Reply to Equal outcomes?

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Equal outcomes?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 [b]"equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions"[/b] 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 [i]has[/i] 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.[/quote]

You’re way overthinking this. Get a life. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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

Get a life, OP. [b]Stop pushing your politics at the expense of our schools. [/b]
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Yes, we know you want to keep the poors poor and will do anything you can to maintain status quo. 
[/quote]

Promoting equal opportunities has been a laudable approach.  Leveling the playing field by bringing down higher achieving kids and schools is a sure path to ruin.  [/quote]

Pure Republican propaganda.

No one is "bringing down higher achieving kids and schools". 
[/quote]

Then what do you call progressive education reform efforts which included eliminating gifted and talented classes, eliminating ap classes or revamping the program so it’s “ap for all” and you have remedial learners placed in advanced students, or a general impetus to teach to the lowest common denominator,. What do you call eliminating race neutral testing for advanced schools like TJ?

I mean I know what you’re going to say, that even discussing these issues is idiotic and against equity efforts, but really these sorts of things should be debated. If you’re going to water down academic rigor, and choose folks from the top 10% of schools to allow to TJ rather than academic merit and simple test results, there should be discussion allowed. I say that because NASA doesn’t need to hire engineers to design its spaceships out of charity.[/quote]

FCPS has one of the largest GT programs in the state and has incredibly broad AP offerings [/quote]

That’s great. So you’re saying it’s good they haven’t eliminated as some places that have implemented progressive education reform have done? Because doing so would bring down higher achieving kids wouldn’t you say?[/quote]

If you hate the county so much, there are plenty of red counties with conservative school boards that would be happy to have your kid [/quote]

I don’t live in the county, but I can still comment on progressive education policies I believe to be not fully baked, correct? I’m also not conservative, but thanks for stereotyping. I would just like some simple answers to frame the debate.

[/quote]

Outside agitator.

More GOP political games that will hurt our kids. GFY. 
[/quote]

DP, but I think you need to be a bit more tolerant of people with different POVs.

Fairfax isn't a hard county to understand politically.

It is liberal; people are generally very invested in the public school system; and people want good services.

If the message from Republicans is that they want to gut and/or privatize the public school system, they will turn off voters.

If the actions from Democrats indicate that they can no longer deliver good services (i.e., public education) in part because they prioritize rhetoric over competence, they will turn off voters.

Many of us are hoping against hope that the next crop of candidates for School Board will include Republicans who actually value public schools and/or Democrats who aren't virtue-signaling hypocrites.  [/quote]

I also hope this.  I plan to vote for whoever runs against Omeish, even though I'm a democrat, and I'm open to voting anyone who actually has an understanding of the school system and cares about education more than furthering their own political ambitions.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics