Reflections on the "TJ Papers"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

the reformed process has been struck down. If the 4th circuit affirms, the county will have the choice to return to the previous system or do something else. Given the level of animosity and the extreme dissatisfaction with the previous system by everyone who didn't benefit from it, an academy should definitely be on the table as a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?

To address the issues with the pandemic, it would have been easy to say that the test is suspended in favor of an interim measure (a combination of a lottery/teacher recommendation/essay) for 2 years. Pushing through this level of change and claiming that the Pandemic forced their hand is totally disingenuous. And the TJ papers has Corbett-Sanders on record saying that the board should act because the Floyd situation makes it conducive to do so. So let us not pretend the pandemic was the reason to do this.

I agree with the two points you make. I would also hope the Board would have invested in the impacted schools to build out STEM options. Would have been small price to pay to drive change. Right now you are shut out of TJ and McLean HS continues to be overcrowded. It seems like the Board just treated us as cr@p. And Tholen was asleep at the wheel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?

To address the issues with the pandemic, it would have been easy to say that the test is suspended in favor of an interim measure (a combination of a lottery/teacher recommendation/essay) for 2 years. Pushing through this level of change and claiming that the Pandemic forced their hand is totally disingenuous. And the TJ papers has Corbett-Sanders on record saying that the board should act because the Floyd situation makes it conducive to do so. So let us not pretend the pandemic was the reason to do this.

I agree with the two points you make. I would also hope the Board would have invested in the impacted schools to build out STEM options. Would have been small price to pay to drive change. Right now you are shut out of TJ and McLean HS continues to be overcrowded. It seems like the Board just treated us as cr@p. And Tholen was asleep at the wheel.

I think we agree on a lot of things - perhaps most of all that the Board handled this exceptionally poorly. I appreciate the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?

Does it really matter whether we agree or disagree on this forum? Having said, in my opinion I would be fine with following simpler changes
1. Replace the 'other' experience factors with teacher recommendations and/or any other noteworthy (not cookie cutter participations) achievements.
2. Remove attending school based quotas OR use the school pyramid or 'base' school as a basis for quotas instead OR If it has to 'attending' school for whatever stupid reason (why?), then cut it down to 0.5% or 1% max to reduce the impact on Level IV students.
3. Reduce the weightage of essays that don't really test for STEM in favor of additional weightage for GPA.
4. Make Geometry HN as min requirement unless there is a waiver from school/teacher saying Algebra I HN kid is a really good fit for TJ.
5. Make middle school honors as min requirement for all core subject areas.

Importantly, don't rush through the changes, introduce the above changes gradually especially give at least 2-3 years of notice before introducing the last two min course requirements so students get enough of head start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?

Does it really matter whether we agree or disagree on this forum? Having said, in my opinion I would be fine with following simpler changes
1. Replace the 'other' experience factors with teacher recommendations and/or any other noteworthy (not cookie cutter participations) achievements.
2. Remove attending school based quotas OR use the school pyramid or 'base' school as a basis for quotas instead OR If it has to 'attending' school for whatever stupid reason (why?), then cut it down to 0.5% or 1% max to reduce the impact on Level IV students.
3. Reduce the weightage of essays that don't really test for STEM in favor of additional weightage for GPA.
4. Make Geometry HN as min requirement unless there is a waiver from school/teacher saying Algebra I HN kid is a really good fit for TJ.
5. Make middle school honors as min requirement for all core subject areas.

Importantly, don't rush through the changes, introduce the above changes gradually especially give at least 2-3 years of notice before introducing the last two min course requirements so students get enough of head start.

DP. I agree with all of your points. For #4, FCPS should stop gatekeeping Algebra I in 7th grade. They could instead advise kids on the most appropriate math courses based on IAAT, SOL, and teacher recommendation, but ultimately let people opt in or out as they choose. URM or low income kids could be supported through Algebra I in 7th through programs like AVID. For #5, I also strongly agree. There is no reason whatsoever to exempt potential TJ candidates from taking honors in all core subjects since they are all open enrollment. If a kid can't hack English or History honors in middle school, there's no way they can handle TJ English or humanities classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools. Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain. Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues. We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example. we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith). But these issues do not belong n school. Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools. Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain. Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues. We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example. we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith). But these issues do not belong n school. Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain.

How on earth do you teach US history without touching on slavery or Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? How do you teach AP US history without including the Klan or Japanese internment or Tulsa or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the stonewall riots?

[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:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools. Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain. Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues. We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example. we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith). But these issues do not belong n school. Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain.

How on earth do you teach US history without touching on slavery or Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? How do you teach AP US history without including the Klan or Japanese internment or Tulsa or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the stonewall riots?

You can't. There should be broad national consensus around the idea that all of these (save the civil rights movement, obviously) were horrifying incidents in our nation's history that we must do everything in our power to ensure never happen again. There are two sides to each of those issues, but one is good and one is evil and believing that is a fundamental part of being American. Call it indoctrination if you want, but "Don't enslave others and don't put them in concentration camps" is something I'm fine with our kids being indoctrinated into.

[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:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools. Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain. Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues. We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example. we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith). But these issues do not belong n school. Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain.

How on earth do you teach US history without touching on slavery or Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? How do you teach AP US history without including the Klan or Japanese internment or Tulsa or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the stonewall riots?

CRT is not the history of civil rights. Let us not conflate the two. Absolutely slavery is something all students should know about. However unless there is braid consensus that history needs to be taught through the lens of CRT, we should stay away.

[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:Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process. Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1. The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2. Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process. At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3. Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4. Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5. The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand. Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist. Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar. Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white." Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member. Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers. And so on.

6. The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools. Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7. Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation. This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office. They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance. If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination.

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?

They weren't. The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students. Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS. And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have.

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.

The problem is #3. You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system. As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right. There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic . There was not enough consultation. I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted. thatb would have taken time. But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board. While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that. 2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience". You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)

What specifically would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT. I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college. It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws). There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum. Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination. Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools. Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain. Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues. We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example. we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith). But these issues do not belong n school. Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain.

How on earth do you teach US history without touching on slavery or Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? How do you teach AP US history without including the Klan or Japanese internment or Tulsa or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the stonewall riots?

You can't. There should be broad national consensus around the idea that all of these (save the civil rights movement, obviously) were horrifying incidents in our nation's history that we must do everything in our power to ensure never happen again. There are two sides to each of those issues, but one is good and one is evil and believing that is a fundamental part of being American. Call it indoctrination if you want, but "Don't enslave others and don't put them in concentration camps" is something I'm fine with our kids being indoctrinated into.

OK, how about adding "Don't murder people in the womb."