Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school.

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?
---
More course offerings are a win for everyone. More opportunities for everyone to compete. Now don't complain that there these classes should be canceled if there are more than 70% Asians. Because that has happened. And get the test back.
---
Can they staff the classes at all middle schools?
---
I wouldn’t be surprised if, at least at the beginning, some of the courses offered are virtual for some schools.

If this is for ALL middle schools, won't FCPS/APS/FCCPS/LCPS/PWCPS all need to level out their middle school offerings?

"Comparable" is a soft word, and there is no time element governing when the other schools must get up to speed.

As a vocal pro-reform advocate, I have no interest in high-performing schools artificially depressing their offerings in order to level the playing field. But I could definitely see school systems offering virtual options for highly advanced courses so that less-subscribed schools can be covered - i.e. if there is one student at each of 6 schools that needs Alg2 in 8th grade, that would be a virtual course.

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school.

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?
---
More course offerings are a win for everyone. More opportunities for everyone to compete. Now don't complain that there these classes should be canceled if there are more than 70% Asians. Because that has happened. And get the test back.
---
Can they staff the classes at all middle schools?
---
I wouldn’t be surprised if, at least at the beginning, some of the courses offered are virtual for some schools.

If this is for ALL middle schools, won't FCPS/APS/FCCPS/LCPS/PWCPS all need to level out their middle school offerings?

Race Discrimination should stop! It’s not right to discriminate against Asians to give an edge to AA and Hispanics, even whites in the case of TJ.
The lesson we should be teaching our kids is that hard work and merit pays off. Any race should not be given preferential treatment at the cost of other race.
Good that Asians stood up otherwise after TJ discrimination against Asians would have become the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

This is one of those responses that makes me certain there are trolls on here trying to make the regressive caucus look bad.

Just pointing out clearly what progressives want, and it's not equal access to opportunity. They want equity - equality in outcomes. We may disagree on whether this is a good idea or even achievable in a free society, but at least we agree on what progressives want, and it's not what the PP thought.

Didn’t read the room at all with that one. But regressives aren’t really known for understanding people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

LOL, do you give money to the poor kids so they can live in the same size home and in the same neighborhood as your kids? If you don't do this, then perhaps call child protective services on yourself and tell them that you are a self-diagnosed psychopath.

It’s a box, and it’s the ability to watch a baseball game.

It’s applicable to some things - not everything.

Again… makes me wonder if you’re a false-flag troll trying to make the regressives look bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

This is one of those responses that makes me certain there are trolls on here trying to make the regressive caucus look bad.

Just pointing out clearly what progressives want, and it's not equal access to opportunity. They want equity - equality in outcomes. We may disagree on whether this is a good idea or even achievable in a free society, but at least we agree on what progressives want, and it's not what the PP thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

LOL, do you give money to the poor kids so they can live in the same size home and in the same neighborhood as your kids? If you don't do this, then perhaps call child protective services on yourself and tell them that you are a self-diagnosed psychopath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

This is one of those responses that makes me certain there are trolls on here trying to make the regressive caucus look bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

More course offerings are a win for everyone. More opportunities for everyone to compete. Now don't complain that there these classes should be canceled if there are more than 70% Asians. Because that has happened. And get the test back.

Can they staff the classes at all middle schools?

I wouldn’t be surprised if, at least at the beginning, some of the courses offered are virtual for some schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

More course offerings are a win for everyone. More opportunities for everyone to compete. Now don't complain that there these classes should be canceled if there are more than 70% Asians. Because that has happened. And get the test back.

Can they staff the classes at all middle schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.