Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Because even after being at TJ for year(s), they are still scoring lower in SOLs and PSATs by a fairly wide margin while also being mathematically behind relative to usual TJ norms.
They are obviously smart kids, but definitely not the same academic caliber as previous classes. The idea that they are the same but overlooked is becoming more and more demonstrably false.
If you you think scores don’t matter, that’s fine, but I’m just curious how you would quantify them as ‘just as bright.’
No, these numbers are not available yet. It's possible that it will be true but you can't make statements about numbers that don't exist yet.
Someone called out the PSAT average already here and the SOL scores have been and continue to be publicly available on VDOE website. This isn’t new information.
That was not for the first class under the new admissions standards, that was for the last class under the old standards.
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
People do believe this, but they want to make sure their children get in first and then their friends who look like them. It's all about themselves. They are afraid their Asian nerd will be left behind at the base HS but in reality they will stand out more.
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Why is so easy to accept that only 550 students per grade of (200000?) get a chance for a good high school education? [b]
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Because even after being at TJ for year(s), they are still scoring lower in SOLs and PSATs by a fairly wide margin while also being mathematically behind relative to usual TJ norms.
They are obviously smart kids, but definitely not the same academic caliber as previous classes. The idea that they are the same but overlooked is becoming more and more demonstrably false.
If you you think scores don’t matter, that’s fine, but I’m just curious how you would quantify them as ‘just as bright.’
No, these numbers are not available yet. It's possible that it will be true but you can't make statements about numbers that don't exist yet.
Someone called out the PSAT average already here and the SOL scores have been and continue to be publicly available on VDOE website. This isn’t new information.
That was not for the first class under the new admissions standards, that was for the last class under the old standards.
Oh sorry these numbers were from the fall of this current school year, the first class in the new system. Down about 100ish points if I remember correctly. Still good scores just not the same.
Anonymous wrote:I hope the board will at least release Information about how those classes are doing now, survey teachers about preparedness and readiness and more now that they’re not locked into silence because of lawsuits. Anecdata is not good and it would be good to explore to see if there are concerns and figure out how to fix them (rather than the smug, self-congratulatory email I just received from the board).
Yeah, this is directed to the last year of the students admitted under the old admissions. IOW, not responsive.
But it is indicative of the problems in the math department at TJ.
+1
Thank goodness DD is strong at math. The math teachers she has had at TJ have not been great. They seem to count on the kids learning the content themselves outside of class.
Anonymous wrote:I hope the board will at least release Information about how those classes are doing now, survey teachers about preparedness and readiness and more now that they’re not locked into silence because of lawsuits. Anecdata is not good and it would be good to explore to see if there are concerns and figure out how to fix them (rather than the smug, self-congratulatory email I just received from the board).
Yeah, this is directed to the last year of the students admitted under the old admissions. IOW, not responsive.
But it is indicative of the problems in the math department at TJ.
No. Read it carefully. The email is to those those admitted by the current senseless process.
The students admitted in the last batch of the rigorous process (class of 2024) would not have been taking TJ4 in 2023. The Class of 2024 and earlier never received an email like this (I have DC’s in those classes)
I read it carefully. It says: "The students in the spring semester course of Math 4, which the email is about, include Class of 2024 students, the last class admitted through the merit-based admissions tests that the school board eliminated in December 2020, and students from the Class of 2025, admitted through the new race-based admissions process." That last part is inaccurate, fwiw. The new admissions process is race-neutral.
Yes it’s possible for some freshman to be in Math 4 but those are the kids that were triple advanced in math already (so taking geometry in 7th) and that’s not the bulk of the kids in a given TJ grade. MOST of the kids in math 4 would have been sophomores that year - the last kids under the old system.
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Why is so easy to accept that only 550 students per grade of (200000?) get a chance for a good high school education?
False premise. Fairfax County has the best high schools top to bottom of any large high school system in the country. The fact that there is only one specialized high school doesn't detract from the fact that a student can receive an objectively "good" high school education at any of its 25 schools.
Anonymous wrote:Yo, people saying that TJ is "ruined" because some smarter ids go to other schools, why you do believe that the problem is that the wrong kids are going to the only good school in the county, instead of that the problem is that VA doesn't have more good schools?
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Because even after being at TJ for year(s), they are still scoring lower in SOLs and PSATs by a fairly wide margin while also being mathematically behind relative to usual TJ norms.
They are obviously smart kids, but definitely not the same academic caliber as previous classes. The idea that they are the same but overlooked is becoming more and more demonstrably false.
If you you think scores don’t matter, that’s fine, but I’m just curious how you would quantify them as ‘just as bright.’
The traditional feeder school have more resources to push kids further ahead. It shouldn't be surprising that their kids are further ahead. Hopefully the board mandates a uniform middle school curriculum including the availability of school sponsored extracurriculars
Not fair to spend my tax dollars educating other people's kids.
BS. Public education is a public good because the public benefits from a properly educated population. Education is not an individual good.
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Why is so easy to accept that only 550 students per grade of (200000?) get a chance for a good high school education?
Anonymous wrote:The "Parents Defending Education” claim that it’s a “grassroots” organization is total BS - they are part of a larger orchestrated effort to drive wedge issues for the GOP. It’s just another astroturfing scam to get suburban moms worked up into a frenzy with OUTRAGE after OUTRAGE.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Speech_First Speech First's president and only listed employee, Nicole Neily has worked for many Koch-affiliated groups. Neily was the president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the Cato Institute’s manager of external relations, the coalition relations manager for FreedomWorks’ Center for Global Economic Growth, and a "Koch summer fellow for both the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[7]
The Nation, characterized Speech First as "a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush Administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family...Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs."[2]
The people involved are anti-“CRT”, anti-trans, anti-education.
Mercedes Schneider has figured out the grassroots angle in Parents Defending Education: Prefab “Grassroots”—PDE needs local connections to claim standing in law suits to chill the free speech of any educator who questions white supremacy. Peter Greene minces no words in Parents Defending Education: Astroturf Goes Hard Right:
PDE is particularly odious because of its whole “turn in any teacher or school that offends you” approach to chilling conversation and teaching. This is not just astrotyurf (sic), but astroturf with its brown shirt on.
Again, I acknowledged they have a biased perspective. However, they also have the evidence exhibits, which you can interpret. No need to read their interpretation, just draw your own conclusions from the evidence.
Are you new here? We hashed this all out years ago.
Thank god this is finally over. Leave the kids alone, Republicans. Stop using them as pawns.
Democrats are the ones using us as pawns to achieve their idea of "racial diversity", treating us as groups rather than individuals
It was not about racial diversity. It was about destroying academic excellence as a concept. The number of Asian students didn't decline much, but many top Asian students were denied admission while mediocre ones were admitted. The number of students taking algebra 1 in 8th grade went from single digits to triple digits.
Students who were top in MathCounts, Science Olympiad, or qualified for USAJMO(a handful in the whole country) were rejected.
This.
They need to just admit that FCPS is not aiming to keep TJHSST as the “#1 public high school in the country” that educates the brightest minds in its district. While the claim may still hold for another year or two, there is no question that there will be no option but to lower standards to accommodate the students they pull in. Arguably these are still high-achieving kids within their specific middle school environment. But that’s not the same as saying that this high school draws the best and brightest in the district. Instead, they are content to sacrifice merit on the alter of equity.
I would have more respect for the board if they admitted that this is their aim and stopped trying to sell that there will be no academic downside to this.
There are two concepts packed into what I’ve bolded, and they can be in tension with each other. I don’t think the goal should be to create the number one high school in the country (whatever that means—is it based on rankings in a random news magazine?). But educating the brightest minds across the region is a worthy goal. And bright can be determined by more than just achievements that some kids, but not others, have access to. Remember these are kids who are only partway through their public school educational journey. Setting aside some slots for each middle school in the catchment area ensures that the brightest kids from each middle school have an opportunity to attend TJ. Those kids may not have the same resume and access to test prep as kids from wealthier areas because they lack access to activities, resources, and the like. And remember the admission changes increased the class size, continuing to allow for a substantial number of at-large seats. So it’s the best of both worlds—you get kids with lots of a achievements while also ensuring access to some of the brightest kids in the county who, through no fault of their own other than going to a less resourced school or coming from a background where they’ve had to overcome obstacles, may not have had the same a achievements by eighth grade but are capable of thriving at TJ. Some of those kids are the best and brightest in the district, but simply haven’t had a platform to demonstrate it yet.
+1
Why is it so hard to accept that kids from schools other than Carson and the 3 or 4 other middle schools who have historically been monopolizing TJ admissions are just as bright and have the ability to thrive in this environment if only they were given the chance???
Why is so easy to accept that only 550 students per grade of (200000?) get a chance for a good high school education?
False premise. Fairfax County has the best high schools top to bottom of any large high school system in the country. The fact that there is only one specialized high school doesn't detract from the fact that a student can receive an objectively "good" high school education at any of its 25 schools.
Anonymous wrote:If the top 1.5% of students receive an automatic offer, why are students from certain middle schools rejecting their offer?
TJ admission offer is not an award giveaway to simply accept and enjoy; rather, accepting it means signing up for four years of hardwork, which they are be unwilling to undertake.
Anonymous wrote:I hope the board will at least release Information about how those classes are doing now, survey teachers about preparedness and readiness and more now that they’re not locked into silence because of lawsuits. Anecdata is not good and it would be good to explore to see if there are concerns and figure out how to fix them (rather than the smug, self-congratulatory email I just received from the board).
Yeah, this is directed to the last year of the students admitted under the old admissions. IOW, not responsive.
But it is indicative of the problems in the math department at TJ.
No. Read it carefully. The email is to those those admitted by the current senseless process.
The students admitted in the last batch of the rigorous process (class of 2024) would not have been taking TJ4 in 2023. The Class of 2024 and earlier never received an email like this (I have DC’s in those classes)
Actually. My kid was there. And it was directed to math 4 in the fall of 2021. First kids under the new system were freshmen. And they were almost all in RS. Fall math 4 is almost all sophomores (class of 2024). Under the old system. 100%. And yes, TJ math department leaves a lot to be desired.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}