Equal outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

Wrong. Private schools' primary focus is money (tuition). Academics are secondary. Why are you people so afraid of equity? Can't tip the scale so take your marbles and go home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

Wrong. Private schools' primary focus is money (tuition). Academics are secondary. Why are you people so afraid of equity? Can't tip the scale so take your marbles and go home.

Equity is politics masquerading as pedagogy. It dumbs down academic expectations in exchange for votes.

Of course people want to make sure their kids are educated and not pawns in a political game. FCPS is a declining system that can expect to see continued losses in enrollment and reduced support for public school funding if it goes further down this path.

[Anonymous]

I want the primary focus to be academic excellence in school. Nothing wrong with that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

Wrong. Private schools' primary focus is money (tuition). Academics are secondary. Why are you people so afraid of equity? Can't tip the scale so take your marbles and go home.

Because equity means that my child who struggles with learning doesn’t actually learn anything but gets passed along year after year. Equity also means that my bright and hard working kid doesn’t get challenged and isn’t learning as much as he could. Equity as FCPS is using it means no one gets to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

Wrong. Private schools' primary focus is money (tuition). Academics are secondary. Why are you people so afraid of equity? Can't tip the scale so take your marbles and go home.

Because equity means that my child who struggles with learning doesn’t actually learn anything but gets passed along year after year. Equity also means that my bright and hard working kid doesn’t get challenged and isn’t learning as much as he could. Equity as FCPS is using it means no one gets to learn.

Private school doesn't pass a child who struggles along, they counsel them out. Social promotion has been a thing for decades now because research was very clear that children held pack start preforming even worse and then drop out as soon as they are allowed to.

[Anonymous]

Well of they don’t notify students of being merit scholarship eligible then that’s equal outcomes in action. Nobody gets a scholarship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know a local school district without a focus on equity but rather a focus on academics? Seriously considering relocating while my kids are young.

Private school

Wrong. Private schools' primary focus is money (tuition). Academics are secondary. Why are you people so afraid of equity? Can't tip the scale so take your marbles and go home.

Because equity means that my child who struggles with learning doesn’t actually learn anything but gets passed along year after year. Equity also means that my bright and hard working kid doesn’t get challenged and isn’t learning as much as he could. Equity as FCPS is using it means no one gets to learn.

I understand your concerns, but this is nothing new. This is the way it's always been. There are options if you have the money to pay for the private schools which cater to this.

But private schools aren't always the solution and some private schools would weed your student out who is having learning issues as they don't have the resources nor do they want to deal with it. There's plenty of people who say they get better support for their child with learning disabilities via public schools vs private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the superintendent how she plans to accomplish equal outcomes given the half million spent on this. Has anyone been listening to the board meetings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life.

DP, but if it’s so obvious explain it for those who are less enlightened. It’s clearly a phrase that’s been spouted by the new superintendent and a consulting firm to which FCPS is paying a substantial sum of money.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE SAID A PHRASE!!!

Get a life, OP. Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools.

We all know who has been doing this for years, and it's the current crop of educrats and School Board members, and their overpaid consultants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Sorry

My kids matter more to me than your kids.

I don't want equal outcomes.

You are the problem with American society today. You and your “I got mine, screw the rest of y’all” mentality.

Not sorry. Life is a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

Miyares is suing Fairfax county schools over the scholarship thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Miyares is suing Fairfax county schools over the scholarship thing

He’s conducting an investigation that may or may not result in charges. Don’t think anyone has been sued or charged yet over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miyares is suing Fairfax county schools over the scholarship thing

He’s conducting an investigation that may or may not result in charges. Don’t think anyone has been sued or charged yet over this.

He’s conducting a politically motivated witch hunt.