Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

To FCPS, it means raising the fence to block the tall kid because they could never get stacked boxes to work for the short kid.

Lies.

Standards based grading and the cluster model suggest otherwise

Lies. Tall kids aren't blocked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

To FCPS, it means raising the fence to block the tall kid because they could never get stacked boxes to work for the short kid.

Lies.

Standards based grading and the cluster model suggest otherwise

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

To FCPS, it means raising the fence to block the tall kid because they could never get stacked boxes to work for the short kid.

Lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

Weird I thought the changes were to eliminate the rampant cheating like test buying. Don't think hard work was effected.

Take it to a TJ thread, where you can exaggerate all you want.

A PP claimed equity was "right sizing" based on the needs of the population. That has already been happening in FCPS for many years - the per student expenditures at Title I schools and the MS/HS into which the Title I ES feed are far higher than the expenditures at "higher SES schools."

Those pushing for equity never seem to acknowledge that this has been the case for many years. They act as if somehow FCPS is spending more on the "higher SES schools" when that's simply not the case, which makes clear that their agenda is to push for widening the differences in student spending. It's hard to know if that's a pedagogical agenda, or merely a political one, but in any case there is a tipping point where people just leave schools that are deemed too wealthy to deserve attention or resources. And then you do end up with something closer to equal outcomes, but it's primarily because it's easier to bring down the top than to raise the bottom.

And, of course, it doesn't change the disparities in society - it just degrades the public school system while more shift to privates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

To FCPS, it means raising the fence to block the tall kid because they could never get stacked boxes to work for the short kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

More Republican lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Exhibit A: San Francisco

One of the most wonderful cities in the USA. I think it was the #1 city for tourism last year. People love that place.

One of the most wonderful cities and wealthiest cities in the USA, and with one of the worst school districts in the nation since the equity mob took over it. Which is why anyone who can sends their kids to private or moves outside the city.

Actually the schools there were always bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

Weird I thought the changes were to eliminate the rampant cheating like test buying. Don't think hard work was effected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Exhibit A: San Francisco

One of the most wonderful cities in the USA. I think it was the #1 city for tourism last year. People love that place.

One of the most wonderful cities and wealthiest cities in the USA, and with one of the worst school districts in the nation since the equity mob took over it. Which is why anyone who can sends their kids to private or moves outside the city.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Totally irrelevant. The adult in the picture is NOT taller because they work harder. They were BORN earlier. Similarly, 3 same-age teenagers with different heights won't be relevant, either. They were BORN with the genes.

By FCPS "equity", they blatantly talk about penalizing hard work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

The poorer schools get the special treatment and rather than acknowledge it they just demand more. Race to the bottom.

That's very Republican of you to attack the poor while the wealthy hardly ever even pay taxes these days.

So who is funding the government according to you? This is not a political question, but a financial one.

All I know is the GOP tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy over the past 40 years is why we have massive deficits now.

People talk about equity because it is much more palatable talking about dismantling capitalism, which brings to mind Soviet breadlines. Both are just different terms to advocate for equal outcomes for all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

The poorer schools get the special treatment and rather than acknowledge it they just demand more. Race to the bottom.

That's very Republican of you to attack the poor while the wealthy hardly ever even pay taxes these days.

So who is funding the government according to you? This is not a political question, but a financial one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

The poorer schools get the special treatment and rather than acknowledge it they just demand more. Race to the bottom.

That's very Republican of you to attack the poor while the wealthy hardly ever even pay taxes these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Exhibit A: San Francisco

One of the most wonderful cities in the USA. I think it was the #1 city for tourism last year. People love that place.