Fairfax County Public Schools and “Equal Outcomes”

by Emilio Jaksetic

According to an article by Asra Q. Nomani and Heather Zwicker, Fairfax County Public Schools has signed a sole-source contract with Performance Fact, Inc., which explicitly advocates the following: “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.”

It is worth noting that the President/CEO of Performance Fact, Inc. is listed as a Facilitator of the Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) Strategic Planning Process.

The article by Ms. Nomani and Ms. Zwicker contains a hypertext link to an “Equity-centered Strategic Planning” presentation made at a School Board retreat on September 20, 2022 at Falls Church, Virginia. The presentation is attributed to the President/CEO of Performance Fact, Inc. In that presentation, on page 24, there is a list of 16 “equity indicators” that are supposed to help determine whether or not there is “consequential ‘equity disparity’” among student groups, including the following:

2. Self-Regulation and Attention Skills
3. Engagement in Schooling
4. Performance in Coursework
5. Performance on Tests

Also, the following language appears on page 25 of that presentation:

The Equity Imperative: Equitable Access, Equal Outcomes Equitable access to resources and opportunities that guarantee fair, just, and affirming experiences and produce equal outcomes for every student, without exception (emphasis added)

Given the “equity indicators” listed above, “produce equal outcomes for all students” logically entails: (1) All students get the same grade regardless of the quality of their efforts and performance on homework assignments, classroom exercises, classroom performance, and quizzes or tests; (2) All students pass and advance to the next grade regardless of the quality of their efforts and academic performance; and (3) All students graduate from high school regardless of the quality of their efforts and academic performance.

If FCPS believes it is “equitable” to apply such an “equal outcomes” standard to the performance of FCPS students, then FCPS should also conclude that it is “equitable” to apply an “equal outcomes” standard to the performance of FCPS officials and employees. Under an “equal outcomes” job standard that is functionally equivalent to the “equal outcomes” academic standard, every FCPS administrator would get the same pay and promotion outcomes, every FCPS teacher would get the same pay and promotion outcomes, and all other FCPS personnel would get the same pay and promotion outcomes as their coworkers — regardless of the quality of their job performance.

It would be interesting to know how FCPS will explain to parents and students why it is “equitable” under the One Fairfax policy for FCPS to apply a different standard for outcomes for its administrators, teachers, and other staff than it does for outcomes for FCPS students, despite the functional equivalence of academic performance and job performance.

If FCPS indicates that the “equal outcomes” standard is also being applied to FCPS personnel, then Fairfax County taxpayers might wish to let the FCPS and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors know how they feel about whether it is “equitable” to taxpayers for FCPS personnel to be paid and promoted without regard to the quality of their job performance.

This article has been reprinted with permission from the The Bull Elephant


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

79 responses to “Fairfax County Public Schools and “Equal Outcomes””

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Bad news for the author. This is already happening and has been for years. And it applies across all facets of govt. local state and federal. Especially federal.

  2. Ouch! Logic is hurtful and racist………

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a
    scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Wow!! That simplifies everything….so long as all agree on the meaning of the word. Or accept Humpty Dumpty’s meaning.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    Two kids with the same IQ perhaps with the same resources might reach similar outcomes.

    A kid with dyslexia might actually have a superior iQ to
    another kid but if that kid does not get the help they need, they will not likely achieve their potential that they could have had they got the needed help.

    There are kids with autism and kids that are handicapped and need accommodations.

    There are other kids with learning disabilities, kids that don’t get help reading at home and are “behind” in a classroom that is taught to kids that do get reading help at home.

    These kids with “needs” if they are not provided with the help they need will not advance to the levels they could if they got that help even if that is “more” help than other kids without such disabilities would get.

    If we gave every kid his/her “equal” share , no matter what their need, some would not have their needs met to achieve their potential.

    1. Larry, repeating this kind of statement adds nothing to the discussion, No one has suggested withholding needed resources to children with special needs. No one said “equal share” of resources. The progressive line is for “equal outcomes” period. Read the article again and read DJRippert’s comment to see where it says “equal outcomes.”.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” No one has suggested withholding needed resources to children with special needs.”

        They have and are, in effect by portraying what Fairfax is doing as advocating equal outcomes.

        Fairfax is addressing the issue that some kids are not achieving their potential, despite their current efforts and they want to look closer at what kinds of resources the kids are getting and whether they need more or different.

        I should not have to explain this to YOU in the context of your moderation role.

        You disagree personally on the issue.

        But you’re using your moderation role to inhibit reasonable and on-topic comments IMO.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          She is telling you that you are commenting on an article swirling around in your head, not the one offered for comment.

          1. Excellent response. And funny, too.

      2. Warmac9999 Avatar
        Warmac9999

        The resources given to the disadvantaged are far greater than those given to the non disadvantaged. Last number I saw was something like 7 times greater more money than for non disadvantaged.

        What would you think is enough? 10x, 20x, 50x?

    2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Here’s what FCPS says it offers in terms of accommodation for children with dyslexia outside special education.

      https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/special-education-instruction/high-incidence-disabilities-team-k-12-22

      Schools are not ignoring students with special or extra needs. Indeed, society is pouring money into helping them. But you can’t make a person accept help. But when they refuse the extra assistance or simply stop participating, it’s simply wrong to blame society or the system.

      It’s like two kids who want to make the high school basketball team. One takes one hundred shots every day, while the other practices now and then, preferring video games and complains unfairness when he or she doesn’t make the team.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Except everyone is in favor of extra help for the disabled, and nothing of what you bring up was the subject of the presentation that FCPS paid for.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        extra help for those who need it no matter whether it’s categorized as disabled or disadvantaged.

        “Equal Outcomes” is not what FCPS is paying for.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Yet, Ms. Nomani has produced evidence that is exactly what FCPS seeks.

          1. If the equal outcome is “students get what they need to pursue the future of their choosing”, then what is your opposition to this?

            Or do you think they have a sinister, secret outcome for children? Turn everyone into woke welfare queens?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            ““students get what they need to pursue the future of their choosing””

            There is nothing wrong with that statement, minus is defines equality not equity.

          3. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            There aren’t enough resources in the world to do this. Reality accepts limits. Stupidity, not so much.

          4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            You made that up, put it in quotes and accused me of opposing it, Rosie. Very, very weak.

          5. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            So, you have no limit. If the entire Fairfax school budget had to be spent on one disadvantaged child, that would be fine by you even if it damages every other kid in Fairfax. You simply are unrealistic.

          6. Or do you think they have a sinister, secret outcome for children? Turn everyone into woke welfare queens?

            Not everyone – just the boys…

            😉

  4. Teddy007 Avatar

    If the Republicans in Virginia were smart, they would pass a top 10% law much like Texas has. One of the hidden benefits is that by forcing the high school to rank all students, it exposes the obvious affirmative action admits for students whether they stay in state or night. It would also solve the problem of TJ and other magnet schools in that there would be no advantage for someone to go to that school just to have a more likely pathway to UVA. It would also punish the elite in Northern Virginia who send their children to private schools in DC.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Sounds like it can be “gamed”:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2320505d3f338169c660d91792327498b7647cf030513960f956a0a4384bfd96.jpg

      It actually looks like it could be perverse for kids sent to private school , no?

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        The private schools in Texas have to rank their students the same as the public. There is no advantage to going to a private school is one wants to attend UT-Austin. How does the box quote show anything that can be gamed. The homeschool kids also have a problem.
        Remember, UT-Austin limits the top 10% students to 75% of the freshman class. That leaves room for athletes, musicians, and arts majors who generally do not come from the top ten percent. The biggest game would be to be Hispanic or Black while attending a top school such as Highland Park High School in Dallas. Those minorities students who are the children of white collar parents stand a better chance of succeeding than the top 10% student from a South Texas High School.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I actually support the idea but point out that high grades in a low-rated school might advantage that student more than high grades in a high rated school that are lower than other higher rated scores. In other words, in a tougher school, ranking in the lower 20% might still be higher net achievement that top 10% in a low rated school.

          So, yeah, for these low-rated schools , some kids might get a shot they never would in a pure conventional selection scheme.

          Is this standardized tests so all kids are equally scored or is it grades and grading at each school which might be
          different per school?

          1. Teddy007 Avatar

            UT-Austin deals with the gaming (not really gaming but affirmative action by another name) by fire walling off many majors. Just because one is accepted due to a top 10% rule at UT-Austin )and other universities in Texas) does not mean that one can major in engineering, business, a natural science, or technology. Thus, for students who are not at the top the student and family have to decide if a student is better off majoring in communications or sociology at UT-Austin or engineering.business at Texas Tech.

            There is no test, the ranking is based upon four years of classes and grades. It also cannot be gamed by avoiding hard classes since non-hard classes do not give the GPA bonus that an AP class would give.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” It also cannot be gamed by avoiding hard classes since non-hard classes do not give the GPA bonus that an AP class would give.”

            so not really based on class rank?

          3. Teddy007 Avatar

            It is based on class rank but advanced classes such as AP class would assign a 5 to an A on a four point scale. If one takes the most advanced class and avoid easy electives, one can have a GPA much higher than 4.0 on a 4 scale. However if one avoids hard class, the maximum GPA would be lower. A top 10% rule rewards students for taking hard classes and making A’s. However, it punishes good but not great students whose parents purchased a home in a good school district.

          4. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            Why is 10% a magic number. Why not 7 or 11. Seems rather arbitrary and not very scientific.

          5. Teddy007 Avatar

            Ask the Texas Legislature from back in 1997 when they set the rules. One of the issues was the law was passed before the US News list and other rankings became such a big thing. The legislature did not anticipate the growth in the population of Texas or that some schools such as UT-Austin would not grow. The law also did not anticipate that so many students would want to go to one school or what the impact would be of having an entire freshman class being made up of students who were in the top 10% of their high school class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588

          6. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            In other words, arbitrary action of government.

          7. Teddy007 Avatar

            Not arbitrary action of government. Read the wiki page. The University of Texas has lost in court over affirmative action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas) UT-Austin had the problem that most of the their freshmen were coming from just a few schools in the suburbs around Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. The top 10% rule was a way to have affirmative action based upon housing patterns without violating any civil rights laws and from discouraging all of the supper middle class people concentrating themselves into a few suburbs.

          8. Not Today Avatar

            They’ve reduced it to a guaranteed 6% in TX.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            So they don’t take the QCA the school has given? Someone goes in and looks at the individual classes and “adjusts” it?

          10. Not Today Avatar

            Schools in poor areas typically offer ‘hard classes’ and never test their students (AP exams) b/c they know they can’t pass. As long as the syllabi are approved by college board, the students can get the transcript/grade boost.

          11. Not Today Avatar

            EXACTLY. They let the poor kids in but bar them from the majors that might help them become economically competitive because they’re not ready. BUT THEY GOT IN…but it’s still segregation.

          12. Not Today Avatar

            EXACTLY. They let the poor kids in but bar them from the majors that might help them become economically competitive because they’re not ready. BUT THEY GOT IN…but it’s still segregation. And even then, even when I pointed out this system was legal and would continue to be so after SCOTUS rules, folks STILL complained about it b/c it let in too many ‘unqualified’ minority kids.

          13. Teddy007 Avatar

            One should also think about the positive political influences of having a top ten percent rule. It forces the schools to rank all of their students. It exposes affirmative action in high school. It exposes the affirmative action admits for private and out of state universities. Image all of the white collar parents in Northern Virginia seeing how their child is harmed by affirmative action with the forced ranking of students.

    2. Not Today Avatar

      The problem with this plan is that it relies on the perpetuation of economic segregation and the legacy of redlining/inequity to diversify UT. There is no incentive or benefit to improve the instruction in poor communities. Why should legislators do that? As long as the kids ‘get in’ not success, not graduate, they’ve done their jobs.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        That El Paso or the SAISD was 95% Latino had nothing to do with redlining for forced segregation. If one looks up the history of the former Jefferson Davis High School in Houston it went from being all white in the 1950’s to all black in 1980 to now all Hispanic. Redlining did not cause that. The legislature is doing little to help students in poorer districts without a top 10% rule. HOwever, such a rule gives the poorer kids in rural areas a pathway to higher education that the current no testing, resume building pathway does not.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    I have to ask , how is the following anything more than an assertion rather than a verifiable fact?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98b3afb23ab687ff5c808a3faf9f3adc0bfbcbad4aea9ff2c12918920367456b.jpg

    And if you’re gonna quote something from a “link”, where
    is the link you’ve quoted from?

    ” The article by Ms. Nomani and Ms. Zwicker contains a hypertext link to an “Equity-centered Strategic Planning” presentation made at a School Board retreat on September 20, 2022 at Falls Church, Virginia.”

    where is the link?

    Isn’t the following an opinion?


    If FCPS believes it is “equitable” to apply such an “equal outcomes” standard to the performance of FCPS students,”

    Is it true? Can it be argued that it’s not and be “on topic”?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” FCPS withholds awards, pays $455,000 for equity contractor”

        Carol, are you sure this is the link?

  6. Warmac9999 Avatar
    Warmac9999

    Equity, by its very definition, is the opposite of merit. The puritans tried equity and it was a disaster – unjust and unfair. Equity is a communist principle that is anti-American.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    You know. This is sorta like saying if you provide a child with a learning disability extra help so he/she can reach his/her potential, that you’re pursuing equal outcomes.

    Folks are going to see what this current narrative is really about in time.

  8. DJRippert Avatar

    The progressives on this blog has stated over and over and over again that equity does not mean equal outcomes. They have never been able to define what equity means, especially vs equality, but they have been adamant – equity does not require equal outcomes.

    Now, that lie has been exposed:

    “The Equity Imperative: Equitable Access, Equal Outcomes Equitable access to resources and opportunities that guarantee fair, just, and affirming experiences and produce equal outcomes for every student, without exception”.

    Equal outcomes for every student, without exception is a fool’s errand. I was very good in math. However, I was no match for my brother. My brother got a perfect score on the Math SAT and went on to earn his PhD in physics. No amount of extra effort was going to make me as good at math as my brother. And we were brothers – same parents, same upbringing, same socio-economic class.

    The only way to have equal outcomes for every student is to stop measuring anything. No grades, no standardized tests, none of the measure that illustrate that equal outcomes cannot be achieved.

    I am starting to believe that this entire “equity” charade (as opposed to equality) is no more than an effort by the education bureaucracy to shed what accountability exists in schools today.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar

      I can define equity and equality just fine. I think the wording of the particular presentation sucks, especially in the current absurd Virginia culture war. But it’s not really as nefarious as one who takes it literally may think–the idea, I believe, is that every student should be offered resources to meet their needs so that student can reach outcomes equal to that of those with better means, not that it will actually happen. A school like TJHSST, in particular, is a school full of academic elites who go on to elite colleges. They’re not going to somehow stop sending kids to elite colleges to accommodate the kids who don’t do as well.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Except that is what FCPS directed TJ to actually do. Try to keep up.

        1. M. Purdy Avatar

          What now? FCPS directed TJ not to send kids to elite colleges? Can you substantiate that?

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Nice try. They have been directed by FCPS “to try to accommodate kids who do not do as well” as, you know, Asian-American kids.

          2. M. Purdy Avatar

            If you’re going to quote me, don’t do so partially to misrepresent what I said. Are Asian kids being denied the ability to apply or attend elite colleges?

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I will quote that directly in an upcoming article, thanks.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        FCPS provides more resources for “children in need” than is required by law. Not only do Title 1 schools get extra federal and state funding, but the County goes beyond that and adds additional local tax money. Also, FCPS always meets, and often exceeds, mandates for special ed students. They get more resources than the general education students. But as the old saying goes, you just cannot make the horse drink. At some point, parents and their children are responsible for their decisions.

        1. M. Purdy Avatar

          No argument there. You provide the resources required, then hope for the best. At some point, the child (and parents) have to want it.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          Despite this, Fairfax has some terrible numbers for economically disadvantaged kids.

          I can list out the schools with the problems if you want.

          Fairfax is not alone. There are other schools in Virginia with the same issues. Like Henrico which also has many schools where the entire school has terrible SOL scores.

          Are we to believe that these schools have “concentrated” the “bad parents” and “bad kids” into that entire school?

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            I don’t understand why you automatically “forgive” the decisions & actions of “economically disadvantaged kids” and their parents. If only taxpayers provided one more service. And then, one more service. It’s always society’s fault.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t “automatically forgive” them at all. I’m asking WHY you’d automatically attribute such outcomes to “bad parents and bad kids”?

            How do you know?

            Just because these kids have been provided resources does not mean they have been provided the right resources and we are left to decide it must be the kid or the parent instead?

            Why would one presume this?

            Why would one place blame on Fairfax or Henrico or ANY school for wanting to look further at the problem especially if it seems systemic in entire schools?

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            You did it again, Larry.

            You put quotes around “bad parents and bad kids” when it was you who wrote it, not tmtfairfax.

          4. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            Why excuse the parents? In a free society, they are responsible for their kids. If they are lousy parents, no amount of resources is going to solve the problems they create from birth.

            Ben Carson’s mother was illiterate but she under stood the value of a literate child and worked hard on Ben’s literacy. He was and is a winner because of a good parent who refused to accept bad excuses.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep. That’s my way of capturing a phrase and keeping it in … got it?

          6. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            TMT Fairfax did not say anything about “bad kids” or “bad parents”, Larry, you did.

            He believes that personal agency is a real element of the foundations of civilization.

            That is a point on which those who espouse “equal outcomes” do agree with the rest of us.

            In fact modern progressives label personal agency as a value imposed by western philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries that must therefore be rejected today.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            I believe in personal agency also but I don’t believe looking at equity means advocating equal outcomes as some seem want to do and claim it’s factual. And making false equivalences like ” In fact modern progressives label personal agency as a value imposed by western philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries that must therefore be rejected today.” is another disingenuous tactic those to the right of progressives seem want to do.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      You have said that “over and over”, Larry. You have said a great many things over and over. This article is about what FCPS is buying, not what you are selling.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Indeed. I agree that stuff is being “sold”. No question.

    3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Equal outcomes for every student, without exception is a fool’s errand. I was very good in math. However, I was no match for my brother. My brother got a perfect score on the Math SAT and went on to earn his PhD in physics. No amount of extra effort was going to make me as good at math as my brother. And we were brothers – same parents, same upbringing, same socio-economic class.”

      Consider two changes to your scenario. First, you and your brother had equal innate math abilities and you were not brothers but from different socio-economic classes which led to you not scoring perfectly on the Math SAT or earning a PhD in physics. Would you say that the outcome was equitable?

      Another way to look at it is can you not envision any socio-economic scenario that might have led to your brother (with a different childhood reality) not earning his PhD?

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” According to an article by Asra Q. Nomani and Heather Zwicker, Fairfax County Public Schools has signed a sole-source contract with Performance Fact, Inc., which explicitly advocates the following: “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.””

    Where are the facts? We’re referencing something as if it is factual and not even providing what is being referenced in that article.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not the Contract Carol. It’s whether the opinion of it is actual fact.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar

            The author is this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asra_Nomani She’s a conservative activist who is prominent in battling CRT in schools (real or imagined). It’s entirely possible that there’ s a conspiracy, as she implies, but I don’t think you can call this article “just facts” based on the ideological views of the author.

          2. I can call these facts, which is why the links were posted:
            1. The contract refers to the retreat.
            2. The Fairfax Times article links to the plan presented at the retreat.
            a. The link is on the FCPS site: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23556946/2022_09-20-equal-outcomes-_fairfax-county-ps_board-retreat_main-presentation_091722pptx-1.pdf
            b. The presenter says on page 25: “Equitable access
            to resources and opportunities that guarantee
            fair, just, and affirming experiences and produce
            equal outcomes
            for every student, without exception.”

          3. M. Purdy Avatar

            Sure. But as Larry points out, FFX county doesn’t define equity like that. And doesn’t that carry more weight that some statement buried in a presentation that who exactly saw?

          4. It was a school board retreat in Sept. 2022 –you know, the folks who want equal outcomes.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            It DOES say “equal outcomes” but that’s NOT what some are claiming it means.

            It’s being taken out of context and disregards the entire policy statement that FCS makes.

            https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/topics/one-fairfax

            https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/topics/sites/topics/files/assets/documents/pdf/one-fairfax-policy.pdf

            What’s FACT is what Fairfax County Schools states – in it’s entirety.

            These folks are not interested in what Fairfax is actually saying. They’re doing similar tactics to what they did for claiming CRT and “grooming” and the like.

            It’s dishonest and disingenuous to string together a narrative using “facts” to claim something that is patently false with respect to what FCS is actually saying for policy.

        1. Read the plan.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Back gracefully out of the rabbit hole, Larry. There is nothing further down there but more darkness.

  10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “In that presentation, on page 24, there is a list of 16 “equity indicators” that are supposed to help determine whether or not there is “consequential ‘equity disparity’” among student groups, including the following:
    2. Self-Regulation and Attention Skills
    3. Engagement in Schooling
    4. Performance in Coursework
    5. Performance on Tests”

    There are several more as well including the first “Academic Readiness” (this one and number 2 are targeted at kindergarten level, btw). These actually do seem to be good things to watch for (especially early on). It may point to which children will need additional resources or attention to attain their full potential. Why would this be some kind of scandal? I recognize that Nomani’s reason for being is to vilify DEI initiatives so I get that anything like this is evil in her eyes but why are the rest of you so worked up?

  11. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    When do we have to start calling each other comrade?

Leave a Reply