids in recent years (both absolutely and in percentage terms) while other school systems in the area have seen enrollment growth.

You can blame this on purely exogenous factors beyond the control of county and FCPS leadership, but that’s a stretch. And even if you indulge FCPS, one might ask why a top priority has been to mess around with school boundaries and buy a new high school, when enrollments are declining and overcrowding concerns should resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile more and more kids in FCPS struggle to master the basics, and existing schools that could have been renovated remain neglected while Michelle Reid touts a new school that she fatuously claims will offer “22nd Century learning” beginning this fall. And, while all this is happening, most of the School Board members just go with the flow and prioritize a CBA that will make the unions happy over everything else.

If you don’t see some big issues here, you have your head buried very deep in the sand. It really doesn’t matter whether the issues are flagged by a MAGA Republican or a frustrated Democrat. They exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

Asking seriously, do you have any reason to believe the children were prioritized over teachers in these decisions? Because I have seen no evidence in my short time following this issue.

Stephanies argument is that paying teachers more (through the union contract) is bad for kids. That’s it. That’s her “facts”.

It’s baseless and not grounded in any analysis at all. It’s just offered as a claim.

Teacher pay has gone from #7 on the region to #2 and it’s driven by collective bargaining. As evidence of this being a good thing, teacher retention rates are at record highs. Are there still challenges? Of course. Are staffing levels still low in some schools? Yes. But her solution, presumably, to cut teacher pay would lead to bigger problems.

But simply stating teachers being paid more is bad for kids is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

Asking seriously, do you have any reason to believe the children were prioritized over teachers in these decisions? Because I have seen no evidence in my short time following this issue.

Stephanies argument is that paying teachers more (through the union contract) is bad for kids. That’s it. That’s her “facts”.

It’s baseless and not grounded in any analysis at all. It’s just offered as a claim.

Teacher pay has gone from #7 on the region to #2 and it’s driven by collective bargaining. As evidence of this being a good thing, teacher retention rates are at record highs. Are there still challenges? Of course. Are staffing levels still low in some schools? Yes. But her solution, presumably, to cut teacher pay would lead to bigger problems.

But simply stating teachers being paid more is bad for kids is stupid.

That’s misrepresents the article. Did you even read it?

[Anonymous]

The budget has gone up a billion dollars with declining enrollment. Gatehouse staff keeps increasing. Everyone under the sun is allowed to unionize. Teachers are the first to get the axe when FCPS can’t make the numbers work. Scores are down. Programs are being cut. It’s not unreasonable to state that FCPS is failing, and a big reason for that is that they are poor financial stewards of county receipts. And a big reason for that is giving large salary increases even though the numbers don’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

Asking seriously, do you have any reason to believe the children were prioritized over teachers in these decisions? Because I have seen no evidence in my short time following this issue.

Stephanies argument is that paying teachers more (through the union contract) is bad for kids. That’s it. That’s her “facts”.

It’s baseless and not grounded in any analysis at all. It’s just offered as a claim.

Teacher pay has gone from #7 on the region to #2 and it’s driven by collective bargaining. As evidence of this being a good thing, teacher retention rates are at record highs. Are there still challenges? Of course. Are staffing levels still low in some schools? Yes. But her solution, presumably, to cut teacher pay would lead to bigger problems.

But simply stating teachers being paid more is bad for kids is stupid.

That’s misrepresents the article. Did you even read it?

Agree. I did not get that at all. But, PP is so upset with the author that she won't read it. At least, that is what one PP said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Paul VI like 50k a year?

no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The budget has gone up a billion dollars with declining enrollment. Gatehouse staff keeps increasing. Everyone under the sun is allowed to unionize. Teachers are the first to get the axe when FCPS can’t make the numbers work. Scores are down. Programs are being cut. It’s not unreasonable to state that FCPS is failing, and a big reason for that is that they are poor financial stewards of county receipts. And a big reason for that is giving large salary increases even though the numbers don’t work.

I am as left leaning as they come but I will say it FCPS is failing students and teachers. Gatehouse however is sitting comfy. It's a broken system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, do you have a credible source for an article you would like to discuss?

Not the OP. But, if the facts in the article are true, I think it's safe to believe the article is credible.
Can you point out anything fake in the article?

The headline, for starters. "Unraveling?"

The lede, next. "Visible retreat?"

The causation/correlation confusion about a decline in attendance from 2015 to 2025, next.

Stephanie makes baseless assertions such as "As it became clear that public school leaders were prioritizing teachers unions at the expense of their children’s basic academic development and mental health, more parents began permanently withdrawing their children from public schools." Such bad faith nonsense.

So try to keep up. At the top of this slop of an "article" we have an author who thinks it's acceptable to mock people with intellectual disabilities making a series of baseless assertions leading up to the doozy that people withdrew their children from public schools because of teachers unions. No evidence whatsoever for this claim. It's complete nonsense. What else happened between 2015 and 2025 that might have affected populations? Gee, I wonder. Did remote work become more common? Did people move to lower cost of living areas during COVID? Did DOGE gut federal jobs? I mean, the county experienced a decline in population from 2020-2025, you know.

So, spare us. It's a junk article written by a despicable zealot and sponsored by an organization actively trying to destroy the United States. It isn't worthy of serious discussion.

Asking seriously, do you have any reason to believe the children were prioritized over teachers in these decisions? Because I have seen no evidence in my short time following this issue.

Stephanies argument is that paying teachers more (through the union contract) is bad for kids. That’s it. That’s her “facts”.

It’s baseless and not grounded in any analysis at all. It’s just offered as a claim.

Teacher pay has gone from #7 on the region to #2 and it’s driven by collective bargaining. As evidence of this being a good thing, teacher retention rates are at record highs. Are there still challenges? Of course. Are staffing levels still low in some schools? Yes. But her solution, presumably, to cut teacher pay would lead to bigger problems.

But simply stating teachers being paid more is bad for kids is stupid.

In a limited budget environment, higher teacher salaries are at the cost of something else. If it’s $300,000 bodyguards for the superintendent for example, I’d say paying teachers more prioritized kids. Do you have any information about what those trade offs were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s just a fact that FCPS has been losing a lot of kids in recent years (both absolutely and in percentage terms) while other school systems in the area have seen enrollment growth.

You can blame this on purely exogenous factors beyond the control of county and FCPS leadership, but that’s a stretch. And even if you indulge FCPS, one might ask why a top priority has been to mess around with school boundaries and buy a new high school, when enrollments are declining and overcrowding concerns should resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile more and more kids in FCPS struggle to master the basics, and existing schools that could have been renovated remain neglected while Michelle Reid touts a new school that she fatuously claims will offer “22nd Century learning” beginning this fall. And, while all this is happening, most of the School Board members just go with the flow and prioritize a CBA that will make the unions happy over everything else.

If you don’t see some big issues here, you have your head buried very deep in the sand. It really doesn’t matter whether the issues are flagged by a MAGA Republican or a frustrated Democrat. They exist.

You keep trotting out that MAGA "enrollments are declining" talking point. Enrollments are not declining where the new school was purchased. Enrollments are not declining near the Silver Line stops either. The amount of housing approved to go up in both areas over the next 10 years is massive. Investing in adding capacity has been one of the few places the school board didn't screw up, and that happened only because it fell in their laps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s just a fact that FCPS has been losing a lot of kids in recent years (both absolutely and in percentage terms) while other school systems in the area have seen enrollment growth.

You can blame this on purely exogenous factors beyond the control of county and FCPS leadership, but that’s a stretch. And even if you indulge FCPS, one might ask why a top priority has been to mess around with school boundaries and buy a new high school, when enrollments are declining and overcrowding concerns should resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile more and more kids in FCPS struggle to master the basics, and existing schools that could have been renovated remain neglected while Michelle Reid touts a new school that she fatuously claims will offer “22nd Century learning” beginning this fall. And, while all this is happening, most of the School Board members just go with the flow and prioritize a CBA that will make the unions happy over everything else.

If you don’t see some big issues here, you have your head buried very deep in the sand. It really doesn’t matter whether the issues are flagged by a MAGA Republican or a frustrated Democrat. They exist.

You keep trotting out that MAGA "enrollments are declining" talking point. Enrollments are not declining where the new school was purchased. Enrollments are not declining near the Silver Line stops either. The amount of housing approved to go up in both areas over the next 10 years is massive. Investing in adding capacity has been one of the few places the school board didn't screw up, and that happened only because it fell in their laps.

Its not a MAGA talking point. Plenty of liberal families have pulled their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s just a fact that FCPS has been losing a lot of kids in recent years (both absolutely and in percentage terms) while other school systems in the area have seen enrollment growth.

You can blame this on purely exogenous factors beyond the control of county and FCPS leadership, but that’s a stretch. And even if you indulge FCPS, one might ask why a top priority has been to mess around with school boundaries and buy a new high school, when enrollments are declining and overcrowding concerns should resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile more and more kids in FCPS struggle to master the basics, and existing schools that could have been renovated remain neglected while Michelle Reid touts a new school that she fatuously claims will offer “22nd Century learning” beginning this fall. And, while all this is happening, most of the School Board members just go with the flow and prioritize a CBA that will make the unions happy over everything else.

If you don’t see some big issues here, you have your head buried very deep in the sand. It really doesn’t matter whether the issues are flagged by a MAGA Republican or a frustrated Democrat. They exist.

You keep trotting out that MAGA "enrollments are declining" talking point. Enrollments are not declining where the new school was purchased. Enrollments are not declining near the Silver Line stops either. The amount of housing approved to go up in both areas over the next 10 years is massive. Investing in adding capacity has been one of the few places the school board didn't screw up, and that happened only because it fell in their laps.

Enrollment is absolutely declining in FCPS.