Fairfax county middle school ranks dropped

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I'm so sick of MAGA trolls.

People who notice changes in FCPS (or lack of changes) = trolls?

Are you sure about that?

Because it’s so formulaic. Listen-I think most people are not thrilled with FCPS right now. But a lot of it sounds like talking points from certain political groups. And it goes both ways-if I try to call out something that seems made up, I’m told I’m a LWNJ. Just in the past couple of days there have been threads/discussions within threads about: An OP terrified at the prospect of public school bc of “wokeness” and someone immediately after recommending they run to private schools. Whether elsewhere in VA has superior education/how to “flee” FCPS. If white people are being made to feel guilty in social studies. If LGBTAQ is being pushed on kids. I agree with a lot of the qualms regarding FCPS (weak LA/writing, not holding kids accountable, wonky grading). But it is not a secret or a conspiracy theory that right wing groups have capitalized on parents fears re: state of education and discontent re: Covid and ran with it. But I don’t think for a minute they give a damn. I just wish the Democrats would listen to parents and teachers concerns re: academics and behaviors.

DP. You "wish" Democrats would listen? Have they listened yet in the decade or so in which they have had a monopoly on the SB? Let me guess, you plan to continue voting for Democrats - the very people who do NOT listen to parents and teachers and are NOT putting academic concerns first.

And you wonder why people are upset?

I’m not voting completely D but mostly bc the alternative is terrible PP. If you had moderate, sensible alternatives—then yes I would vote for them. But I actually did research those alternatives. Their platforms. Their social media. And most importantly who they were endorsed by… Have you?
So no, I’m not voting for them. So yeah people like me right now are hoping the Democrats get their crap together bc their ineptitude will just ensure that the guys who really don’t GAF about public education (beyond FCPS) win.

You are extremely naive (and that's being generous) if you actually think the Dems will get "their crap together." If you are dissatisfied with the job the current SB is doing, and you're continuing to vote for Dems, then I sorry - you deserve whatever you get.

And I think you are naive (and that’s putting it nicely) to believe the other guys will be better. Yes I have a problem with the status quo—but I’m saying the alternative-as it stands-is worse. Do you get that? You (general you) keep harping about the Dems and the stupid SB but none of you have actually said how the GOP aligned candidates would make it better. People have asked in multiple threads. How would these candidates change things up in FCPS? How are Republican led boards championing academics elsewhere in the country? Are red districts emphasizing academics and getting better results? And the response is—well the current board sucks, everything has sucked, the Democrats ruined it all! Great but that still doesn’t answer any of the aforementioned questions.

This has already been answered. Many candidates are against equity efforts. That’s enough to stop the problems most people are actually interested in.

Equity is the academic problem many seek to solve.

Isn’t “equity” a problem that FCPS needs to answer someone for? (The Federal
government? The state?). It (The achievement gap) just doesn’t go away bc you don’t address it. So how are these candidates addressing it?

DP. Please tell us: what EXACTLY should be done to address "equity"? The left loves to insert that word into everything they say. Tell us what you think it means and how the SB should be "addressing it."

I don’t think you understand what I was asking. Doesn’t federal and state law mandate that FCPS address equity or inequality or whatever you want to call it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I'm so sick of MAGA trolls.

People who notice changes in FCPS (or lack of changes) = trolls?

Are you sure about that?

Because it’s so formulaic. Listen-I think most people are not thrilled with FCPS right now. But a lot of it sounds like talking points from certain political groups. And it goes both ways-if I try to call out something that seems made up, I’m told I’m a LWNJ. Just in the past couple of days there have been threads/discussions within threads about: An OP terrified at the prospect of public school bc of “wokeness” and someone immediately after recommending they run to private schools. Whether elsewhere in VA has superior education/how to “flee” FCPS. If white people are being made to feel guilty in social studies. If LGBTAQ is being pushed on kids. I agree with a lot of the qualms regarding FCPS (weak LA/writing, not holding kids accountable, wonky grading). But it is not a secret or a conspiracy theory that right wing groups have capitalized on parents fears re: state of education and discontent re: Covid and ran with it. But I don’t think for a minute they give a damn. I just wish the Democrats would listen to parents and teachers concerns re: academics and behaviors.

DP. You "wish" Democrats would listen? Have they listened yet in the decade or so in which they have had a monopoly on the SB? Let me guess, you plan to continue voting for Democrats - the very people who do NOT listen to parents and teachers and are NOT putting academic concerns first.

And you wonder why people are upset?

I’m not voting completely D but mostly bc the alternative is terrible PP. If you had moderate, sensible alternatives—then yes I would vote for them. But I actually did research those alternatives. Their platforms. Their social media. And most importantly who they were endorsed by… Have you?
So no, I’m not voting for them. So yeah people like me right now are hoping the Democrats get their crap together bc their ineptitude will just ensure that the guys who really don’t GAF about public education (beyond FCPS) win.

You are extremely naive (and that's being generous) if you actually think the Dems will get "their crap together." If you are dissatisfied with the job the current SB is doing, and you're continuing to vote for Dems, then I sorry - you deserve whatever you get.

It’s better than the alternative.

Better be devil you know?

No, thank you. I'm ready to try a change.

+100
This obstinate, "I'll never vote for a Republican!" attitude is even more stupid considering the same people will continue complaining about the SB when Democrats are all elected - yet again. What's the definition of insanity again?

Again-are you actually reading the responses? Not “I’ll never vote for a Republican” but rather I will not vote for the Republican options presented after doing research.

Which equates to not voting for a Republican in the SB election. Please don't complain after the election is over, all Democrats have been elected (again), and nothing changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise.

Last month Youngkin declared 1/2 of 3-8 graders failed or may fail Reading SOL and 2/3 of 3-8 graders failed or may fail Math SOL.

Youngkin’s Solution? Get volunteer parents to teach Reaching and Math.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/all-in-tutoring


Will Youngkin ask the passing students to teach the failing students next?

I guess there is no need for Youngkin to intervene regarding the student teaching students.

FCPS high school students have already set up an organization to teach other poor performing students at various Fairfax county libraries. http://www.giveyouth.org

Thank you for sharing this information. What a wonderful example those volunteer students are setting to actually take action to help young kids who are less fortunate.

99% of adults posting here would never lift a finger to tutor a Title I kid themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand what I was asking. Doesn’t federal and state law mandate that FCPS address equity or inequality or whatever you want to call it.

Equality means equal opportunity, which means that children's access to educational opportunity cannot be based on factors such as race, background, gender, etc. The 14th Amendment and tons of laws prohibit treating children differently based on these factors.

Equity means achieving equal outcomes. Equity has become a buzzword and is the subject of many Presidential executive orders, but it isn't really the subject of any laws. The problem is that not every student has equal ability or give equal effort, so equity can only really be achieved by removing aspects of school that require ability or effort. Equity would also support spending far more resources on disadvantaged children than on nondisadvantaged children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand what I was asking. Doesn’t federal and state law mandate that FCPS address equity or inequality or whatever you want to call it.

Equality means equal opportunity, which means that children's access to educational opportunity cannot be based on factors such as race, background, gender, etc. The 14th Amendment and tons of laws prohibit treating children differently based on these factors.

Equity means achieving equal outcomes. Equity has become a buzzword and is the subject of many Presidential executive orders, but it isn't really the subject of any laws. The problem is that not every student has equal ability or give equal effort, so equity can only really be achieved by removing aspects of school that require ability or effort. Equity would also support spending far more resources on disadvantaged children than on nondisadvantaged children.

No.

Equality means everyone is treated exactly the same, regardless of their condition... e.g. no accomodations for the differently-abled. Equality is surface-level "equality of opportunity", but this inch-deep understanding often leads it to just being a facade thereof.

Equity acknowledges that sometimes people need to be treated differently in order to provide meaningful "equality of opportunity". Go ahead and build that wheelchair-accessible ramp. It recognizes that simply spending the same $/pupil (which would be equality) between an area with high FARMS students, fewer extracurricular or community assets, etc. than an area with high-SES families and resources supporting kids both in and out of the school is not going to produce true equality of opportunity between those groups of students.

The Supreme Court has ruled that differing $/pupil doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez). That case was in support of the system whereby wealthy districts have better-funded schools since so much of it comes from property taxes, while poor districts have far fewer resources with which to educate their students (who are typically starting school "behind" their wealthier counterparts to begin with, so this just compounds and perpetuates the inequality of opportunity). But the same logic applies in reverse, where we can take the more enlightened perspective that we ought to provide students who come from disadvantaged circumstances with additional supports in order to provide more meaningful equality of opportunity.

Neither equality nor equity refers directly to "equality of outcomes", nor do they guarantee them. One might generally assume that if you were meaningfully providing equality of opportunity to two different groups of students (grouped on whatever characteristic you deem of interest, within reason) that their outcomes ought to be roughly similar, and that any vast discrepancy in outcomes is probably a decent indicator that maybe they aren't being provided true equality of opportunity, and therefore would merit investigation as to the root causes and whether they can be remediated. But equity certainly does not demand taking away appropriate opportunities for advanced students to excel ("closing the achievement gap from the top down"), but it does suggest additional supports may be needed for those who are struggling. Equity likewise doesn't demand removing stairs, but it does suggest adding other mobility options such as ramps and elevators might be appropriate.

[Anonymous]

And yet we see the democrats doing things to undermine achievement left and right. So why is that also part of their playbook? To lower the top? Baltimore now has an entire city of kids that can't pass basic math when they used to not have this problem. How did equity help anyone there? There seems to be more to equity than just providing accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand what I was asking. Doesn’t federal and state law mandate that FCPS address equity or inequality or whatever you want to call it.

Equality means equal opportunity, which means that children's access to educational opportunity cannot be based on factors such as race, background, gender, etc. The 14th Amendment and tons of laws prohibit treating children differently based on these factors.

Equity means achieving equal outcomes. Equity has become a buzzword and is the subject of many Presidential executive orders, but it isn't really the subject of any laws. The problem is that not every student has equal ability or give equal effort, so equity can only really be achieved by removing aspects of school that require ability or effort. Equity would also support spending far more resources on disadvantaged children than on nondisadvantaged children.

No.

Equality means everyone is treated exactly the same, regardless of their condition... e.g. no accomodations for the differently-abled. Equality is surface-level "equality of opportunity", but this inch-deep understanding often leads it to just being a facade thereof.

Equity acknowledges that sometimes people need to be treated differently in order to provide meaningful "equality of opportunity". Go ahead and build that wheelchair-accessible ramp. It recognizes that simply spending the same $/pupil (which would be equality) between an area with high FARMS students, fewer extracurricular or community assets, etc. than an area with high-SES families and resources supporting kids both in and out of the school is not going to produce true equality of opportunity between those groups of students.

The Supreme Court has ruled that differing $/pupil doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez). That case was in support of the system whereby wealthy districts have better-funded schools since so much of it comes from property taxes, while poor districts have far fewer resources with which to educate their students (who are typically starting school "behind" their wealthier counterparts to begin with, so this just compounds and perpetuates the inequality of opportunity). But the same logic applies in reverse, where we can take the more enlightened perspective that we ought to provide students who come from disadvantaged circumstances with additional supports in order to provide more meaningful equality of opportunity.

Neither equality nor equity refers directly to "equality of outcomes", nor do they guarantee them. One might generally assume that if you were meaningfully providing equality of opportunity to two different groups of students (grouped on whatever characteristic you deem of interest, within reason) that their outcomes ought to be roughly similar, and that any vast discrepancy in outcomes is probably a decent indicator that maybe they aren't being provided true equality of opportunity, and therefore would merit investigation as to the root causes and whether they can be remediated. But equity certainly does not demand taking away appropriate opportunities for advanced students to excel ("closing the achievement gap from the top down"), but it does suggest additional supports may be needed for those who are struggling. Equity likewise doesn't demand removing stairs, but it does suggest adding other mobility options such as ramps and elevators might be appropriate.

NP.

While you provide evidence to support what equity is supposed to mean, you are dodging the realities of what is happening in FCPS, in our kids schools, right now, in the name of “equity.”

Closing the racial and economic achievement gap - from the top down.

That is what the FCPS board and Michelle Reid are doing. Instead of raising up the lowest performing students / schools, the Board and Reid are taking away learning opportunities from top students - which will effectively help close that gap.

In FCPS, that IS “equity” - as the Board and Reid interpret it.

There are too many examples to list! But a few notable ones include: watering down AAP with the new “HOPE” rating scale, replacing AAP math with “E3” or E-cubed math to get rid of accelerated math classes, the attempt to purge all higher math from high school through VMPI (which only failed after massive push-back), etc, etc, etc.

Stop pretending equity is something it’s not here in FCPS.

If you are honest about where FCPS is headed, look at school systems who think the same way as Reid and the current board:

“That draft explicitly promoted the San Francisco Unified School District’s policy of banishing Algebra I from middle school—a policy grounded in the belief that teaching the subject only in high school would give all students the same opportunities for future success. The document also made a broad presumption that tweaking the content and timing of the math curriculum, rather than more effective teaching of the existing one, was the best way to fix achievement gaps among demographic groups”


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

THAT is “equity” in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet we see the democrats doing things to undermine achievement left and right. So why is that also part of their playbook? To lower the top? Baltimore now has an entire city of kids that can't pass basic math when they used to not have this problem. How did equity help anyone there? There seems to be more to equity than just providing accommodations.

What specific "equity" policies do you think led to Baltimore's low math scores? And any specific interventions that you think could help correct course?

Because my understanding is that it has to do primarily with the pandemic (similar scores were down statewide and countrywide, just "worse than average" decline in Baltimore), compounded with chronic absenteeism. The absenteeism is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think the absenteeism is due to "equity policies" or anyone trying to "undermine achievement", but prove me wrong. It's not shocking that scores will drop when students aren't putting in the same effort. Their district need to look at the root causes behind that absenteeism and try to figure out additional strategies to address it. But yes, at some point, you can't force kids to put in the effort, and I don't think anyone has the expectation that Baltimore city's math proficiency scores are going to exactly 1:1 match the outcomes in W schools. That's not what equity is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand what I was asking. Doesn’t federal and state law mandate that FCPS address equity or inequality or whatever you want to call it.

Equality means equal opportunity, which means that children's access to educational opportunity cannot be based on factors such as race, background, gender, etc. The 14th Amendment and tons of laws prohibit treating children differently based on these factors.

Equity means achieving equal outcomes. Equity has become a buzzword and is the subject of many Presidential executive orders, but it isn't really the subject of any laws. The problem is that not every student has equal ability or give equal effort, so equity can only really be achieved by removing aspects of school that require ability or effort. Equity would also support spending far more resources on disadvantaged children than on nondisadvantaged children.

No.

Equality means everyone is treated exactly the same, regardless of their condition... e.g. no accomodations for the differently-abled. Equality is surface-level "equality of opportunity", but this inch-deep understanding often leads it to just being a facade thereof.

Equity acknowledges that sometimes people need to be treated differently in order to provide meaningful "equality of opportunity". Go ahead and build that wheelchair-accessible ramp. It recognizes that simply spending the same $/pupil (which would be equality) between an area with high FARMS students, fewer extracurricular or community assets, etc. than an area with high-SES families and resources supporting kids both in and out of the school is not going to produce true equality of opportunity between those groups of students.

The Supreme Court has ruled that differing $/pupil doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez). That case was in support of the system whereby wealthy districts have better-funded schools since so much of it comes from property taxes, while poor districts have far fewer resources with which to educate their students (who are typically starting school "behind" their wealthier counterparts to begin with, so this just compounds and perpetuates the inequality of opportunity). But the same logic applies in reverse, where we can take the more enlightened perspective that we ought to provide students who come from disadvantaged circumstances with additional supports in order to provide more meaningful equality of opportunity.

Neither equality nor equity refers directly to "equality of outcomes", nor do they guarantee them. One might generally assume that if you were meaningfully providing equality of opportunity to two different groups of students (grouped on whatever characteristic you deem of interest, within reason) that their outcomes ought to be roughly similar, and that any vast discrepancy in outcomes is probably a decent indicator that maybe they aren't being provided true equality of opportunity, and therefore would merit investigation as to the root causes and whether they can be remediated. But equity certainly does not demand taking away appropriate opportunities for advanced students to excel ("closing the achievement gap from the top down"), but it does suggest additional supports may be needed for those who are struggling. Equity likewise doesn't demand removing stairs, but it does suggest adding other mobility options such as ramps and elevators might be appropriate.

NP.

While you provide evidence to support what equity is supposed to mean, you are dodging the realities of what is happening in FCPS, in our kids schools, right now, in the name of “equity.”

Closing the racial and economic achievement gap - from the top down.

That is what the FCPS board and Michelle Reid are doing. Instead of raising up the lowest performing students / schools, the Board and Reid are taking away learning opportunities from top students - which will effectively help close that gap.

In FCPS, that IS “equity” - as the Board and Reid interpret it.

There are too many examples to list! But a few notable ones include: watering down AAP with the new “HOPE” rating scale, replacing AAP math with “E3” or E-cubed math to get rid of accelerated math classes, the attempt to purge all higher math from high school through VMPI (which only failed after massive push-back), etc, etc, etc.

Stop pretending equity is something it’s not here in FCPS.

If you are honest about where FCPS is headed, look at school systems who think the same way as Reid and the current board:

“That draft explicitly promoted the San Francisco Unified School District’s policy of banishing Algebra I from middle school—a policy grounded in the belief that teaching the subject only in high school would give all students the same opportunities for future success. The document also made a broad presumption that tweaking the content and timing of the math curriculum, rather than more effective teaching of the existing one, was the best way to fix achievement gaps among demographic groups”


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

THAT is “equity” in practice.

The big push in FCPS appears to be to enroll every MS student in Algebra I. Maybe it will end up being a watered-down class if every MS kid is enrolled in Algebra, but there does not appear to be any movement to "banish" it from MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet we see the democrats doing things to undermine achievement left and right. So why is that also part of their playbook? To lower the top? Baltimore now has an entire city of kids that can't pass basic math when they used to not have this problem. How did equity help anyone there? There seems to be more to equity than just providing accommodations.

What specific "equity" policies do you think led to Baltimore's low math scores? And any specific interventions that you think could help correct course?

Because my understanding is that it has to do primarily with the pandemic (similar scores were down statewide and countrywide, just "worse than average" decline in Baltimore), compounded with chronic absenteeism. The absenteeism is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think the absenteeism is due to "equity policies" or anyone trying to "undermine achievement", but prove me wrong. It's not shocking that scores will drop when students aren't putting in the same effort. Their district need to look at the root causes behind that absenteeism and try to figure out additional strategies to address it. But yes, at some point, you can't force kids to put in the effort, and I don't think anyone has the expectation that Baltimore city's math proficiency scores are going to exactly 1:1 match the outcomes in W schools. That's not what equity is about.

They did away with homework grading in 2016.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-co-grading-policy-20160831-story.html

[Anonymous]

They changed failing grades to passing grades.

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/governor-hogan-calls-for-criminal-investigation-grade-changing-in-baltimore-city-schools-digital-harbor-mergenthaler-maryland-inspector-general-education-rick-henry

[Anonymous]

Poor college prep for teaching reading in MD colleges.

https://www.wmar2news.com/local/study-finds-maryland-colleges-fail-at-preparing-aspiring-teachers-with-student-reading-skills

[Anonymous]

Why work for grades to play sports when the district will just ease them?

https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-ci-academic-standards-revisions-20180809-story.html

[Anonymous]

Monetary corruption.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/as-baltimore-school-bureaucrats-get-rich-their-students-fail

[Anonymous]

Same issues trickle down to vocational classes as well.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-ci-cte-study-20190213-story.html