Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how a race-blind process that picks 50% of the seats based on the top 1.5% at each school and 50% of the top kids' in general discriminates by race?

I don't see it and was hoping someone could make their case clearly.

People prefer to make these imaginary claims that they know can't be backed up with facts or reason.

And by "people", PP means Republicans spreading lies to garner votes.

Dont just complain, get out and Vote:

School Board, At-Large (You can vote for up to 3 candidates)
Cassandra R. Aucoin
Maureen T. Brody
Saundra T. Davis

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how a race-blind process that picks 50% of the seats based on the top 1.5% at each school and 50% of the top kids' in general discriminates by race?

I don't see it and was hoping someone could make their case clearly.

People prefer to make these imaginary claims that they know can't be backed up with facts or reason.

And by "people", PP means Republicans spreading lies to garner votes.

Dont just complain, get out and Vote:

School Board, At-Large (You can vote for up to 3 candidates)
Cassandra R. Aucoin
Maureen T. Brody
Saundra T. Davis

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

BS. Ds are concerned about academics.

When R candidates are called out for their ties to "Moms for Liberty" or for being teargassed on 1/6 - that is because they were.

Find some non-Trumpy candidates if you want people to stop calling them Trumpy.

I'm all for transparency and even diversity of thought when it's not anti-LGBTQ MAGA nuts.

There's one candidate who attended the 1/6 rally. Clearly she wasn't one of those who entered the Capitol as she, like most on the Mall that day, wasn't arrested (and since then she has been trying to raise, not hide, her profile).

Big whoop. I won't vote for her, because there are a number of people running for the at-large seats and I prefer other candidates (including one Democrat and one Independent), but the effort to paint every GOP-endorsed candidate with the same brush is pathetic.

And a lot of the Democratic candidates have been BLM supporters. Many of us marched in BLM protests in the past, but wouldn't do so now given how that organization has since so clearly expressed its support for Hamas terrorists. I wouldn't bash a candidate endorsed by the Democrats because of their past embrace of that group.

It would be so much better if you actually focused on the issues relevant to FCPS and public education in the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how a race-blind process that picks 50% of the seats based on the top 1.5% at each school and 50% of the top kids' in general discriminates by race?

I don't see it and was hoping someone could make their case clearly.

People prefer to make these imaginary claims that they know can't be backed up with facts or reason.

And by "people", PP means Republicans spreading lies to garner votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

BS. Ds are concerned about academics.

When R candidates are called out for their ties to "Moms for Liberty" or for being teargassed on 1/6 - that is because they were.

Find some non-Trumpy candidates if you want people to stop calling them Trumpy.

I'm all for transparency and even diversity of thought when it's not anti-LGBTQ MAGA nuts.

There's one candidate who attended the 1/6 rally. Clearly she wasn't one of those who entered the Capitol as she, like most on the Mall that day, wasn't arrested (and since then she has been trying to raise, not hide, her profile).

Big whoop. I won't vote for her, because there are a number of people running for the at-large seats and I prefer other candidates (including one Democrat and one Independent), but the effort to paint every GOP-endorsed candidate with the same brush is pathetic.

And a lot of the Democratic candidates have been BLM supporters. Many of us marched in BLM protests in the past, but wouldn't do so now given how that organization has since so clearly expressed its support for Hamas terrorists. I wouldn't bash a candidate endorsed by the Democrats because of their past embrace of that group.

It would be so much better if you actually focused on the issues relevant to FCPS and public education in the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

BS. Ds are concerned about academics.

When R candidates are called out for their ties to "Moms for Liberty" or for being teargassed on 1/6 - that is because they were.

Find some non-Trumpy candidates if you want people to stop calling them Trumpy.

I'm all for transparency and even diversity of thought when it's not anti-LGBTQ MAGA nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

+1

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

Anonymous wrote:The School Board has been a disaster over the past four years, but most people don't pay attention and tend to vote a party line. Then they wonder why their schools are kind of a mess and/or their kids aren't getting as rigorous an education as they'd hoped, but then tend to either suck it up or pull their kids out of FCPS.

Realistically, the real pressure on the School Board will come eventually from the Board of Supervisors. They are also mostly from the same party and can see that the School Board is flailing. To some extent, they don't want to get involved with FCPS matters, because then it becomes their mess as well, but some know that FCPS was once a big draw for the county and that's no longer the case.

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS under Michelle Reid views transparency as getting in the way of equity. So FCPS is no longer disclosing (at least not on a timely basis) data that used to be disclosed every year, such as:

- SAT scores by school (school-wide or disaggregated by race/ethnicity);
- Admissions to TJ by middle school; and
- Racial/ethnic data for individual schools

Instead, we should all pretend every school is the same, where all outcomes will be the same, and that no data can be shared without "contextualizing" it so that the stupid FCPS parents understand how exactly Reid and her staff want everyone to interpret it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how a race-blind process that picks 50% of the seats based on the top 1.5% at each school and 50% of the top kids' in general discriminates by race?

I don't see it and was hoping someone could make their case clearly.

People prefer to make these imaginary claims that they know can't be backed up with facts or reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS under Michelle Reid views transparency as getting in the way of equity. So FCPS is no longer disclosing (at least not on a timely basis) data that used to be disclosed every year, such as:

- SAT scores by school (school-wide or disaggregated by race/ethnicity);
- Admissions to TJ by middle school; and
- Racial/ethnic data for individual schools

Instead, we should all pretend every school is the same, where all outcomes will be the same, and that no data can be shared without "contextualizing" it so that the stupid FCPS parents understand how exactly Reid and her staff want everyone to interpret it.

They need to be spanked by the SCOTUS very soon.

with a cane

Anonymous wrote:There's a tremendous amount of gaslighting by the local Democrats.

You might not like the tremendous learning loss due to the all-D School Board keeping schools closed so long...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the rushed nature of the TJ admissions changes, and the strong undercurrent of anti-Asian bias on the part of the all-D School Board...but the alternative is "too Trumpy."

You might not like the disproportionate amount of time spent by the all-D School Board focusing on the needs of just a few communities...but the alternative must be an adjunct to the "Moms of Liberty."

You might be appalled by the neglect of facilities and the decades-long overcrowding that's gone unaddressed by the all-D School Board at some schools...but the alternative must be one step away from January 6th protesters.

You might be disappointed with the continued drop in SAT scores at almost all FCPS high schools during the tenure of the all-D school Board...but the alternative "hates" the LBGTQ community.

And so on.

It's so transparent: you must not only accept, but support, the status quo (with its constant focus on "equity," whatever that is deemed to mean at the moment, and increasing lack of transparency), or you're a bad person who either wants Trump back in the White House or a return to the Dark Ages.

I call BS. People just want a well-managed public school system that focuses on academics, and recognizes and rewards merit, again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS under Michelle Reid views transparency as getting in the way of equity. So FCPS is no longer disclosing (at least not on a timely basis) data that used to be disclosed every year, such as:

- SAT scores by school (school-wide or disaggregated by race/ethnicity);
- Admissions to TJ by middle school; and
- Racial/ethnic data for individual schools

Instead, we should all pretend every school is the same, where all outcomes will be the same, and that no data can be shared without "contextualizing" it so that the stupid FCPS parents understand how exactly Reid and her staff want everyone to interpret it.

They need to be spanked by the SCOTUS very soon.

+1