U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has observed the TJHSST class of 2025 up close, there is no way that 25% are low income.

More than 3 kids out of 550?

That’s all it takes for an increase.

Increased by de minimis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has observed the TJHSST class of 2025 up close, there is no way that 25% are low income.

More than 3 kids out of 550?

That’s all it takes for an increase.

Increased by de minimis.

Nah. An increase by any number is huge. Both mathematically and legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

That's because many Asian households (shame-based culture) won't sign up for free meals as readily as Black and Hispanic households would. The program was designed to feed children, and to be as easily accessible as possible. It was never intended for use as a metric for selection at a high school. All FCPS did was compromise a program that they will now have to audit more thoughougly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

What I am saying that it could be zero, fifty or five hundred. Neither you not FCPS can make a determination of how many.

And if there is an increase from previous years then the credit should be given to the poorly worded question in the application and not to any reform process.

To claim that the reform yielded a better socio-economic class is a matter of faith or conjecture and cannot be established with objective metrics as presently collected by FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

You think there are <=3 low-income students in the freshman class? Seems like an odd hill to die on.

Before the change, there were practically zero. The new process (adding a verification step) will certainly increase the number of low-income students.

This year, the questions are “are you eligible for free/reduced meals?” (optional) and “are you currently receiving free/reduced meals?”

[Anonymous]

They could be using the “are you receiving free meals” responses. Not the eligibility.

[Anonymous]

The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

You say the data is corrupted, do you have any actual source for that statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

If FCPS claims that 25% of the class is low-income ie have family incomes less than $47.5k per year, they need to verify and show proof. If their measurement is faulty, it needs to be questioned. Isn't this how accountability works or do you just make up rules on the fly....oh wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

You say the data is corrupted, do you have any actual source for that statement?

Man...you respond like a 2 year old. Read first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

If FCPS claims that 25% of the class is low-income ie have family incomes less than $47.5k per year, they need to verify and show proof. If their measurement is faulty, it needs to be questioned. Isn't this how accountability works or do you just make up rules on the fly....oh wait.

The pandemic messed up lots of stuff. I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

If FCPS claims that 25% of the class is low-income ie have family incomes less than $47.5k per year, they need to verify and show proof. If their measurement is faulty, it needs to be questioned. Isn't this how accountability works or do you just make up rules on the fly....oh wait.

The pandemic messed up lots of stuff. I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you.

Thank you for your kind words