Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Did the superintendent use that example? Source?

There is an article in the Fairfax Times https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-principals-admit-to-withholding-national-merit-awards-from-students/article_2e5ed028-8f01-11ed-997c-37c69ccfb584.html

From the article:

However, for parents in the school district these examples of merit withheld from students raises serious concerns, particularly amid news that the FCPS superintendent signed a contract of about nine months, paying a controversial contractor, Mutiu Fagbayi, and his company Performance Fact Inc., based in Oakland, Calif., $455,000 for “equity” training that includes a controversial “Equity-centered Strategic Plan” with this goal: “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.”

“The equity imperative is to give each student what they need to meet equal outcomes. The goal is not equitable outcomes,” Fagbayi said early last year, promoting an identical strategy at a meeting with officials in Princeton Public Schools. A video recording of the April 26, 2022, meeting is posted on YouTube.

“The goal is equal outcomes,” Fagbayi explained. “And what we need to be equitable about is the access. In a very real sense, many districts struggle with this. To have true equity, you have to be purposefully unequal when it comes to resources. I want to say that again because most districts struggle with that. To have an equity-centered organization, we have to have the courage and the willingness to be purposefully unequal when it comes to opportunities and access,”

Is this what equal outcomes will mean for FCPS going forward? Does this mean that a kid reading above grade level will get no teacher time, for example?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

Closing the gap doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. Nothing will cause equal outcomes is fraud.

if the gap is closed doesn’t that mean that the outcomes are equal at that point. I just think it is saying the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is ‘equal outcomes’ different from ‘close the gap’?

Closing the gap doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. Nothing will cause equal outcomes is fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Did the superintendent use that example? Source?

There is an article in the Fairfax Times https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-principals-admit-to-withholding-national-merit-awards-from-students/article_2e5ed028-8f01-11ed-997c-37c69ccfb584.html

From the article:

However, for parents in the school district these examples of merit withheld from students raises serious concerns, particularly amid news that the FCPS superintendent signed a contract of about nine months, paying a controversial contractor, Mutiu Fagbayi, and his company Performance Fact Inc., based in Oakland, Calif., $455,000 for “equity” training that includes a controversial “Equity-centered Strategic Plan” with this goal: “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.”

“The equity imperative is to give each student what they need to meet equal outcomes. The goal is not equitable outcomes,” Fagbayi said early last year, promoting an identical strategy at a meeting with officials in Princeton Public Schools. A video recording of the April 26, 2022, meeting is posted on YouTube.

“The goal is equal outcomes,” Fagbayi explained. “And what we need to be equitable about is the access. In a very real sense, many districts struggle with this. To have true equity, you have to be purposefully unequal when it comes to resources. I want to say that again because most districts struggle with that. To have an equity-centered organization, we have to have the courage and the willingness to be purposefully unequal when it comes to opportunities and access,”

Is this what equal outcomes will mean for FCPS going forward? Does this mean that a kid reading above grade level will get no teacher time, for example?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Did the superintendent use that example? Source?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

That’s what the local Democrats are all about these days - they think they deserve a blank check when all they’ve been doing for years is running FCPS into the ground with their incompetence, empty promises, and obsession with buzzwords.

+100
I just realized, this is the year we get to vote them all out. Hooray!
NP

You're not going to vote anyone out. These are the board members FCPS parents want.

2019 was a long time ago and parents have seen the utter lunacy that is this SB. Sorry, but they will be voted out.

Anonymous wrote:Equal outcomes is what the Superintendent means when she says her favorite tag line “education reimagined”. There is an example of one teacher in another school district that takes the class average and everyone gets that grade. So a class average of 87.5 is a B so everyone in the class gets a B. Of course the parents raised the roof but that is equal outcomes. Can not wait for equal outcomes cheerleaders realize that it means their kids no matter how well they do will only be average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is probably a fool's errand hoping for a rational and measured discussion on this topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insights on what "equal outcomes for every student, no exceptions" actually means.

Because just taken purely at face value, it makes no sense. If a single graduating FCPS student who wants to doesn't gain admission to George Mason or JMU (let alone UVA or a private), then we've failed to achieve equal outcomes if any FCPS student IS able to gain admission to those schools. If any single student scores higher on the SAT or CogAT or any other standardized test than any other student, we've failed to achieve equal outcomes. Clearly this interpretation would be unrealistic and entirely unachievable (nor desirable).

I feel like some disingenuous folks will say "Yes, that's exactly the insanity they're spewing!", but I'm convinced there has to be a more reasonable reality that this phrase is actually intended to represent, but I just don't happen to know what it is, and am hoping someone can constructively enlighten me as to what the actual intent or meaning behind this phrase is.

For me, this is akin to when the "Defund the police" slogan arrived on the scene, and the literal interpretation of fully withdrawing ALL police funding seemed like it would lead to anarchic-type outcomes like some version of "The Purge" and thus seemed similarly unrealistic. But then when you listened and realized that what the vast majority of folks were talking about with this phrase was acknowledging the brokenness of the current system, and for example shifting funding away from militarization of the police and reducing their scope to intervene for example in mental health crises, and instead funding more of those funds into appropirately-specialized community services (rather than treating the police as some sort of universal solution to all behavioral issues in society), it was like, "Oh... yeah that makes waaay more sense."

So what's the analog here? Do they actually mean "less disparate outcomes"? Or that each demographic group has "similar overall distributions of outcomes"? And most importantly, what are the means by which they intend to increase the equality of outcomes? Is it by investing more resources for those individuals or groups who are underperforming others? Or is it by reducing the investment in programs like AAP or TJ or anything that currently supports high-achievers in maximizing their own ceilings while in FCPS? I'd really like to understand this better, and appreciate any reasoned inputs.

I have no inside information or explanation. But would think it is a goal (probably unachievable). What is so bad about that as a goal? Don't we all want a school district that provides the opportunities -educational and otherwise- to allow all kids to have the same chances/opportunities? I don't see the issue in the goal.

The devil will be in the details of how that goal is carried out or implemented.

Re: the bolded, because reality is that people are not identical and are going to have a range of outcomes in their life (academic or otherwise). And to force a goal of equal outcomes essentially amounts to spending maximum effort to raise the floor (make sure everyone can at least score a 50 or 60 on their test, or whatever the lowest-performer level of achievement is), and basically then say great, if you're scoring above 60 then we need to give you no additional support or instruction, because you're meeting the desired outcome. It's lowest-common-denominator thinking. It provides no consideration to encouraging those who are already performing at an average level (let alone an above-average level) and pushing them to reach their potential and achieve more, because doing so would lead to unequal outcomes. That's what's so bad about it as a goal.

Re: the underlined, there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what they are saying. Equal chances/opportunities is not remotely the same as equal outcomes.

The devil's not just in the details, it's in the entire notion that equal outcomes is achievable or even desirable. It negates the reality of diverse human experiences, aptitudes, and preferences.

You've got way too much time on your hands. A goal is just that. Don't worry, your kid will still be fine.

Most of us want our kids to be more than "fine" - thanks for your dismissiveness (and low standards)

That’s what the local Democrats are all about these days - they think they deserve a blank check when all they’ve been doing for years is running FCPS into the ground with their incompetence, empty promises, and obsession with buzzwords.

+100
I just realized, this is the year we get to vote them all out. Hooray!
NP

You're not going to vote anyone out. These are the board members FCPS parents want.