Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

A district court and one appellate judge on the three-member 4th Circuit panel agreed with the Coalition’s claims. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit decision stands a good chance of being reversed. Realistically, everyone involved in this litigation knew there would be multiple appeals.

1) That’s a big, big if. It’s a weak case, full stop. It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court benefits at all from granting cert in this case.

2) The Court already had a shot at this when the Coalition requested that the 4th Circuit’s original stay back at this time last year be vacated. They voted 6-3 not to vacate, leaving the process up and running for the Class of 2026. Not much has changed since then.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch - that’s enough to grant cert right there.

Barrett wasn’t interested last time.

She tends to vote against emergency cases.

That’s a reach. If this were really a big deal worth litigating, why would she let three classes be selected under an unconstitutional policy?

DP. Are you familiar with how SCOTUS works? There are lots of issues of far greater importance than this where SCOTUS repeatedly rejects cert petitions for years while allowing the issue to percolate before eventually taking it up.

You need to get a grip. It seems unlikely that even the wacky hardcore conservatives that make up today's supreme court would consider a race-blind selection process that selects 60%+ Asians as biased against Asians.

It depends. Federal courts don't want to become full-time admissions offices or school boards. They have other, more interesting things to do.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is very conservative and the Fourth Circuit decision could be seen as standing for the proposition that it's OK for a government entity to deliberately discriminate against one group (here, Asian students) as long as they are "over-represented" based on some type of statistical data. They might grant cert just to eviscerate that concept, although at the end of the day it would mean FCPS could come up with a new, similar admissions process that simply wasn't tainted with discriminatory intent, as several judges have found to have been the case with respect to the 2020 process.

The problem is that this really isn’t a good test case for the concept. If SCOTUS were to adopt the Coalition’s arguments on these facts, that precedent could be used to strike down all kinds of efforts to dismantle current affirmative action-style policies and practices. If the effect of a change in policy were to reduce the participation of black and Hispanic people in a government program or employment, and there is any evidence to be found that any of the decisions makers at any time considered the racial impact of making a chance, the new policy would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus would almost certainly be struck down. That’s not what FedSoc wants as precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

A district court and one appellate judge on the three-member 4th Circuit panel agreed with the Coalition’s claims. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit decision stands a good chance of being reversed. Realistically, everyone involved in this litigation knew there would be multiple appeals.

1) That’s a big, big if. It’s a weak case, full stop. It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court benefits at all from granting cert in this case.

2) The Court already had a shot at this when the Coalition requested that the 4th Circuit’s original stay back at this time last year be vacated. They voted 6-3 not to vacate, leaving the process up and running for the Class of 2026. Not much has changed since then.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch - that’s enough to grant cert right there.

Barrett wasn’t interested last time.

She tends to vote against emergency cases.

That’s a reach. If this were really a big deal worth litigating, why would she let three classes be selected under an unconstitutional policy?

DP. Are you familiar with how SCOTUS works? There are lots of issues of far greater importance than this where SCOTUS repeatedly rejects cert petitions for years while allowing the issue to percolate before eventually taking it up.

You need to get a grip. It seems unlikely that even the wacky hardcore conservatives that make up today's supreme court would consider a race-blind selection process that selects 60%+ Asians as biased against Asians.

It depends. Federal courts don't want to become full-time admissions offices or school boards. They have other, more interesting things to do.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is very conservative and the Fourth Circuit decision could be seen as standing for the proposition that it's OK for a government entity to deliberately discriminate against one group (here, Asian students) as long as they are "over-represented" based on some type of statistical data. They might grant cert just to eviscerate that concept, although at the end of the day it would mean FCPS could come up with a new, similar admissions process that simply wasn't tainted with discriminatory intent, as several judges have found to have been the case with respect to the 2020 process.

The problem is that this really isn’t a good test case for the concept. If SCOTUS were to adopt the Coalition’s arguments on these facts, that precedent could be used to strike down all kinds of efforts to dismantle current affirmative action-style policies and practices. If the effect of a change in policy were to reduce the participation of black and Hispanic people in a government program or employment, and there is any evidence to be found that any of the decisions makers at any time considered the racial impact of making a chance, the new policy would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus would almost certainly be struck down. That’s not what FedSoc wants as precedent.

It's ultimately a stupid argument that would result in an endless cycle of successful litigation against the county. If TJ reverts to a system that pleases the coalition for TJ, under that precedent, black and hispanic students could sue. If they win and the county reverts to a system that bumps black and hispanic numbers, Asian students could sue.... it would be never ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why even bother going to a school like TJ? I don’t know of any students who went there and were happy. Lots of backstabbing between students in the sophomore and older years as kids try to get a leg up for college admissions. Why subject a kid to this? Life is too short.

Yeah, that was one of the big reasons they changed the admissions policy. To fix the school culture. There are some anecdotal reports that it has helped.

It absolutely has. And it would have to, because you are no longer engaging in an admissions process that incentivizes a very narrow path into TJ, and therefore, a very streamlined set of admittees. Too much homogeneity in the student body - not with respect to race, but with respect to ambition - of necessity creates a toxic culture or hypercompetition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

Absolutely. Why should kids at certain schools in the county not have access to certain ECs? Kids at age 11 have no control over where they go to middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

A district court and one appellate judge on the three-member 4th Circuit panel agreed with the Coalition’s claims. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit decision stands a good chance of being reversed. Realistically, everyone involved in this litigation knew there would be multiple appeals.

1) That’s a big, big if. It’s a weak case, full stop. It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court benefits at all from granting cert in this case.

2) The Court already had a shot at this when the Coalition requested that the 4th Circuit’s original stay back at this time last year be vacated. They voted 6-3 not to vacate, leaving the process up and running for the Class of 2026. Not much has changed since then.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch - that’s enough to grant cert right there.

Barrett wasn’t interested last time.

She tends to vote against emergency cases.

That’s a reach. If this were really a big deal worth litigating, why would she let three classes be selected under an unconstitutional policy?

DP. Are you familiar with how SCOTUS works? There are lots of issues of far greater importance than this where SCOTUS repeatedly rejects cert petitions for years while allowing the issue to percolate before eventually taking it up.

You need to get a grip. It seems unlikely that even the wacky hardcore conservatives that make up today's supreme court would consider a race-blind selection process that selects 60%+ Asians as biased against Asians.

It depends. Federal courts don't want to become full-time admissions offices or school boards. They have other, more interesting things to do.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is very conservative and the Fourth Circuit decision could be seen as standing for the proposition that it's OK for a government entity to deliberately discriminate against one group (here, Asian students) as long as they are "over-represented" based on some type of statistical data. They might grant cert just to eviscerate that concept, although at the end of the day it would mean FCPS could come up with a new, similar admissions process that simply wasn't tainted with discriminatory intent, as several judges have found to have been the case with respect to the 2020 process.

The problem is that this really isn’t a good test case for the concept. If SCOTUS were to adopt the Coalition’s arguments on these facts, that precedent could be used to strike down all kinds of efforts to dismantle current affirmative action-style policies and practices. If the effect of a change in policy were to reduce the participation of black and Hispanic people in a government program or employment, and there is any evidence to be found that any of the decisions makers at any time considered the racial impact of making a chance, the new policy would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus would almost certainly be struck down. That’s not what FedSoc wants as precedent.

There's a line to be drawn between "considered" and "motivated by."

We all know the goal of the TJ admissions changes was to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic kids and to reduce the percentage of Asian kids.

They "modeled" various "race-blind" alternatives to get the result they wanted, and then claimed the new policy was totally indifferent as to student race. And because certain judges agreed with that goal, they found a way to ignore the facts and pretend the new policy was indeed race-neutral. The next set of judges may disagree with either the goal or the manner in which FCPS went about furthering it. And then, regardless of the legal analysis, there's a Governor that disagrees with FCPS's approach and has significant influence over the future of any Governor's Schools in the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

A district court and one appellate judge on the three-member 4th Circuit panel agreed with the Coalition’s claims. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit decision stands a good chance of being reversed. Realistically, everyone involved in this litigation knew there would be multiple appeals.

1) That’s a big, big if. It’s a weak case, full stop. It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court benefits at all from granting cert in this case.

2) The Court already had a shot at this when the Coalition requested that the 4th Circuit’s original stay back at this time last year be vacated. They voted 6-3 not to vacate, leaving the process up and running for the Class of 2026. Not much has changed since then.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch - that’s enough to grant cert right there.

Barrett wasn’t interested last time.

She tends to vote against emergency cases.

That’s a reach. If this were really a big deal worth litigating, why would she let three classes be selected under an unconstitutional policy?

DP. Are you familiar with how SCOTUS works? There are lots of issues of far greater importance than this where SCOTUS repeatedly rejects cert petitions for years while allowing the issue to percolate before eventually taking it up.

You need to get a grip. It seems unlikely that even the wacky hardcore conservatives that make up today's supreme court would consider a race-blind selection process that selects 60%+ Asians as biased against Asians.

It depends. Federal courts don't want to become full-time admissions offices or school boards. They have other, more interesting things to do.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is very conservative and the Fourth Circuit decision could be seen as standing for the proposition that it's OK for a government entity to deliberately discriminate against one group (here, Asian students) as long as they are "over-represented" based on some type of statistical data. They might grant cert just to eviscerate that concept, although at the end of the day it would mean FCPS could come up with a new, similar admissions process that simply wasn't tainted with discriminatory intent, as several judges have found to have been the case with respect to the 2020 process.

The problem is that this really isn’t a good test case for the concept. If SCOTUS were to adopt the Coalition’s arguments on these facts, that precedent could be used to strike down all kinds of efforts to dismantle current affirmative action-style policies and practices. If the effect of a change in policy were to reduce the participation of black and Hispanic people in a government program or employment, and there is any evidence to be found that any of the decisions makers at any time considered the racial impact of making a chance, the new policy would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus would almost certainly be struck down. That’s not what FedSoc wants as precedent.

There's a line to be drawn between "considered" and "motivated by."

We all know the goal of the TJ admissions changes was to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic kids and to reduce the percentage of Asian kids.

They "modeled" various "race-blind" alternatives to get the result they wanted, and then claimed the new policy was totally indifferent as to student race. And because certain judges agreed with that goal, they found a way to ignore the facts and pretend the new policy was indeed race-neutral. The next set of judges may disagree with either the goal or the manner in which FCPS went about furthering it. And then, regardless of the legal analysis, there's a Governor that disagrees with FCPS's approach and has significant influence over the future of any Governor's Schools in the state.

FWIW, there were multiple goals in changing the admissions. Only one goal was to increase URMs (which did not result in a decrease of ORMs because they also increased the class size).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

But they aren’t offered at every middle school. That’s not kids’ faults. Admissions needs to take that into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

Correct, many kids aren’t hardworking or talented on their own and are being propped up by prep courses & parental money. Glad you’ve stated that so clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

A district court and one appellate judge on the three-member 4th Circuit panel agreed with the Coalition’s claims. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit decision stands a good chance of being reversed. Realistically, everyone involved in this litigation knew there would be multiple appeals.

1) That’s a big, big if. It’s a weak case, full stop. It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court benefits at all from granting cert in this case.

2) The Court already had a shot at this when the Coalition requested that the 4th Circuit’s original stay back at this time last year be vacated. They voted 6-3 not to vacate, leaving the process up and running for the Class of 2026. Not much has changed since then.

Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch - that’s enough to grant cert right there.

Barrett wasn’t interested last time.

She tends to vote against emergency cases.

That’s a reach. If this were really a big deal worth litigating, why would she let three classes be selected under an unconstitutional policy?

DP. Are you familiar with how SCOTUS works? There are lots of issues of far greater importance than this where SCOTUS repeatedly rejects cert petitions for years while allowing the issue to percolate before eventually taking it up.

You need to get a grip. It seems unlikely that even the wacky hardcore conservatives that make up today's supreme court would consider a race-blind selection process that selects 60%+ Asians as biased against Asians.

It depends. Federal courts don't want to become full-time admissions offices or school boards. They have other, more interesting things to do.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is very conservative and the Fourth Circuit decision could be seen as standing for the proposition that it's OK for a government entity to deliberately discriminate against one group (here, Asian students) as long as they are "over-represented" based on some type of statistical data. They might grant cert just to eviscerate that concept, although at the end of the day it would mean FCPS could come up with a new, similar admissions process that simply wasn't tainted with discriminatory intent, as several judges have found to have been the case with respect to the 2020 process.

The problem is that this really isn’t a good test case for the concept. If SCOTUS were to adopt the Coalition’s arguments on these facts, that precedent could be used to strike down all kinds of efforts to dismantle current affirmative action-style policies and practices. If the effect of a change in policy were to reduce the participation of black and Hispanic people in a government program or employment, and there is any evidence to be found that any of the decisions makers at any time considered the racial impact of making a chance, the new policy would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus would almost certainly be struck down. That’s not what FedSoc wants as precedent.

There's a line to be drawn between "considered" and "motivated by."

We all know the goal of the TJ admissions changes was to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic kids and to reduce the percentage of Asian kids.

They "modeled" various "race-blind" alternatives to get the result they wanted, and then claimed the new policy was totally indifferent as to student race. And because certain judges agreed with that goal, they found a way to ignore the facts and pretend the new policy was indeed race-neutral. The next set of judges may disagree with either the goal or the manner in which FCPS went about furthering it. And then, regardless of the legal analysis, there's a Governor that disagrees with FCPS's approach and has significant influence over the future of any Governor's Schools in the state.

1) The italicized sentence is incorrect. You have evidence to suggest that a goal was to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic kids. You do NOT have evidence that the goal was to reduce the percentage of Asian kids. As I've stated here constantly, if the net effect of the admissions changes had been 70% Asian, 10% White, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic, the School Board would have had a celebration. They did not care AT ALL about the percentage of Asian students - they cared about Black, Hispanic, and under-resourced kids having a legitimate shot at TJ. So no, we do not "all know" a thing that isn't true and has no basis in reality.

2) The policies that they modeled came from the Superintendent and were REJECTED by the School Board. They didn't "claim" the new policy that they actually ratified was indifferent to race; it was by definition indifferent to race. The reason that the numbers changed as much as they did was that the old policy was not indifferent to race because it used metrics that have been proven time and again to have negative disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and under-resourced kids.

3) Again, the Governor has had 18 months to do something about TJ and has done squat. Feel free to point out one thing that the Governor has done to impact TJ now that almost 40% of his term has passed, after which he is not eligible for re-election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

But they aren’t offered at every middle school. That’s not kids’ faults. Admissions needs to take that into account.

Well they have. Every school gets 1.5% and URMs also get preference. This is nothing new though and just an extension of other existing programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

DP. It's not about dissociating (that's the proper word, btw) parental and familial influence from a student's performance. It's about dissociating parental and familial influence from admissions outcomes for a taxpayer-funded elite educational opportunity, especially when that influence is informed by disparate resources.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that the 51 poor Asian kids who got into TJ have parents and families that don't care about academics and education? Because those kids were effectively shut out of TJ before these admissions changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There were always kids at the "wrong schools" who didn't have the same parental resources or PTA support who could have thrived at TJ but were not getting in.
Also the idea that all potential is determined by the time a kid is 13 or 14 just seems short sighted and really cruel when it's talked about on these boards. "Oh my God some child got in who was only in Algebra 2 Honors in 8th grade, they're dumbing down the school and all is lost." "Those kids can't handle the pressure and will drop out" "What if the school drops to second best in the country because of them?"
I think the idea that TJ could help a passionate kid who didn't have the same opportunities reach their full potential is much more impressive than missing out on a kid who will have all the opportunities or support at Mclean or Langley.
No policy will make everyone happy or is perfect, but honestly I think these new changes could actually make TJ useful to the County beyond a press release saying they are the number one school in the country or a parent being able to brag at a cocktail party.
Signed a TJ grad from seemingly a saner time

You are talking about kids at a weaker school vs a stronger school like McLean. I am saying they are not doing a good job of selecting students within the same school. It's not even about algebra 2 vs algebra 1, but students who would be on the TJ math team are getting rejected.

be happy they have math team. My kids go to an FCPS middle school that doesn't have math counts, science bowl, quiz bowl, or any other academic competition clubs. The closest we have is math club which is focused on helping kids who are behind. Why should kids be punished because FCPS offers more to some schools than other?

Sounds like something the PTA should probably pursue with the staff there.

Hopefully, you understand that PTAs at the poorest middle schools have no money. Parents at such schools have work schedules that aren’t conducive to volunteering & aren’t culturally tuned into that.

So you want the county to provide for extra curriculars that are generally funded by parents at other schools?

We want the county to disregard benefits provided by public schools not available at all public schools for competitive admissions purposes

I think you want to disassociate parental and familial influence from a student's performance. As indicated, many of these school opportunities are parental and community based, as are prep courses, and enrichment.

But they aren’t offered at every middle school. That’s not kids’ faults. Admissions needs to take that into account.

The non-stop effort to build a better mousetrap is exhausting. Get rid of TJ, which only serves about 4% of FCPS high school students, and focus on all the kids. The TJ AAG and related groups fetishize TJ and ignore the vast majority of students and schools.