Pat Hynes was blatantly rude to Shultz this past year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I made some general observations and a few specific recommendations at 00:05. Education in Fairfax is an industry employing 25,000 people, it consumes more than 53% of the total County taxes - more than $3 billion each year, it provides services to more than 190,000 students with all sorts of individual objectives and talents and capabilities, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants and technology and services. And yet this is all overseen by a School Board with limited to no financial or management expertise. There is limited accountability - until very recently there has not been an effective Auditor General. The Administration is not very experienced and has been shaken up recently with the departure of the COO, the CFO, the Asst Supt of SpecEd, and now the head of HR. Supt Brabrand appears to be focused on accountability, and this is welcome, but building an efficient administrative team is a seriious challenge. There is a culture of defensiveness, an unwillingness to be open and transparent, to encourage nepotism/favoritism, and to avoid accountability - metrics, measures, and to confront vested interests. This is normal politics for any school system but it becomes consequential in a system that is as large and expensive as FCPS. So, the first step is to ensure real transparency, accountability, checks & balances and responsibility by the Administration. A big part of achieving this is whether it is demanded/supported by the Board. With Hynes and Strauss retiring there is an opportunity to elect members with more relevant experience and a focus on instituting good governance (ref. Storck, Schultz)

The education of a child does not readily fit into set time lines and regular curricula. I've taught for 8 years and learned that learning occurs in lumpy progress. It is a dis-service to our kids to promote them without demonstrating competency, and this is most critical in the early years as this is the basis for everything else. Honest appraisals of the talents, capabilities, determination and objectives of students and parents should be done semi-annually - this is more than simply evaluating grades. From FCPS data, 41% of AP students are receiving A/A- in class marks (48% of IB students), but this grade inflation is misleading parents and students. I favor posting all test results (anonymized if necessary) along with the mean and standard deviation, to allow students and parents to evaluate where their child is performing relative to their peers. This is to be honest in the appraisal of opportunities. At the same time, we must offer alternatives to the strict "intellectual academic" track. Many students will be more interested and capable in trades, arts, manual labor etc and the skills (technical and inter-personal "character") that ensure success should be taught. Respect for all learning and for individual effort and achievement of personal goals should be celebrated. As an aside, there is a lot of value to teach basic home economics - how to buy, save, prepare food, hygiene, manage finances etc. - this is not done well in the current FLE and EPF courses.

Perhaps we need an IEP for each child - but it must be grounded in a culture that is honest, respectful and focused on stewardship of resources. Currently FCPS constantly calls for more funding with no focus on controlling spending - this is disrespectful to those who work and pay taxes. To respect the resources that are derived from the work of County taxpayers is critical to developing a culture that respects work, and this is an important element in the education of our children. Advocates naturally seek more resources and special interests can secure substantial resources that favor them and necessarily disfavor others. The School Board has the role of deciding these allocations. The balance between general interests and special interests is dynamic and it results in tensions that are resolved respectfully or by drastic change. To reiterate what I've asked elsewhere; What do we spend money on? Who gets special services? How do we determine what spending is appropriate? A Texas judge recently asked "do we spend money on the bright kids or the slow ones"? This was impolitic, and ignorant of the benefits of spending money on both, but it reflects an important question as to how do we measure value in spending money on kids education? My recommendation is to spend money on ensuring that young children learn to read and do sums competently. I also favor spending money on teaching trades and "life skills" - instilling knowledge of character traits that we know lead to success, whatever other skills or attributes one possesses. When we care about spending money we evaluate the outcomes and measure the returns - this is an important skill and practice to pass to our students. We teach our students to be stewards of the environment and to care for each other - why does this not extend to being careful when spending money? The effort of the CAG group is instructive - minor improvement has been made in one metric (B vs W reading) but the gap has widened in every other measure (both in reading and math). After 8 yrs of this program we must conclude that something is not working. Unfortunately, the ability to terminate failing programs (or even accurately evaluate them) is complicated by political considerations and the beneficiaries/dependencies that arise with these programs. This is where a committed Board can provide guidance and support to the Administration.

We know that kids are born with a wide range of abilities and talents. In a perfect world we would provide resources to maximize the potential for each student. But the schools are but one part of the triad of student/teacher/family that develops these potentials into achievement. Respecting the roles and the obligations of each of these parties, and respecting the contributions of money from taxpayers, while encouraging accountable, responsible and measurable administration of the schools can go a long way to achieving social justice and a thriving community. By the same token, ignoring waste and ineffective programs, favoring special interests, ignoring/assuming the role and responsibilities of the student and families, being disrespectful of taxpayers' contributions is a recipe for a divisive, ineffective and ultimately destructive education system and a failed community. See D.C. for an example of a failed public school system that is wasting human capital and perpetuating dependence.

FCPS has many committed and caring individuals who work hard to be effective. Most of the Board members are people of goodwill and take their job seriously. My recommendations are offered with the intent to make a good system better and I support everyone who is working honestly to that end.

Let's start with this post, since otherwise each post will take up too much space.

I believe you suggested that posts from other posters were laden with accusations and buzzwords. I see plenty here. My statements and assertions are factual, if summarized. If you are aware of the history of FCPS you will recognize the accuracy my characterizations. Look at the pension adjustments made to benefit the Jack Dale administration, the Battelle for Kids contract to benefit Karen Garza, the reliance on FOIA to frustrate citizens seeking information, the Office of Auditor General's findings in 2015 and 2018 of significant deficiencies in contracting (yet to be addressed) [not to mention the opposition of Hynes to an independent AG], the unusually high pension fees in ERFC (compare to the County) and the inappropriate COLA, the mis-management of the JEB Stuart renaming process (including inappropriate communications and advocacy by Hynes and Evans), the stacking of the FLECAC advisory group - this just off the top of my head. There's a problem with the Board's management, communication with the public, control of the Administration and respect for by-laws and principles of good governance. These are not baseless accusations or buzzwords.

Hynes and Strauss both had or have direct teaching experience and/or education degrees. Are you suggesting the School Board and FCPS administration need more professional managers, and fewer people with education backgrounds? What in Schultz's background or tenure on the School Board suggests she really understands education policy? I stated clearly that the Board will benefit from more financial and general mgmt expertise. Direct teaching experience and education degrees are certainly useful to understanding the impact of policies and administration initiatives on teachers, but they don't necessarily prepare someone to be an effective Board member, and in fact may lead to a myopic view of what the school system should do. Some of the defensiveness that is apparent from members of the current Board is clearly is su rooted in arrogance about teaching methods and a tight alliance of interest with teachers - as distinct from representing the broader community's interests

Your post is specifically personal to suggest that you may, in fact, plan to run for School Board yourself. Do you wish to identify yourself and indicate, for example, where you have taught? Teaching in a private school, or a small public school system, may or may not provide you with an understanding of the different challenges that FCPS students face. [/b] You have implied (para above) that Hynes' and Strauss' teaching experience is useful - perhaps mine is also. Given that there are 190k students in FCPS it's not possible that anyone understands all the challenges that face each student. The Board is setting policy and overseeing the Administration - this is very different from teaching. I'll be happy to meet with you to discuss ways to improve FCPS. If you are closely involved in FCPS I expect you know my identity or someone can hopefully link us up without identifying myself on an anonymous public forum. Or if you have no such concerns then provide an email and I will be happy to contact you.[/b]

If you favor holding students back in greater numbers, how do you anticipate that will affect drop-out rates or school accreditations? I don't anticipate any increase in drop-outs by students who are actually learning. As I said before, it is dishonest to promote kids who can't demonstrate competency. This will not affect accreditation - if it does it's not hard to point out the irony of losing accreditation for holding kids to account. If you favor grade deflation, might that not impact FCPS students negatively relative to their peers in other jurisdictions when applying to colleges and universities? FCPS can describe its policy and colleges & universities will compensate - standardized test scores provide more data. It's ridiculous to suggest that more As should be granted so students will be admitted to programs that they are not prepared for. This is simply dishonest {there's a theme here]. If you favor teaching students more about hygeine, how do you expect to deal with parents who already object in some instances to FLE? I have read a lot of the objections to FLE and attended several public hearings and have not heard of any concerns with teaching basic hygeine. I know that FLE is not effective at teaching useful information about how to make sexual choices and understand the consequences - my two kids tell me that. How does one draw a meaningful distinction between a "general interest" and a "special interest," especially when programs that you deem "special interests" are, in most cases, intended to meet the needs of large number of students with similar needs? This is the role of the Board. It is an art. I expounded on the balance of interests and the process of resolving disputes in a previous post. This is the goal of good governance. Suggesting a "back to basics" approach focusing on reading and arithmetic in the early grades suggests falsely, in my opinion, that these are not already major areas of focus, too often at the expense of science, arts, music and physical education. I didn't suggest a "back to basics" approach - I advocated for an honest appraisal of competency and attainment of a minimum level of reading and math skills as early as possible. There is a lot of focus on this and I commend FCPS for their work in this regard. Criticizing programs that have failed to eliminate the achievement gap is low-hanging fruit, but you've neither offered a clear alternative to CAG or acknowledged the role of institutional racism and other circumstances that give rise to the disparities in achievement in the first instance. Your opinion - I described (in summary - in a blog post) my preference to attain reading and math comprehension as early as possible in the context of individualized IEPs involving semi-annual assessments with student, family and teachers to set and review objectives and progress. CAG hasn't been effective. How is CAG addressing "institutional racism"? My suggestion clearly involves the student and family as early as possible to gain commitment to student specific goals.

I pose these questions not to harass you, because the length of your post suggests you do care about public education. However, past School Board races have seen any number of candidates, typically endorsed by the local GOP,, who have offered a "tastes great, less filling" alternative that consists largely of vague promises that, if we somehow audit or review more existing programs and slash FCPS administrative staff, we can simultaneously redirect resources away from schools with more high-needs students to schools with more higher-income kids and see overall gains in student performance. I have my doubts about that approach, which has no small amount in common with trickle-down economics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I had no idea what giant bag of worms I was going to be opening when I answered this question. It has been eye opening - not so much about the school system as the people who post on DCUM. WOW.

I mean asked!

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I had no idea what giant bag of worms I was going to be opening when I answered this question. It has been eye opening - not so much about the school system as the people who post on DCUM. WOW.

Anonymous wrote:Work sessions are also televised. Not sure what you're getting at. I've seen Shultz speak at work sessions too often more than others. I appreciate having school board members tell the public what is important to them and how they went about making their decision at general public meetings especially if they can do it in a forthcoming way without trying to one-up another board member.

Pat Hynes was blatantly rude to Shultz this past year. I don't like everything Shultz does either, but two wrongs don't make a right. For someone of questionable character herself from years past, she did not show me enough composure as a board member. On many topics she comes across as if there is always one clear path forward without deliberation and acts as if she's always in the right and will get defensive if anyone brings up another opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Hynes and Strauss both had or have direct teaching experience and/or education degrees. Are you suggesting the School Board and FCPS administration need more professional managers, and fewer people with education backgrounds? What in Schultz's background or tenure on the School Board suggests she really understands education policy?

Hynes and Strauss show little interest in education and give lip service more than concrete suggestions. Platitudes.

Granted, Schultz spends too much time challenging the others--but, she does speak for many in Fairfax County who do not have a voice on the ultra liberal school board. She tried to broker a compromise on Stuart naming once she realized the name was going to change. I wonder if someone else had worked on this, if her suggestion would have passed. Clearly, some on the board were determined that only an African American should be the namesake. Karen Keys-Gamarra was still lobbying for Justice Thurgood Marshall and screwed up her proposal because she(a lawyer) did not understand the motion.

Schultz also gets into the meat of programs and asks astute questions regarding finances and other issues. Yes, she has conservative social values, but she also watches out for good stewardship of funds.

Hynes and Strauss both had or have direct teaching experience and/or education degrees. Are you suggesting the School Board and FCPS administration need more professional managers, and fewer people with education backgrounds? What in Schultz's background or tenure on the School Board suggests she really understands education policy?

Anonymous wrote:

I made some general observations and a few specific recommendations at 00:05. Education in Fairfax is an industry employing 25,000 people, it consumes more than 53% of the total County taxes - more than $3 billion each year, it provides services to more than 190,000 students with all sorts of individual objectives and talents and capabilities, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants and technology and services. And yet this is all overseen by a School Board with limited to no financial or management expertise. There is limited accountability - until very recently there has not been an effective Auditor General. The Administration is not very experienced and has been shaken up recently with the departure of the COO, the CFO, the Asst Supt of SpecEd, and now the head of HR. Supt Brabrand appears to be focused on accountability, and this is welcome, but building an efficient administrative team is a seriious challenge. There is a culture of defensiveness, an unwillingness to be open and transparent, to encourage nepotism/favoritism, and to avoid accountability - metrics, measures, and to confront vested interests. This is normal politics for any school system but it becomes consequential in a system that is as large and expensive as FCPS. So, the first step is to ensure real transparency, accountability, checks & balances and responsibility by the Administration. A big part of achieving this is whether it is demanded/supported by the Board. With Hynes and Strauss retiring there is an opportunity to elect members with more relevant experience and a focus on instituting good governance (ref. Storck, Schultz)

The education of a child does not readily fit into set time lines and regular curricula. I've taught for 8 years and learned that learning occurs in lumpy progress. It is a dis-service to our kids to promote them without demonstrating competency, and this is most critical in the early years as this is the basis for everything else. Honest appraisals of the talents, capabilities, determination and objectives of students and parents should be done semi-annually - this is more than simply evaluating grades. From FCPS data, 41% of AP students are receiving A/A- in class marks (48% of IB students), but this grade inflation is misleading parents and students. I favor posting all test results (anonymized if necessary) along with the mean and standard deviation, to allow students and parents to evaluate where their child is performing relative to their peers. This is to be honest in the appraisal of opportunities. At the same time, we must offer alternatives to the strict "intellectual academic" track. Many students will be more interested and capable in trades, arts, manual labor etc and the skills (technical and inter-personal "character") that ensure success should be taught. Respect for all learning and for individual effort and achievement of personal goals should be celebrated. As an aside, there is a lot of value to teach basic home economics - how to buy, save, prepare food, hygiene, manage finances etc. - this is not done well in the current FLE and EPF courses.

Perhaps we need an IEP for each child - but it must be grounded in a culture that is honest, respectful and focused on stewardship of resources. Currently FCPS constantly calls for more funding with no focus on controlling spending - this is disrespectful to those who work and pay taxes. To respect the resources that are derived from the work of County taxpayers is critical to developing a culture that respects work, and this is an important element in the education of our children. Advocates naturally seek more resources and special interests can secure substantial resources that favor them and necessarily disfavor others. The School Board has the role of deciding these allocations. The balance between general interests and special interests is dynamic and it results in tensions that are resolved respectfully or by drastic change. To reiterate what I've asked elsewhere; What do we spend money on? Who gets special services? How do we determine what spending is appropriate? A Texas judge recently asked "do we spend money on the bright kids or the slow ones"? This was impolitic, and ignorant of the benefits of spending money on both, but it reflects an important question as to how do we measure value in spending money on kids education? My recommendation is to spend money on ensuring that young children learn to read and do sums competently. I also favor spending money on teaching trades and "life skills" - instilling knowledge of character traits that we know lead to success, whatever other skills or attributes one possesses. When we care about spending money we evaluate the outcomes and measure the returns - this is an important skill and practice to pass to our students. We teach our students to be stewards of the environment and to care for each other - why does this not extend to being careful when spending money? The effort of the CAG group is instructive - minor improvement has been made in one metric (B vs W reading) but the gap has widened in every other measure (both in reading and math). After 8 yrs of this program we must conclude that something is not working. Unfortunately, the ability to terminate failing programs (or even accurately evaluate them) is complicated by political considerations and the beneficiaries/dependencies that arise with these programs. This is where a committed Board can provide guidance and support to the Administration.

We know that kids are born with a wide range of abilities and talents. In a perfect world we would provide resources to maximize the potential for each student. But the schools are but one part of the triad of student/teacher/family that develops these potentials into achievement. Respecting the roles and the obligations of each of these parties, and respecting the contributions of money from taxpayers, while encouraging accountable, responsible and measurable administration of the schools can go a long way to achieving social justice and a thriving community. By the same token, ignoring waste and ineffective programs, favoring special interests, ignoring/assuming the role and responsibilities of the student and families, being disrespectful of taxpayers' contributions is a recipe for a divisive, ineffective and ultimately destructive education system and a failed community. See D.C. for an example of a failed public school system that is wasting human capital and perpetuating dependence.

FCPS has many committed and caring individuals who work hard to be effective. Most of the Board members are people of goodwill and take their job seriously. My recommendations are offered with the intent to make a good system better and I support everyone who is working honestly to that end.

Anonymous wrote:Is the achievement gap just measured on passing rates or other criteria? Obviously Asians care about education more than other races, but shouldn't the achievement gap just measure an on-grade achievement if this is what the end goal is for all students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was interested in the suggestion that the FARMS enrollment in FCPS is spiraling out of control, or that this could be due in any way to School Board policies.

Turns out that the growth in the FARMS percentage in FCPS over the past 15 years has been lower than in the state of Virginia as a whole. Loudoun is the only public school system of any size in Virginia with a lower FARMS rate than Fairfax. Changes in the FARMS eligibility formulas may have something to do with the increase as well. Families currently can have incomes that are 185% of the poverty level and qualify for assistance.

Needs Based Staffing is current FCPS policy that allocates more resources (teachers, support staff and administrators - funding) to schools based on their FARMS percentage. The changes in County population demographics are what they are, but these changes reflect in changing allocation of limited funds and resources between schools. The School Board also determines whether and how to fund other identified needs. As an example, spending on General Ed students has actually fallen (in inflation adj terms) over the past 5 years while spending on SpecEd and ESOL students has increased over the same period (all on a per pupil basis) - in large part a futile attempt to address the "achievement gap" (and to be responsive to organized groups advvocating and promoting special interests). The allocation of funds as between the many programs and segments (GenEd, SpecEd, ESOL, AAP, AP, IB, TJHSS, arts, science, transportation, sports etc) is very much the purview of the School Board. These allocations and entitlements, and seeking more pay and benefits for teachers, staff and administrators, are largely what challenges the School Board. The net result is that increasing FARMS enrollment, under current FCPS policies, is diverting significant funds, and this is becoming more widely understood and advocates are devising and implementing actions to protect and advance their interests and concerns. Normal stuff...

Addressing the needs of the less privileged is neither futile nor a "diversion" of funds. It's doing what we, as a society, need to do to educate the adults of the future.

Allow me to be more precise - I intended to use "futile" in the sense that it has not worked - i.e. the "achievement gap" has not been closed. I didn't mean to express an opinion on whether this effort is appropriate or not - rather to note that it has not been effective to date. I stand by the use of "diversion" as funds that are used for one purpose cannot be used for another - the School Board is diverting or allocating funds from one need to another all the time. As to the assertion of what "we, as a society, need to do" - this is determined by the political process and is what we argue about and advocate for in the discussions on this forum, elect our representatives to do, write letters, speak up at PTA etc. You have your opinion and I have mine - I didn't share mine here but simply described how the School Board is allocating funds under current policies and noted the lack of success to date in one particular effort.

I don't know what "addressing the needs of the less privileged" means to you - how do you determine privilege? simply by money, skin color, facility with languages or a musical instrument, languages, trips to Disney World, number of shoes in the closet? Seriously, how can we use this to determine how to spend real money and design programs to educate our kids? Is it more appropriate to spend money on certain kids than others? How do you make that decision - largest return for the investment? responding to the most vocal advocacy group? favoring those who are poor - or rich?

There are a lot of buzzwords bantered around in favor of some program or another - part of the political process of shaming, enticing, building group loyalties, creating constitutencies to secure funding for special interests. My view is that resources should be allocated carefully, evaluated often and honestly and allocated elsewhere or differently if the anticipated results are not achieved. In this way, we can make progress in achieveing the aim of educating each child to the maximum of their individual potential in the most efficient way possible.

The "achievement gap," as that term is generally understood, has not been eliminated, but that does not mean that it has not been narrowed, at least in some schools, or that it might not be wider were less money spent in classrooms with larger numbers of ESOL, FARMS and non-Asian minority students.

Obviously, money spent in one area cannot be spent in a different area, at least not if FCPS wants to balance its books. I don't want to get into any more semantics than are necessary, but the term "diverted" does have a different tone than "allocated," which you apparently believe is a synonym.

I also remain skeptical of the frequency with which you use terms like "special interests," at least without a clearer acknowledgment on your part that the most vocal, and most successful, "special interest" groups within FCPS have been those supporting AAP and the continued designation of TJHSST as a state governor's school with a limited enrollment, not those advocating for low-income and/or minority students.

If you want to benchmark performance, the academic performance of white and Asian students in FCPS is probably the easiest benchmark, because they are the most economically heterogeneous groups within the county (there are very few low-income whites in FCPS, and low-income Asians are mostly in a few pockets of Falls Church and Springfield). It is quite strong, despite the occasional suggestions that "average" or "typical" kids (and we know that usually means "average white kids") are somehow getting the shaft in FCPS.

You make a lot of assertions and assumptions - but please provide some comprehensive data that shows the "achievement gap" (however defined) has been substantively addressed by FCPS policies.

There is plenty of information that reflects the commitment in FCPS to closing the achievement gap.

You can start here:

https://www.fcps.edu/index.php/node/32798

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AKWQZG6BB1D5/$file/2016%20Student%20Success-Goal%201%20Narrative_F_040617.pdf

A "commitment" is different from an achievement - or even making substantive progress. The document you linked (2016 Student Success) shows pgs 39-44 the "progress" at closing the achievement gap - it is minimal if even statistically significant. For example, p.43 shows Avg SOL scaled score by ethnicity for 2013-2016: Asians +10, Blacks +7, Hispanics +2, Whites +3, so you might claim that Blacks have improved compared to Whites but still lag by 426 to 473 - 47 pts, and this after 6 years of intensive commitment. The report on pg 44 for Math achievement shows the 2012-2016 changes; Asians +13, Blacks +12, Hispanics +9 and Whites +14 - an increase in the achievement gap for both Blacks and Hispanics. This is the real story of the CAG (Closing the Achievement Gap) project team established in 2010 - a slight improvement in Black Reading scores vs Whites and Hispanics but falling further behind Asians, and both Blacks and Hispanics falling further behind Whites and Asians in Math. Perhaps it is time for a different approach...?

What do you recommend?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was interested in the suggestion that the FARMS enrollment in FCPS is spiraling out of control, or that this could be due in any way to School Board policies.

Turns out that the growth in the FARMS percentage in FCPS over the past 15 years has been lower than in the state of Virginia as a whole. Loudoun is the only public school system of any size in Virginia with a lower FARMS rate than Fairfax. Changes in the FARMS eligibility formulas may have something to do with the increase as well. Families currently can have incomes that are 185% of the poverty level and qualify for assistance.

Needs Based Staffing is current FCPS policy that allocates more resources (teachers, support staff and administrators - funding) to schools based on their FARMS percentage. The changes in County population demographics are what they are, but these changes reflect in changing allocation of limited funds and resources between schools. The School Board also determines whether and how to fund other identified needs. As an example, spending on General Ed students has actually fallen (in inflation adj terms) over the past 5 years while spending on SpecEd and ESOL students has increased over the same period (all on a per pupil basis) - in large part a futile attempt to address the "achievement gap" (and to be responsive to organized groups advvocating and promoting special interests). The allocation of funds as between the many programs and segments (GenEd, SpecEd, ESOL, AAP, AP, IB, TJHSS, arts, science, transportation, sports etc) is very much the purview of the School Board. These allocations and entitlements, and seeking more pay and benefits for teachers, staff and administrators, are largely what challenges the School Board. The net result is that increasing FARMS enrollment, under current FCPS policies, is diverting significant funds, and this is becoming more widely understood and advocates are devising and implementing actions to protect and advance their interests and concerns. Normal stuff...

Addressing the needs of the less privileged is neither futile nor a "diversion" of funds. It's doing what we, as a society, need to do to educate the adults of the future.

Allow me to be more precise - I intended to use "futile" in the sense that it has not worked - i.e. the "achievement gap" has not been closed. I didn't mean to express an opinion on whether this effort is appropriate or not - rather to note that it has not been effective to date. I stand by the use of "diversion" as funds that are used for one purpose cannot be used for another - the School Board is diverting or allocating funds from one need to another all the time. As to the assertion of what "we, as a society, need to do" - this is determined by the political process and is what we argue about and advocate for in the discussions on this forum, elect our representatives to do, write letters, speak up at PTA etc. You have your opinion and I have mine - I didn't share mine here but simply described how the School Board is allocating funds under current policies and noted the lack of success to date in one particular effort.

I don't know what "addressing the needs of the less privileged" means to you - how do you determine privilege? simply by money, skin color, facility with languages or a musical instrument, languages, trips to Disney World, number of shoes in the closet? Seriously, how can we use this to determine how to spend real money and design programs to educate our kids? Is it more appropriate to spend money on certain kids than others? How do you make that decision - largest return for the investment? responding to the most vocal advocacy group? favoring those who are poor - or rich?

There are a lot of buzzwords bantered around in favor of some program or another - part of the political process of shaming, enticing, building group loyalties, creating constitutencies to secure funding for special interests. My view is that resources should be allocated carefully, evaluated often and honestly and allocated elsewhere or differently if the anticipated results are not achieved. In this way, we can make progress in achieveing the aim of educating each child to the maximum of their individual potential in the most efficient way possible.

The "achievement gap," as that term is generally understood, has not been eliminated, but that does not mean that it has not been narrowed, at least in some schools, or that it might not be wider were less money spent in classrooms with larger numbers of ESOL, FARMS and non-Asian minority students.

Obviously, money spent in one area cannot be spent in a different area, at least not if FCPS wants to balance its books. I don't want to get into any more semantics than are necessary, but the term "diverted" does have a different tone than "allocated," which you apparently believe is a synonym.

I also remain skeptical of the frequency with which you use terms like "special interests," at least without a clearer acknowledgment on your part that the most vocal, and most successful, "special interest" groups within FCPS have been those supporting AAP and the continued designation of TJHSST as a state governor's school with a limited enrollment, not those advocating for low-income and/or minority students.

If you want to benchmark performance, the academic performance of white and Asian students in FCPS is probably the easiest benchmark, because they are the most economically heterogeneous groups within the county (there are very few low-income whites in FCPS, and low-income Asians are mostly in a few pockets of Falls Church and Springfield). It is quite strong, despite the occasional suggestions that "average" or "typical" kids (and we know that usually means "average white kids") are somehow getting the shaft in FCPS.

You make a lot of assertions and assumptions - but please provide some comprehensive data that shows the "achievement gap" (however defined) has been substantively addressed by FCPS policies.

There is plenty of information that reflects the commitment in FCPS to closing the achievement gap.

You can start here:

https://www.fcps.edu/index.php/node/32798

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AKWQZG6BB1D5/$file/2016%20Student%20Success-Goal%201%20Narrative_F_040617.pdf

A "commitment" is different from an achievement - or even making substantive progress. The document you linked (2016 Student Success) shows pgs 39-44 the "progress" at closing the achievement gap - it is minimal if even statistically significant. For example, p.43 shows Avg SOL scaled score by ethnicity for 2013-2016: Asians +10, Blacks +7, Hispanics +2, Whites +3, so you might claim that Blacks have improved compared to Whites but still lag by 426 to 473 - 47 pts, and this after 6 years of intensive commitment. The report on pg 44 for Math achievement shows the 2012-2016 changes; Asians +13, Blacks +12, Hispanics +9 and Whites +14 - an increase in the achievement gap for both Blacks and Hispanics. This is the real story of the CAG (Closing the Achievement Gap) project team established in 2010 - a slight improvement in Black Reading scores vs Whites and Hispanics but falling further behind Asians, and both Blacks and Hispanics falling further behind Whites and Asians in Math. Perhaps it is time for a different approach...?