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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The value of a reimagined teacher recommendation form would be for teachers at schools like Rachel Carson to distinguish the excellent students there who are genuinely talented and contribute positively to the overall environment from the excellent students there who are either over-accelerated, over-prepared, or do not contribute positively to the overall environment.

Designed properly, the teacher recommendation process should assist the Admissions Committee in comparing students AT THE SAME SCHOOL with each other to give a better sense of who truly belongs in those allocated seats.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think you meant Asian. Check the thread title.

[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.

I think you meant Asian. Check the thread title.

ROFLMAO

[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 genuinely curious here. Lets say hypothetically, we distribute 60% (or 80% or some other number? - and remaining % in open allocation) TJ admissions highest evaluated students to each school pyramid proportional to how many 8th graders are in each pyramid irrespective of attending schools. So my question is why do you think all these admissions will be grabbed by AAP students which warrants an attending school based quota? No where it says AAP kids will have better GPA when its unweighted and every kid in center or non-center school can easily meet the qualifying GPA and course requirements. Just wondering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

OK, then. In practice, I will have my child bloom in AAP in middle school or base high school before trying out TJ. Better? I bet many parents and kids feel this way.

[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 genuinely curious here. Lets say hypothetically, we distribute 60% (or 80% or some other number? - and remaining % in open allocation) TJ admissions highest evaluated students to each school pyramid proportional to how many 8th graders are in each pyramid irrespective of attending schools. So my question is why do you think all these admissions will be grabbed by AAP students which warrants an attending school based quota? No where it says AAP kids will have better GPA when its unweighted and every kid in center or non-center school can easily meet the qualifying GPA and course requirements. Just wondering

I have two answers to that question:

1) I believe they will almost all be snagged by AAP students attending a center because historically, that's who has gotten seats no matter how the process has worked until seats were allocated by attending school.

2) It's important to use attending school as the criterion because a student who applies from a historically underrepresented school - say, Whitman - is guaranteed that several of the kids who they currently go to school with will also be admitted. Historically, many students from underrepresented schools who did get in turned down their offers of admission once they attended Freshmen Preview Night and realized that there were no familiar faces there with them - as other students from Carson or Longfellow had a cohort of 60-80 to commiserate with. TJ is a challenging enough environment without having zero familiar faces or zero kids who look like you when you get started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

OK, then. In practice, I will have my child bloom in AAP in middle school or base high school before trying out TJ. Better? I bet many parents and kids feel this way.

Yeah, no. That's not better. There are a staggeringly small number of students who are selected as froshmores and they have a huge hill to climb in order to catch up after missing freshman year, which is very intentionally designed to get kids ready for the rest of the TJ experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

OK, then. In practice, I will have my child bloom in AAP in middle school or base high school before trying out TJ. Better? I bet many parents and kids feel this way.

Yeah, no. That's not better. There are a staggeringly small number of students who are selected as froshmores and they have a huge hill to climb in order to catch up after missing freshman year, which is very intentionally designed to get kids ready for the rest of the TJ experience.

Well, let's agree to disagree. I would be scared as a parent to have my child go to TJ unless I thought he/she was ready. But perhaps I am more protective of my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

OK, then. In practice, I will have my child bloom in AAP in middle school or base high school before trying out TJ. Better? I bet many parents and kids feel this way.

Yeah, no. That's not better. There are a staggeringly small number of students who are selected as froshmores and they have a huge hill to climb in order to catch up after missing freshman year, which is very intentionally designed to get kids ready for the rest of the TJ experience.

Well, let's agree to disagree. I would be scared as a parent to have my child go to TJ unless I thought he/she was ready. But perhaps I am more protective of my children.

Fair enough. Many of the ills of today’s society come from parents being unwilling to expose their children to adversity or struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

OK, then. In practice, I will have my child bloom in AAP in middle school or base high school before trying out TJ. Better? I bet many parents and kids feel this way.

Yeah, no. That's not better. There are a staggeringly small number of students who are selected as froshmores and they have a huge hill to climb in order to catch up after missing freshman year, which is very intentionally designed to get kids ready for the rest of the TJ experience.

Well, let's agree to disagree. I would be scared as a parent to have my child go to TJ unless I thought he/she was ready. But perhaps I am more protective of my children.

Fair enough. Many of the ills of today’s society come from parents being unwilling to expose their children to adversity or struggle.

Again, let's agree to disagree. Many of the ills of today's society come from parents forcing their children into things too soon or by too much. Prepping is one example. You want your children in the right environment, gaining confidence as necessary, experiencing failure as well. Don't want them to be winning all the time or failing all the time.

[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 genuinely curious here. Lets say hypothetically, we distribute 60% (or 80% or some other number? - and remaining % in open allocation) TJ admissions highest evaluated students to each school pyramid proportional to how many 8th graders are in each pyramid irrespective of attending schools. So my question is why do you think all these admissions will be grabbed by AAP students which warrants an attending school based quota? No where it says AAP kids will have better GPA when its unweighted and every kid in center or non-center school can easily meet the qualifying GPA and course requirements. Just wondering

I have two answers to that question:

1) I believe they will almost all be snagged by AAP students attending a center because historically, that's who has gotten seats no matter how the process has worked until seats were allocated by attending school.

2) It's important to use attending school as the criterion because a student who applies from a historically underrepresented school - say, Whitman - is guaranteed that several of the kids who they currently go to school with will also be admitted. Historically, many students from underrepresented schools who did get in turned down their offers of admission once they attended Freshmen Preview Night and realized that there were no familiar faces there with them - as other students from Carson or Longfellow had a cohort of 60-80 to commiserate with. TJ is a challenging enough environment without having zero familiar faces or zero kids who look like you when you get started.

Fair points! Though, I do feel its a little unfair in two ways 1. The process is saying AAP students that they have an unfair advantage just because they are in AAP and needs to dumb down even they came from same elementary schools to begin with. 2. It also says to non-AAP students that they still aren't good enough to compete with their peers/neighbors who were AAP, so they need special quota just to get it. Not sure how this dynamic will play after they get to TJ. Interesting though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 genuinely curious here. Lets say hypothetically, we distribute 60% (or 80% or some other number? - and remaining % in open allocation) TJ admissions highest evaluated students to each school pyramid proportional to how many 8th graders are in each pyramid irrespective of attending schools. So my question is why do you think all these admissions will be grabbed by AAP students which warrants an attending school based quota? No where it says AAP kids will have better GPA when its unweighted and every kid in center or non-center school can easily meet the qualifying GPA and course requirements. Just wondering

I have two answers to that question:

1) I believe they will almost all be snagged by AAP students attending a center because historically, that's who has gotten seats no matter how the process has worked until seats were allocated by attending school.

2) It's important to use attending school as the criterion because a student who applies from a historically underrepresented school - say, Whitman - is guaranteed that several of the kids who they currently go to school with will also be admitted. Historically, many students from underrepresented schools who did get in turned down their offers of admission once they attended Freshmen Preview Night and realized that there were no familiar faces there with them - as other students from Carson or Longfellow had a cohort of 60-80 to commiserate with. TJ is a challenging enough environment without having zero familiar faces or zero kids who look like you when you get started.

Fair points! Though, I do feel its a little unfair in two ways 1. The process is saying AAP students that they have an unfair advantage just because they are in AAP and needs to dumb down even they came from same elementary schools to begin with. 2. It also says to non-AAP students that they still aren't good enough to compete with their peers/neighbors who were AAP, so they need special quota just to get it. Not sure how this dynamic will play after they get to TJ. Interesting though!

There are quite a few threads here which brag about TJ students achievements such as premier college admissions, scholarships, winning various competitions etc. I hope it still says the same after say 4 more years when the entire cohort will be replaced by new process. I have heard from two different kids currently attending TJ that there is a stigma against the freshman students. The perception is that may of the freshman students do not belong there, not up to TJ standards or not able to compete well enough etc. There could be a considerable perception bias and I can't take this statement(s) at the face value, but it does raise doubts about the efficacy of the new process. We will just have to wait and see!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sports and academics are two different things. Analogies are not applicable.

that's why it is called an analogy. just because it doesn't suit your argument, doesn't mean the analogy is not valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 genuinely curious here. Lets say hypothetically, we distribute 60% (or 80% or some other number? - and remaining % in open allocation) TJ admissions highest evaluated students to each school pyramid proportional to how many 8th graders are in each pyramid irrespective of attending schools. So my question is why do you think all these admissions will be grabbed by AAP students which warrants an attending school based quota? No where it says AAP kids will have better GPA when its unweighted and every kid in center or non-center school can easily meet the qualifying GPA and course requirements. Just wondering

I have two answers to that question:

1) I believe they will almost all be snagged by AAP students attending a center because historically, that's who has gotten seats no matter how the process has worked until seats were allocated by attending school.

2) It's important to use attending school as the criterion because a student who applies from a historically underrepresented school - say, Whitman - is guaranteed that several of the kids who they currently go to school with will also be admitted. Historically, many students from underrepresented schools who did get in turned down their offers of admission once they attended Freshmen Preview Night and realized that there were no familiar faces there with them - as other students from Carson or Longfellow had a cohort of 60-80 to commiserate with. TJ is a challenging enough environment without having zero familiar faces or zero kids who look like you when you get started.

Fair points! Though, I do feel its a little unfair in two ways 1. The process is saying AAP students that they have an unfair advantage just because they are in AAP and needs to dumb down even they came from same elementary schools to begin with. 2. It also says to non-AAP students that they still aren't good enough to compete with their peers/neighbors who were AAP, so they need special quota just to get it. Not sure how this dynamic will play after they get to TJ. Interesting though!

There are quite a few threads here which brag about TJ students achievements such as premier college admissions, scholarships, winning various competitions etc. I hope it still says the same after say 4 more years when the entire cohort will be replaced by new process. I have heard from two different kids currently attending TJ that there is a stigma against the freshman students. The perception is that may of the freshman students do not belong there, not up to TJ standards or not able to compete well enough etc. There could be a considerable perception bias and I can't take this statement(s) at the face value, but it does raise doubts about the efficacy of the new process. We will just have to wait and see!

It seemed like a toxic place before, it seems like a toxic place now, and eventually it will just be an above average high school that replicates the academic performance of an Oakton while drawing from a wider area.