Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

You mean the poor ones who NEVER got into TJ under the old admissions process because they couldn't afford boutique test prep? I can understand that.

C4TJ doesn't want poor kids at "their school".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

You mean the poor ones who NEVER got into TJ under the old admissions process because they couldn't afford boutique test prep? I can understand that.

C4TJ doesn't want poor kids at "their school".

Despite all the narratives that they put forth about racism in the admissions process, the reality is that the old admissions process admitted low-income Asian students at a rate that was BELOW that of total Black students OR Hispanic students.

And low-income Asian students were the BIGGEST beneficiary of the new admissions process.

When you get right down to it, wealthy Asians behave just like wealthy white people.

[Anonymous]

I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

I am not PP, but students have every opportunity to try to get into AAP each year until middle school. I don't think that many late-bloomers who can thrive in an accelerated environment like TJ exist given this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

This is a great post, except that the record indicates that some Board members were stupid enough not to have considered the quirks you mentioned until after the new process had already been approved. Others checked with FCPS staff before approving the changes precisely in order to ensure they would expedite the demographic changes they wanted to effect. As you note, the treatment of AAP center kids and particularly non-AAP kids at center school was perverse. But this School Board is always willing to throw certain groups under a bus if it gives them an opportunity to score points with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

Teacher recs are unreliable and AAP is kind of a joke since people just pay some quack to give their kid a favorable test to ensure admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

Teacher recs are unreliable and AAP is kind of a joke since people just pay some quack to give their kid a favorable test to ensure admissions.

There are ways to improve the teacher recommendation process to make them more indicative of the teacher's actual assessment of the student relative to others and less reliant on their writing ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

I am not PP, but students have every opportunity to try to get into AAP each year until middle school. I don't think that many late-bloomers who can thrive in an accelerated environment like TJ exist given this context.

They absolutely can. Students develop at different rates and in different time frames, and TJ should not be limited to the group of students who develop the earliest or whose parents are the most motivated to make their child appear to be a good fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

I am not PP, but students have every opportunity to try to get into AAP each year until middle school. I don't think that many late-bloomers who can thrive in an accelerated environment like TJ exist given this context.

They absolutely can. Students develop at different rates and in different time frames, and TJ should not be limited to the group of students who develop the earliest or whose parents are the most motivated to make their child appear to be a good fit.

In theory, yes. In practice, I will have my child bloom in rec league before trying out travel league. Many parents and kids will feel this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

Teacher recs are unreliable and AAP is kind of a joke since people just pay some quack to give their kid a favorable test to ensure admissions.

There are ways to improve the teacher recommendation process to make them more indicative of the teacher's actual assessment of the student relative to others and less reliant on their writing ability.

What are those ways? I’m not familiar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

I am not PP, but students have every opportunity to try to get into AAP each year until middle school. I don't think that many late-bloomers who can thrive in an accelerated environment like TJ exist given this context.

Well, I am the PP here, in my opinion, we should just get rid of AAP and center schools and many of the problems will sort by themselves. I would instead make it a course specific honors program within every school similar to how HN/AP classes are being taught in HS. All the elem/middle HN classes should be open to everyone provided they meet the pre-reqs and teacher recommends. We are already doing this advanced math track in elementary schools. So, we don't really have to re-invent the wheel here.

Bot my kids are in AAP, but I have always hated this program. One stupid test taken in 1st/2nd grades shouldn't lock the kids future for years forward. From what I hear from my kids, AAP kids feel entitled or sometime superior to non-AAP kids. I get so angry/upset if any of my kids infer that they are smart because they are in AAP. Apparently, in my kids school AAP kids refer to themselves they are the kids with 'brains' and non-AAP are not smart etc. What the heck is that and where does it come from? Kids shouldn't be separated like that at such young age. I keep shutting my kids if I hear any kind of entitlement, but there isn't a lot we can do from home. Sorry for the rant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

Teacher recs are unreliable and AAP is kind of a joke since people just pay some quack to give their kid a favorable test to ensure admissions.

Btw., the colleges do give a lot of weight to teacher recommendations. The know how to spot the genuine talent based on the wording, which are usually different from generic appreciation of a normal good kid. I am sure with a bit of practice, TJ selection committee could do the same. Also, recommendation from one teacher alone don't justify the admissions with out other supporting factors such as GPA and similar sounding recommendation from two other teachers etc. Bottomline is, if done properly, it can be a valuable tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This outlook that any education policy change that results in a higher proportion of low income Black and Hispanic in elite programs is racist simply because there is less high income Asians is terrible.

Outcomes can't justify a crime.

It isn’t a crime to use GPA to determine access to a program instead of an outside test that the privilege can prep for.

Claiming anything that the rich can’t pay for pay for is a crime is ridiculous and likely a crime in it self since you are blocking the poor from opportunities.

The problem is that we disagree that 1) only the wealthy can prep for the test, and 2) that prep is a difference maker with the possible exception of 1 or 2 kids at the margin. Pointing to kids from Curie is a flawed premise. That's like pointing to Rachel Carson Middle School and saying the kids that got in from there only got in because they had an unfair prep advantage. Many of us believe a different premise - really talented and hard-working students that have been tested to be in that 1-2% of gifted persons decided to work even harder to get into TJ and sought ought opportunities to study up on their math, etc. to get ready for an admissions exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like C4TJ and care less if my kid gets into TJ or not. However, I do have to admit, my kid is really wants to attend TJ. Despite many folks think on this forum, very few are actually opposed to more diversity, including and providing better opportunities for under privileged students. I like the diversity in our public schools. The primary issue is how FCPS went about implementing the new process with so many holes in it and the criteria they carefully selected to undermine specific group(s) of kids.

I don't know whats the real intent is, but it sure as hell appears to undermine the kids from AAP center schools. Be it the 'attending' school based quotas, undermining the GPA against the writing skills just to name a couple. Why is it so hard to implement the quotas based on 'base' school instead (or school pyramid), all the center kids really do come from the same geographic areas as base schools anyway. The innocent victims of this process is non-AAP kids zoned to center skills. I don't mind removing Quant-Q, but why not give a more weightage to GPA and less to others (ex: 80% GPA, 10% essay and 10% portrait sheet) and why not have teacher recommendations? I am pretty sure board members are not stupid enough not have considered this. However, they might have realized if they do consider it, it will go against their goal of cutting down the very students they want to cut down from the start.

As someone said earlier in this forum, the more practical and much fairer solution could be to raise the min GPA to 3.75 until at least 3rd quarter of 8th grade, require all the core courses to be honors, slowly raise the Geo HN required by 8th (open up Algebra I HN to all), add a little bit (not too much) of weightage to portrait sheet and teacher recommendations - and finally select from the qualified kids using LOTTERY. There will not be any discrimination what so ever.

I think you make a lot of good points here, but I take issue with the idea that the point was to "undermine" kids who are attending center schools. The very point of the 1.5% allocation rule was to open up spaces and possibilities to kids who do NOT attend center schools - which, by the way, still get FAR more kids in to TJ from FCPS than do non-center schools.

It's not right that a late-bloomer who discovers their interest in STEM and their passion for an exceptional collaborative learning environment is shut out of the process just because they didn't end up qualifying for a center program.

I agree with you about the teacher recommendations and frankly think that the number should probably be at 1% instead of 1.5%, and I think most of your other ideas have merit. I would expect FCPS to slowly move in that direction once there is wide understanding that TJ is open to students from all schools.

Teacher recs are unreliable and AAP is kind of a joke since people just pay some quack to give their kid a favorable test to ensure admissions.

Btw., the colleges do give a lot of weight to teacher recommendations. The know how to spot the genuine talent based on the wording, which are usually different from generic appreciation of a normal good kid. I am sure with a bit of practice, TJ selection committee could do the same. Also, recommendation from one teacher alone don't justify the admissions with out other supporting factors such as GPA and similar sounding recommendation from two other teachers etc. Bottomline is, if done properly, it can be a valuable tool.

Continuing the previous post - I am sure all, if not most of us have provided job referrals for friends, ex-colleagues etc. I definitely do word very differently depending on who asked for it. If the candidate is really good, I would go an extra length and explain why I think that particular candidate is a really good fit and even provide some concrete examples etc. Otherwise, I would forward resume with not too many words of my own.