Anonymous wrote:So now you are calling people that don't like SBG "racists." Of course, that's one way to scare people and get them to shut up. Here is the student rep giving a speech about the impact of SBG on students earlier this fall.

https://twitter.com/FFXParentsAssoc/status/1697425072489734469

It is the middle and lower income kids who really suffer when they are put at a disadvantage in college admissions. I’d really like to see the impact on GPAs for kids at every level (not just those who were struggling, but also kids in honors and AP classes.). If those haven’t changed, I would be more supportive. But I have yet to see those released to parents and until I do, I’m going to assume SBG is performing as intended, with lower GPAs for top students and higher GPAs for struggling students.

So now you are calling people that don't like SBG "racists." Of course, that's one way to scare people and get them to shut up. Here is the student rep giving a speech about the impact of SBG on students earlier this fall.

https://twitter.com/FFXParentsAssoc/status/1697425072489734469

Anonymous wrote:Madison just invited Womeli, author of "Fair isn't always equal" to speak at the PTSA meeting. On p. 185, he suggests slipping an “expert” into the teachers lounge to casually strike up conversations in favor of his reforms. And here we have someone that keeps showing up arguing fervently for SBG who does sound like any parent I've ever encountered.

Clearly a conspiracy!

Or…there are a wide variety of people, including parents, here who are familiar with educational topics because they’ve been engaged for the last 15 years. And are tired of ignorant people pushing politics at the expense of our kids.

My kids had SBG at their ES several years ago before “equity” was a thing. And way before the racists latched on to hating it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SBG is FCPS’s way of moving to an equity grading platform county-wide. The Madison pilot is spreading as expected. Probably too late to stop the train, especially in light of the recent school board election.

If you have a child in FCPS and you care about their future education then it is time to find a way to get out.

I was hoping you guys would stop interjecting this BS in every FCPS thread after the elections. Wishful thinking…

+1

The irrational hate never ceases.

Madison just invited Womeli, author of "Fair isn't always equal" to speak at the PTSA meeting. On p. 185, he suggests slipping an “expert” into the teachers lounge to casually strike up conversations in favor of his reforms. And here we have someone that keeps showing up arguing fervently for SBG who does sound like any parent I've ever encountered.

EXCLUSIVE — Teachers in Virginia's Fairfax County Public Schools were required to undergo professional development training on equity grading that includes a slideshow on responding to people who oppose equity initiatives.

The syllabus of the training and a slideshow were obtained by parent activist organization Parents Defending Education and shared with the Washington Examiner and provide details into how the northern Virginia school district has pushed its teachers to implement equity grading standards.

The syllabus for the professional development program Grading for Equity says it was designed to "support educators in understanding the 'why' and 'how' of implementing equitable grading practices" and required teachers to read the book Grading for Equity by Joe Feldman.

A source within FCPS who was granted anonymity to speak candidly told the Washington Examiner that teachers were required to read Feldman's book and discuss it during monthly faculty meetings.
The Washington Examiner reported last year on efforts at Langley High School and other Fairfax County Public Schools to implement equity grading, a practice of grading that involves a multifaceted approach to lower the chances of a student failing. Tenets of equity grading include the elimination of "0" grades through the implementation of a 50% minimum grade on all assignments, the removal of deadlines, and the opportunity to redo assignments.

"The course content will provide educators with the understanding and skills to transform current practices to ensure that the academic excellence of all students is reflected in our systems of evaluation," the syllabus says. "It will provide tools to ensure that cultural responsiveness is embedded into grading practices of teachers who want grades to reflect learning and understanding of students as opposed to behavior and access to resources. Teachers taking this course are committing to supporting an open-minded, responsive, and collaborative learning environment."

The course syllabus contains several links to resources, including reading assignments, TED talks, and podcasts about the idea of eliminating grading or changing the current grading system.

Included in those resources is a slideshow on "Navigating Resistance" to equity programs that included instructions on how to respond to people who are critical of equity initiatives in different scenarios.
One of the slides describes a person who "struggle[s] to differentiate between equity and equality" and how this person believes "fair is equal."
"Because the 'Fairness-Seeker' idealizes equality, it may be especially challenging for them to believe in systemic racism: a common refrain from white people engaging in this type of resistance is, 'but I grew up poor,'" the slide reads. "A lack of experience with racial inequities makes them naive even if their intentions are good — the upside is they can become ardent equity supporters if you can redirect their definition of fairness from equal to equity."

The slide says that to respond to this, one must "explicitly teach the difference between equality and equity" because the individual may not be familiar with it. The slide also recommends using other people in the room to "dilute the Fairness-Seeker's voice."

For another scenario, the slideshow describes the "Minimizer," who may say things like "I don't see color" or that the world is inherently unfair. The slide says such people "nee[d] expanded perspective" and that "case studies, story telling, testimony, [and] videos can be particularly influential in shifting the Minimizer."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/fairfax-trained-teachers-disregard-objections-equity-grading

Anonymous wrote:SBG is FCPS’s way of moving to an equity grading platform county-wide. The Madison pilot is spreading as expected. Probably too late to stop the train, especially in light of the recent school board election.

If you have a child in FCPS and you care about their future education then it is time to find a way to get out.

I was hoping you guys would stop interjecting this BS in every FCPS thread after the elections. Wishful thinking…

It’s not just about lowering expectations; it’s also about redistributing opportunities to those who have now been officially excused from working harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are Feldman's points from "Grading for Equity" Please tell me how Madison is different.

The 0-100 scale should be abandoned, and the letter grades A-F should correspond instead to a 0-4 scale.

Cumulative marking period grades should only include the most recent grade, in cases when a student shows improvement over time, and earlier test scores shouldn’t be averaged with later ones.

Homework, classwork, participation and effort should all be excluded from a course grade.

No more zeros and the death of deadlines

Test “retakes should be available whenever a students wants to improve their performance.” Earlier, lesser scores should not factor into the grade at all.

Who TF is Feldman? Some random guy who took concepts from an existing educational concept and slapped a trendy term on it.

SGB predates Feldman and is not related to "equity".
2010
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509404.pdf
2012
http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/schooling-beyond-measure/
2015
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/are-letter-grades-failing-our-students
2016
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590391.pdf

Sorry to disappoint the "anti-equity" people.

In fact, you can go all of the way back to Bush's NCLB for the origin story. From the first link:

"Developing a Statewide, Standards-Based Student Report Card: A Review of the Kentucky Initiative
Thomas R. Guskey, Gerry Swan, and Lee Ann Jung University of Kentucky
Nearly all states and Canadian provinces today have established specific standards for student learning. Developed by educational leaders and subject area experts, these standards describe what students are expected to learn and be able to do as a result of their experiences in school. Largely as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation (2001), all states today also have developed large-scale accountably assessment programs to measure students’ levels of proficiency based on those standards. Comparisons of the results from state assessments with those from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that the rigor of these state standards and assessments varies widely between states (Ho, 2007). Despite this variation, however, all students within a state are expected to meet the same standards.
Accompanying their assessment programs, nearly all states have developed common school report cards, based on state standards, for disseminating information to the public about school quality (Deslandes, Rivard, Joyal, Trudeau, & Laurencelle, 2009; Dingerson, 2001). Yet in every state, schools have been left on their own to develop standards-based student report cards to communicate information about the achievement and performance of individual students to parents, guardians, and others.
The paper describes a major initiative in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to develop a common, statewide, standards-based student report card for reporting the learning progress of individual students at all grade levels (K-12). Although the use of common, provincial standards-based report cards has been popular in Canadian schools for many years, especially in the province of Ontario (see: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/forms/report/1998/report98.html), Kentucky is the first state to attempt such a statewide initiative.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO
May 2010"

^ it’s been around for a long time

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

Waiting for the person who claims sBG in FCPS isn’t related to equity grading to respond to this…

SBG isn’t equity grading. It may be part of a larger plan to address equity or part of the communication, but SBG itself is not “equity trading”.

It is not seen that way by FCPS or by me. Here is why: one of the key points to equity grading is to not grade any homework because you could penalize a kid who has to work to support his family or a kid who must babysit younger siblings and is therefore unable to do homework. One of the key points to SBG is to not grade homework. And since FCPS is pushing for what it considers equitable education, it is all rolled into one. You can't say FCPS schools is not grading homework in the test schools because of one reason or the other, as both are part of FCPS' overall plan.

Equity grading is part of how SBG works.

That may be a new application of SBG, but that’s not what SBG is. It’s been around for much longer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

Waiting for the person who claims sBG in FCPS isn’t related to equity grading to respond to this…

SBG isn’t equity grading. It may be part of a larger plan to address equity or part of the communication, but SBG itself is not “equity trading”.

It is not seen that way by FCPS or by me. Here is why: one of the key points to equity grading is to not grade any homework because you could penalize a kid who has to work to support his family or a kid who must babysit younger siblings and is therefore unable to do homework. One of the key points to SBG is to not grade homework. And since FCPS is pushing for what it considers equitable education, it is all rolled into one. You can't say FCPS schools is not grading homework in the test schools because of one reason or the other, as both are part of FCPS' overall plan.

Equity grading is part of how SBG works.

BTW, I understand what you're claiming. You're claiming that the basis for SBG is not equity. But since they have the same effect with regard to what is excluded from grading, it is all considered the same thing from a parent or student perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

Waiting for the person who claims sBG in FCPS isn’t related to equity grading to respond to this…

SBG isn’t equity grading. It may be part of a larger plan to address equity or part of the communication, but SBG itself is not “equity trading”.

It is not seen that way by FCPS or by me. Here is why: one of the key points to equity grading is to not grade any homework because you could penalize a kid who has to work to support his family or a kid who must babysit younger siblings and is therefore unable to do homework. One of the key points to SBG is to not grade homework. And since FCPS is pushing for what it considers equitable education, it is all rolled into one. You can't say FCPS schools is not grading homework in the test schools because of one reason or the other, as both are part of FCPS' overall plan.

Equity grading is part of how SBG works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

Waiting for the person who claims sBG in FCPS isn’t related to equity grading to respond to this…

SBG isn’t equity grading. It may be part of a larger plan to address equity or part of the communication, but SBG itself is not “equity trading”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

Waiting for the person who claims sBG in FCPS isn’t related to equity grading to respond to this…

SBG is FCPS’s way of moving to an equity grading platform county-wide. The Madison pilot is spreading as expected. Probably too late to stop the train, especially in light of the recent school board election.

If you have a child in FCPS and you care about their future education then it is time to find a way to get out.