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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The VA DOE Governor's school page specifically states that the mission is as follows: "The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers."

In light of this, FCPS needs to pick a lane. Either the kids who are very accelerated in math have learning levels remarkably different from their age level peers, and thus belong at TJ, or they don't have learning levels remarkably different from their peers, and thus can be accommodated by appropriately advanced courses offered in their base schools or in nearby academy programs.

FCPS can't have it both ways, where it decides that some kids aren't advanced enough to need TJ, but are too advanced to be accommodated otherwise.

Studies have shown that offering too many advanced courses at base school only furthers the achievement gap between slow and aspiring learners. The unintended consequence of implementing equitable education in public schools is access to advanced courses gets limited.

I take issue with juxtaposing "slow" and "aspiring" learners. Those two are not mutually exclusive at all and to suggest they are is cruel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The VA DOE Governor's school page specifically states that the mission is as follows: "The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers."

In light of this, FCPS needs to pick a lane. Either the kids who are very accelerated in math have learning levels remarkably different from their age level peers, and thus belong at TJ, or they don't have learning levels remarkably different from their peers, and thus can be accommodated by appropriately advanced courses offered in their base schools or in nearby academy programs.

FCPS can't have it both ways, where it decides that some kids aren't advanced enough to need TJ, but are too advanced to be accommodated otherwise.

Studies have shown that offering too many advanced courses at base school only furthers the achievement gap between slow and aspiring learners. The unintended consequence of implementing equitable education in public schools is access to advanced courses gets limited.

If the achievement gap increasing because the ceiling for top performers are rising, what's the problem? If the bottom learners are doing worse - shouldn't we concentrate on lifting up the floor, rather than lowering the ceiling? I think achievement gap is the worst metric for gauging school policy success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The VA DOE Governor's school page specifically states that the mission is as follows: "The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers."

In light of this, FCPS needs to pick a lane. Either the kids who are very accelerated in math have learning levels remarkably different from their age level peers, and thus belong at TJ, or they don't have learning levels remarkably different from their peers, and thus can be accommodated by appropriately advanced courses offered in their base schools or in nearby academy programs.

FCPS can't have it both ways, where it decides that some kids aren't advanced enough to need TJ, but are too advanced to be accommodated otherwise.

Studies have shown that offering too many advanced courses at base school only furthers the achievement gap between slow and aspiring learners. The unintended consequence of implementing equitable education in public schools is access to advanced courses gets limited.

If the achievement gap increasing because the ceiling for top performers are rising, what's the problem? If the bottom learners are doing worse - shouldn't we concentrate on lifting up the floor, rather than lowering the ceiling? I think achievement gap is the worst metric for gauging school policy success.

Isnt this what happens in a democracy? School Board candidates have promised reducing educational achievement gap, and voters that liked that promise have elected those politicians into majority. Now that politicians have to deliver, there exist two choices: (1) Put a ceiling on the overachievers or (2) Lift the underachievers. Which option is fast and easy to deliver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Would FCPS even take that "A" in precalc if it wasn't a FCPS course? Suppose the kid took precalc in 8th at Basis? would FCPS say ok, an "A" at Basis is good enough, or would they test the kid, or just put the kid in an FCPS track? What is it wasn't Basis, but "Phoenix Home School" or some other nonaccredited school?

I think they do. I've heard of 8th graders taking calculus after attending BASIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The VA DOE Governor's school page specifically states that the mission is as follows: "The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers."

In light of this, FCPS needs to pick a lane. Either the kids who are very accelerated in math have learning levels remarkably different from their age level peers, and thus belong at TJ, or they don't have learning levels remarkably different from their peers, and thus can be accommodated by appropriately advanced courses offered in their base schools or in nearby academy programs.

FCPS can't have it both ways, where it decides that some kids aren't advanced enough to need TJ, but are too advanced to be accommodated otherwise.

Studies have shown that offering too many advanced courses at base school only furthers the achievement gap between slow and aspiring learners. The unintended consequence of implementing equitable education in public schools is access to advanced courses gets limited.

If the achievement gap increasing because the ceiling for top performers are rising, what's the problem? If the bottom learners are doing worse - shouldn't we concentrate on lifting up the floor, rather than lowering the ceiling? I think achievement gap is the worst metric for gauging school policy success.

Isnt this what happens in a democracy? School Board candidates have promised reducing educational achievement gap, and voters that liked that promise have elected those politicians into majority. Now that politicians have to deliver, there exist two choices: (1) Put a ceiling on the overachievers or (2) Lift the underachievers. Which option is fast and easy to deliver?

Dont' blame democracy for not making the trains run on time. it's bad leaders and loud voices leading to bad choices. The system itself is not at fault.

[Anonymous]

Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The VA DOE Governor's school page specifically states that the mission is as follows: "The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers."

In light of this, FCPS needs to pick a lane. Either the kids who are very accelerated in math have learning levels remarkably different from their age level peers, and thus belong at TJ, or they don't have learning levels remarkably different from their peers, and thus can be accommodated by appropriately advanced courses offered in their base schools or in nearby academy programs.

FCPS can't have it both ways, where it decides that some kids aren't advanced enough to need TJ, but are too advanced to be accommodated otherwise.

Correct. FCPS should decline to continue to host a Governor's school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is clear that Asian-American students are disproportionately harmed by the Fairfax County School Board’s decision to overhaul TJ admissions,” Hon. Claude M Hilton, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote. “Currently and in the future, Asian-American applicants are disproportionately deprived of a level playing field in competing for both allocated and unallocated seats.”

Hilton also called the school board’s process for implementing the changes “remarkably rushed and shoddy” with “a noticeable lack of public engagement and transparency.”

Looks like the FCPS board is the problem. Has the FCPS board changed since this finding in 2022?

Mr. Claude Hilton is flat out wrong, if not lying through his teeth. It's surprising a judge would state such lengths of misinformation. Either he did not look at the data and is only spitting out his opinion, or he did look at the data and does not understand how to apply basic math and proportions. In that case, perhaps he is not fit to serve as a judge.

Here are proportions proving mathematically that Asians are not "disproportionately harmed."

"Class of 2024:
The total hit rate per application was 19.14%.
355 seats were offered to Asian students, coming from 1,423 applications for a hit rate of 24.94%.
86 seats were offered to white students, coming from 595 applications for a hit rate of 14.45%.
A maximum of 9 seats were offered to Black students, coming from 160 applications for a maximum hit rate of 5.63%. The actual hit rate was likely much lower.
16 seats were offered to Hispanic students from 208 applications for a hit rate of 7.69%.

When cultural factors and compounding evidence like the Curie matter are taken into account, it is noncontroversial to assert that the previous process disproportionately favored Asian students and had a clear disparate impact on all other demographics.

Class of 2025:
The total hit rate per application was 18.13%.
299 seats were offered to Asian students from 1,535 applications for a hit rate of 19.48%. Still slightly favored, but no longer in a statistically significant manner.
123 seats were offered to white students from 726 applications for a hit rate of 16.94%. Still slightly disfavored, but again, not significantly.
39 seats were offered to Black students from 272 applications for a hit rate of 14.33%. Seems like there's still some work to be done here, but at least we're in reasonable territory.
62 seats were offered to Hispanic students from 295 applications for a hit rate of 21.02%. Favored, but only about half as much as Asians were pre-changes."

Whoever quoted my work here, thanks

is this accurate information? source?

https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

Why hasnt FCPS released admissions data for 2027 clas? Is it true that compared to 2024 class, the number of applicants for certain ethnic groups has declined but the number of offers made to those respective groups has somehow stayed the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are fighting racism. Jane Doe of Roe v. Wade didn’t drop her case after her baby was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are fighting racism. Jane Doe of Roe v. Wade didn’t drop her case after her baby was born.

They're fighting to institutionalize racism. If one policy is inclusive and the other is exclusive, and you're fighting for the one that is exclusive, you're the racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are fighting racism. Jane Doe of Roe v. Wade didn’t drop her case after her baby was born.

They're fighting to institutionalize racism. If one policy is inclusive and the other is exclusive, and you're fighting for the one that is exclusive, you're the racist.

It is not exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are fighting racism. Jane Doe of Roe v. Wade didn’t drop her case after her baby was born.

They're fighting to institutionalize racism. If one policy is inclusive and the other is exclusive, and you're fighting for the one that is exclusive, you're the racist.

It is not exclusive.

It is manifestly exclusive. Less than 1% of incoming TJ classes for decades have come from economically disadvantaged families and there had not been enough Black students at TJ under the prior admissions process to fill a single graduating class after 33 years.

That is the definition of exclusive, if not de jure, then certainly de facto. And what the PLF is currently trying to convince the federal courts of is that the new admissions process engages in de facto discrimination against Asian students, when the evidence for such is FAR less clear than the obvious evidence of de facto segregation/discrimination under the previous process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are fighting racism. Jane Doe of Roe v. Wade didn’t drop her case after her baby was born.

They're fighting to institutionalize racism. If one policy is inclusive and the other is exclusive, and you're fighting for the one that is exclusive, you're the racist.

It is not exclusive.

It is manifestly exclusive. Less than 1% of incoming TJ classes for decades have come from economically disadvantaged families and there had not been enough Black students at TJ under the prior admissions process to fill a single graduating class after 33 years.

That is the definition of exclusive, if not de jure, then certainly de facto. And what the PLF is currently trying to convince the federal courts of is that the new admissions process engages in de facto discrimination against Asian students, when the evidence for such is FAR less clear than the obvious evidence of de facto segregation/discrimination under the previous process.

SO. MUCH. THIS.

If the operative term here is going to be “disparate impact”, there is approximately a thousand times more evidence to convict the prior admissions process of DI against poor kids and Black/Hispanic kids than there is with which to accuse the current admissions process of DI against Asians.

If you can’t do the math on that one, your claims of Asian supremacy are even more unfounded than I previously thought.