Race and TJ admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Makes sense to me, but trying telling that to people who feel entitled to buying their way in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

It sounds like new process was much more fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

DP. I don't get why you that the old admissions were 100% better than the new admissions. I am not sold on the "underrepresented school" bump and I think the process was rushed too quickly to properly adjust geographic set-asides for base schools and center schools. I am aware that the intent of legislation is examined during these challenges but I also think the result, the new admissions guidelines, are solid, after some possible/probable tweaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

DP. I don't get why you that the old admissions were 100% better than the new admissions. I am not sold on the "underrepresented school" bump and I think the process was rushed too quickly to properly adjust geographic set-asides for base schools and center schools. I am aware that the intent of legislation is examined during these challenges but I also think the result, the new admissions guidelines, are solid, after some possible/probable tweaking.

I have never said the previous process was better. I believe it was flawed as is the new one. The Board could have and should have done better. Consulted with more of the impacted folks and designed a better process. No way you are pleasing everyone but you could try to at least reach out.

Instead we had an administration that was painting a whole community as “cheaters” only to defend their poor decisions. So no - the previous process sucked as does the current one. My beef is with the ideology driven folks who are wasting our tax dollars defending this half-baked process that is discriminatory in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

I agree with this poster. 1 year of artificially elevated number of Black kids does nothing for the long-term goal of increasing achievement of underrepresented student population. It also divides communities and may have a very detrimental long term effect. This is not a smart way to change the way we admit students to TJ. The way it was done indicates a quick political point to be gained. Kids were never at the center of the decision making process, just read the TJ papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

I agree with this poster. 1 year of artificially elevated number of Black kids does nothing for the long-term goal of increasing achievement of underrepresented student population. It also divides communities and may have a very detrimental long term effect. This is not a smart way to change the way we admit students to TJ. The way it was done indicates a quick political point to be gained. Kids were never at the center of the decision making process, just read the TJ papers.

Oh please. Any change would cause great hue and outcry. Someone upthread (or maybe on a different thread) proposed phasing in changes in the admissions process over several years. So that children would have time to curate their resumes properly, apparently. That certainly doesn't put children "at the center of the decision making process".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

DP. I don't get why you that the old admissions were 100% better than the new admissions. I am not sold on the "underrepresented school" bump and I think the process was rushed too quickly to properly adjust geographic set-asides for base schools and center schools. I am aware that the intent of legislation is examined during these challenges but I also think the result, the new admissions guidelines, are solid, after some possible/probable tweaking.

I have never said the previous process was better. I believe it was flawed as is the new one. The Board could have and should have done better. Consulted with more of the impacted folks and designed a better process. No way you are pleasing everyone but you could try to at least reach out.

Instead we had an administration that was painting a whole community as “cheaters” only to defend their poor decisions. So no - the previous process sucked as does the current one. My beef is with the ideology driven folks who are wasting our tax dollars defending this half-baked process that is discriminatory in the first place.

Were families of low socioeconomic means consulted before the original admissions policies were introduced - which resulted in less than 1% of students at TJ historically falling into that category?

No. Upper-middle class Asians wanted to be consulted as to what process could be used that would effectively reduce their numbers without hurting their feelings. You still occupy 54% of the most recent class - a percentage that tracks almost perfectly with your percentage of the applicant pool. You're not being discriminated against - you're simply not being benefiting from that previous discrimination anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

DP. I don't get why you that the old admissions were 100% better than the new admissions. I am not sold on the "underrepresented school" bump and I think the process was rushed too quickly to properly adjust geographic set-asides for base schools and center schools. I am aware that the intent of legislation is examined during these challenges but I also think the result, the new admissions guidelines, are solid, after some possible/probable tweaking.

I have never said the previous process was better. I believe it was flawed as is the new one. The Board could have and should have done better. Consulted with more of the impacted folks and designed a better process. No way you are pleasing everyone but you could try to at least reach out.

Instead we had an administration that was painting a whole community as “cheaters” only to defend their poor decisions. So no - the previous process sucked as does the current one. My beef is with the ideology driven folks who are wasting our tax dollars defending this half-baked process that is discriminatory in the first place.

Is that really a thing? I mean, I know FCPS and other school districts send out surveys, that may or may not be read by somebody somewhere. But if a high school were to switch from AP to IB, or a new magnet program or Academy were to be created in a high school, would the school district consult with -- students at the existing building, every high school student in the district who might be an applicant, everyone everywhere?