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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which FCPS are currently using SBG?

Madison
Herndon
McLean

Edison and I think West Potomac.

[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.

Virginia school? Would be nice if some of this trickled down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a parent with a rising 9th grader, what is SBG? I've read through this thread and there are puzzle pieces missing.

At the most basic level it is grading by core skills to learn throughout the year and not by assignment. Think those skills you see on the elementary report cards that measure your child's skill growth across the year as in "computes numbers fluently and makes accurate assessments" instead of a singular grade for the Unit 5 algebra test. It's a little complex to compare this too because the Unit 5 test before SBG used to also be divided up into several sections if not by skills. A Unit 5 math test both before and after would have been and still is divided up into several grades, just now they are broken up by skill rather than type of problem such as short answer or essay or Unit 5.1 and 5.2 questions.

Because FCPS really made this change not to just better measure skill growth related to SOL passing, but also or instead to bring grades to a middle and reduce the achievement gap, there are a lot of other changes that were implemented and are now part of the SBG change but are peripheral to the main purpose of grading by skills rather than project or test. Homework is no longer assessed, or feedback given. This greatly changes the motivation of students if you have a child who needs regular feedback and who needs more carrots to complete practice work. Now many students come completely unprepared for class because they are only assessed on the summatives. Retakes are now teacher dependent rather than a guideline for the school to follow where any summative grade below an 80 can be retaken to achieve an 80, so if there is a type of problem in Unit 5.2 that your child doesn't understand related to a skill such as "computing numbers fluently" and they get a C on that skill for the Unit 5 summative, rather than retaking the unit 5 test to get an 80 and understand the content better, they will now have to wait until the Unit 6 test and try to compute better on that test and then if they do well on this test and get a B on that skill for unit 6, the old grade for that skill from Unit 5 will be replaced with a B despite never doing another Unit 5 problem. If it's a D on the Unit 6 test, then the C from the last test will just remain. Quizzes are optional grading measurements for teachers depending on the school, class and teacher. Some classes, kids are only assessed on the unit summative tests and no other work for the year. So, in addition to having changing summative grades, they only get graded on one summative test every month or so. Grades come in late for summatives because they are large tests, and you can be finding out that the grade for the summative completely changed your GPA with little time to correct or relearn information you didn't realize you didn't know from the old unit.

All of this helps to provide less work to the teacher. Oh, they say they have to enter more grades for each test and it's true they may now have five "skill" grades rather than 2 or 3 in the previous system, but it's just a larger breakdown of the same test into more sections while grading many fewer assignments. Kids have a hard time relating to the skills because there is nothing specific on their assignments that call out the skills being assessed so the skill breakdown is really for admin to see. They are the only ones that care that all of the SOL skills are being taught. From the student's perspective, they are getting graded on much fewer assignments/work and getting much less homework assigned and feedback on classwork and homework back to them. It may or may not help them to have grades related to skills, but what definitely doesn't help is to give them less feedback on work and less work to do overall.

FCPS also keeps going back and forth on whether zeros are part of this initiative. It's like a bill in congress where you think the change is about one main topic and then FCPS tries to tack on many other initiatives to have them fly under the radar under this umbrella change. So no one really knows all that SBG encompasses because FCPS keeps adding to the initiative.

I have 2 high achievers and one middle range kid who struggles.

Ironically, this standards based grading makes it far more difficult for my middle range kid to learn, retain, prepare and achieve academically. The good students are fine with whatever system they get.

[b]I am sure that FCPS is going to find that this no accountability, subjective system is far worse for the students it is supposed to help, than the traditional system of clear expectations, high, concrete standards, and a simple, accountable grading system tgat makes sense to students and parents.

FCPS will harm the exact democratic they think they are helping. They do this repeatedly.

Progressives are ultimately horrible people, not matter what their claimed intentions are.

But, you parents in FFX had a chance to change this last November. You voted for more of the same.

“Equity first. Academics? - somewhere lower down on the list.” - that is literally what your school board and your superintendent have said, repeatedly.

I wonder if they took parents of FCPS students how the actual vote went. The majority of people in the county do not have a student in FCPS.

[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:

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.

Not a republican, but do enjoy advanced curriculum my DCs have taken in FCPS.

E3 math is an effort that undermines the status quo of strivers much like the TJ changes. But most people weren’t affected by the TJ change so it was easy to virtue signal.

But I think many of us don’t like the idea of reducing academic opportunities for gifted kids in the non magnet school programs.

[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:

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.

Not a republican, but do enjoy advanced curriculum my DCs have taken in FCPS.

E3 math is an effort that undermines the status quo of strivers much like the TJ changes. But most people weren’t affected by the TJ change so it was easy to virtue signal.

But I think many of us don’t like the idea of reducing academic opportunities for gifted kids in the non magnet school programs.

Kids of all levels in FCPS are going to be fine -- despite your hysterics.

[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:

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.

Don’t you just love these baseless, progressive, drive-bys?

[Anonymous]

No, the kids are not going to be fine, but people like Reid and Calvert will be. The salesman (people like Feldman, Wormeli) will be more than fine. The kids will have to learn responsibility, accountability, timeliness on their own and will have to work harder in college because they aren’t prepared. Some may take longer to graduate college, which means more student loans and less time working (economic loss). Oh well, Madison’s principal said she’s talked to colleges and they will put our kids where they need to be. Everything will be fine.

[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:

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.

Don’t you just love these baseless, progressive, drive-bys?

It’s not baseless. The PP was blatantly lying.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Madison's lax grading policy has led to more absenteeism. Madison admin has been sending emails about chronic absenteeism, another email was sent out today. I don't know if this is something they do every year or this is related.

Schooling vs. Learning: How Lax Standards Hurt the Lowest-Performing Students (The 74) [/url]https://www.the74million.org/article/https-www-the74million-org-article-schooling-learning-lax-standards-hurt-low-income-students/[url]
A new working paper from Brown University…[looked] at what happened when a state, North Carolina, lowered its standards…[The study] found that…student grades went up a lot…Students in the top half of the performance distribution were the main beneficiaries of the easier grading scale, and students with incoming test scores below the median saw no GPA increases at all…One explanation the authors found is that students at the bottom end of the academic distribution started missing more classes. The new, laxer standards allowed the lower-performing students to increasingly disengage from school and fall further behind their peers. Worse, these effects compounded over time, and the more lenient grading standards eventually led to lower ACT scores for the students who came in the furthest behind.

[Anonymous]

Is this SBG grading system really at McLean? I thought if this happened at McLean or Langley those parents would protest.

[Anonymous]

If they were to switch, it should start with a specific cohort not ones who are used to a different policy. This is really doing a mind-f* on many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this SBG grading system really at McLean? I thought if this happened at McLean or Langley those parents would protest.

I’d like to know as well.

[Anonymous]

The Langley, Mclean, and maybe Chantilly parents are the only ones with standards and the strength to push back on FCPSs policies. Nothing will change till those parents protest. Likely they will make changes though that affect their school only. Already there is a divide between all FCPS schools and Longfellow, Cooper, Mclean and Langley.

For some reason the Madison pyramid has always been pro new policy. I guess because that is the only way they attention having a whiter more wealthy population that FCPS likes to ignore. The current principal at Madison does not care about anything other than her own career advancement. There have been no improvements at the school that show up outside the school like the SAT or college admissions since this program was implemented.

[Anonymous]

I have kids at Madison and was willing to give SBG a chance, but, when the grade book opened yesterday, a class our child had an A-/B+ in nearly all quarter in SIS suddenly reported as a D+. They got three poor grades at the beginning of Q2 (at which point we intervened and got them back on track), and those three grades were were about half of the ones that ended up counting as their quarter grade while about 20 other A/B grades they had in the book went to "not for grading".

I cannot see how this helps kids or parents, if we don't know which grades count in the end. I obviously want my kid to get good marks on all assignments, but they're human and screw up sometimes or don't get a particular unit of material.

My child is really upset. They worked hard after the start of the quarter stumble to get back on track and have months-long parade of A/B marks to show for their effort. And then their report card shows up with a D+. This is a child that's never even gotten a C. They feel like they did everything they were supposed to and then got blindsided by "not for grading".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at Madison and was willing to give SBG a chance, but, when the grade book opened yesterday, a class our child had an A-/B+ in nearly all quarter in SIS suddenly reported as a D+. They got three poor grades at the beginning of Q2 (at which point we intervened and got them back on track), and those three grades were were about half of the ones that ended up counting as their quarter grade while about 20 other A/B grades they had in the book went to "not for grading".

I cannot see how this helps kids or parents, if we don't know which grades count in the end. I obviously want my kid to get good marks on all assignments, but they're human and screw up sometimes or don't get a particular unit of material.

My child is really upset. They worked hard after the start of the quarter stumble to get back on track and have months-long parade of A/B marks to show for their effort. And then their report card shows up with a D+. This is a child that's never even gotten a C. They feel like they did everything they were supposed to and then got blindsided by "not for grading".

I can't see anything good that comes out of destroying Madison HS or the trust that parents have with administrators and teachers. It's not without issues - Madison for many years did a poorer job with its low-income students than nearby schools like Marshall and McLean - but it's had strong community support and has served most of its students well for a long time.

And then stuff like this comes along and makes it a place to avoid. What is the saying "it takes years to build a reputation and seconds to destroy it"?

If Dr. Reid has any sense at all, she would be reassigning Liz Calvert to some desk job at Gatehouse, and finding a new principal to restore trust.