Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
FCPS identifies kids who are above and beyond in math and skips them ahead sometimes multiple years. No summer school is required for highly gifted kids to take Algebra in 6th or even 5th grade in FCPS. Additionally, AoPS and RSM will grade skip kids, sometimes multiple years, if they think a kid is extraordinary. If none of these have happened for your kid, then it's likely that the new policies are helping your kid leapfrog the kids to whom this applies.
In the FCPS framework, kids taking Geometry in 8th are garden variety bright. Almost 20% of FCPS kids manage to do so.
Please, my kids school is well aware that he is farther ahead in math then they are teaching and the Teachers have told us that they can't do any more for him but that next year all the kids in Advanced Math will be together so things should move more quickly. His CogAT Q score was 145, he is well ahead of the curve in the iReady scores. But no one at the school has suggested that there is anything they can do to make math less boring. There are a few schools that are comfortable with skipping kids ahead in math but it is not the norm. Our school is a UMC school and it is not interested in suggestions of moving a kid ahead in math.
As for Asian schools, the Asian school system works differently then the US system. I believe that there is tracking in those schools. The kids who are taking trig in 9th grade are not the same 9th graders as in the US. There is also far more emphasis on supplementing and tutoring across the board. You are comparing apples to oranges and you are well aware of that. TJ serves FCPS, which follows a different system and runs schools very differently. I am not going to push my kid to reach the standards of kids on a specific track in Singapore or Japan or South Korea.
How do you define standard instruction? At 14 British kids can drop geography and history if they want. They have to make a selection of about 10/12 subjects to study and GCSE without much gatekeeping.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
In the United Kingdom 14-16 year olds have the option of studying GCSE further maths that includes calculus
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
Kids who fail to qualify for Algebra within FCPS are not particularly good at math. Some kids who qualify for Algebra are also not particularly good at math. It makes much more sense to weed out the Algebra kids who aren't good at math than it does to admit a bunch of kids who we already know aren't good at math.
TJ math is not regular high school math. It is much more rigorous and moves much faster. Kids who aren't ready for Algebra in 7th won't be able to handle TJ math. If you admit them anyway, you're either setting them up to fail, or you need to lobby to have TJ water down its math classes.
There have been THOUSANDS of kids over the years who have been perfectly successful coming in with only Algebra at TJ. Fifteen years ago the MAJORITY of TJ kids entered in Geometry. It's not the disaster that you think it is.
TJ teachers would disagree with you strongly in this sentiment.
In the past, it was harder for kids to take Algebra in 7th, so there were still many smart kids taking it in 8th. Now, it's quite easy to take it in 7th, so the smart kids taking it in 8th are few and far between. Kids who aren't very strong at math will struggle at TJ.
What was required in the past that made it way harder?
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
Kids who fail to qualify for Algebra within FCPS are not particularly good at math. Some kids who qualify for Algebra are also not particularly good at math. It makes much more sense to weed out the Algebra kids who aren't good at math than it does to admit a bunch of kids who we already know aren't good at math.
TJ math is not regular high school math. It is much more rigorous and moves much faster. Kids who aren't ready for Algebra in 7th won't be able to handle TJ math. If you admit them anyway, you're either setting them up to fail, or you need to lobby to have TJ water down its math classes.
There have been THOUSANDS of kids over the years who have been perfectly successful coming in with only Algebra at TJ. Fifteen years ago the MAJORITY of TJ kids entered in Geometry. It's not the disaster that you think it is.
TJ teachers would disagree with you strongly in this sentiment.
In the past, it was harder for kids to take Algebra in 7th, so there were still many smart kids taking it in 8th. Now, it's quite easy to take it in 7th, so the smart kids taking it in 8th are few and far between. Kids who aren't very strong at math will struggle at TJ.
What was required in the past that made it way harder?
The main difference was that in 6th grade they needed pass advanced on the 8th grade math SOL rather than the 7th grade one. The IAAT cutoff was also higher.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
Kids who fail to qualify for Algebra within FCPS are not particularly good at math. Some kids who qualify for Algebra are also not particularly good at math. It makes much more sense to weed out the Algebra kids who aren't good at math than it does to admit a bunch of kids who we already know aren't good at math.
TJ math is not regular high school math. It is much more rigorous and moves much faster. Kids who aren't ready for Algebra in 7th won't be able to handle TJ math. If you admit them anyway, you're either setting them up to fail, or you need to lobby to have TJ water down its math classes.
There have been THOUSANDS of kids over the years who have been perfectly successful coming in with only Algebra at TJ. Fifteen years ago the MAJORITY of TJ kids entered in Geometry. It's not the disaster that you think it is.
TJ teachers would disagree with you strongly in this sentiment.
In the past, it was harder for kids to take Algebra in 7th, so there were still many smart kids taking it in 8th. Now, it's quite easy to take it in 7th, so the smart kids taking it in 8th are few and far between. Kids who aren't very strong at math will struggle at TJ.
This is fascinating as my son is in classes in college with kids who went to TJ and he is running circles around SOME of them, just as other kids from different HSs are running circles around him in some of his classes. He is a sophomore at GA Tech. He did not take Algebra 1 until 8th grade.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Do you think this is the standard track for Chinese kids living in rural China? Do you have a clue how China tracks their kids in school so how many kids are left out of the "standard track?" It's a lot.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Do you think this is the standard track for Chinese kids living in rural China? Do you have a clue how China tracks their kids in school so how many kids are left out of the "standard track?" It's a lot.
I am not exactly sure whats your point is here. The the last two links is Indian 'standard' ICSE curriculum and there are these schools all across in India including small towns. I am sure there are kids who are left out in India/China who cannot keep up with the curriculum or moved down a grade as a result. Its not much different here or any other country. You don't want to dumb down the entire curriculum designed for everyone just because few kids aren't able to keep up for whatever reason. Left out doesn't mean kids will be automatically kicked out (some will drop out, sure, just like here), it only means they are performing well below the average kid in the class and in that case its better for those kids to spend an extra year to improve the skills than bring everyone down.
All the PP was saying is Geometry in 8th is not a really high bar reserved for truly gifted and you might find quite a few kids do it if FCPS lifts the restrictions for Algebra I in 7th and teach pre-algebra in 6th as a standard.
After all, we talking about TJ, which is supposed to be best STEM 'Magnent' school in the country. So, Geometry in 8th as a minimum requirement is not that difficult to meet. Even right now, about 20-25% of 8th graders are already taking Geo in 8th grade and if we open it up for all, I am sure 30-40% will be able to take and there will be plenty of TJ aspirants that will satisfy this requirement. You are free to disagree if you want to!
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Nanjing International School is not a Chinese public school. ICSE is a standard for a subset of schools in India, and is considered more difficult than the standard track.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
DP. It isn't a problem for parents to provide for their kids. It IS a problem when ALL of the resources allocated by the county go EXCLUSIVELY to kids who enjoy that advantage.
Believing that it is a punishment to share access is the mindset of the entitled. You should be providing for your kids so that they have a great life that contributes to society, not so that they have a leg up in a school admissions process.
Providing for children became a problem because TJ became majority Asians. It was never a problem when TJ was majority white.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Do you think this is the standard track for Chinese kids living in rural China? Do you have a clue how China tracks their kids in school so how many kids are left out of the "standard track?" It's a lot.
I am not exactly sure whats your point is here. The the last two links is Indian 'standard' ICSE curriculum and there are these schools all across in India including small towns. I am sure there are kids who are left out in India/China who cannot keep up with the curriculum or moved down a grade as a result. Its not much different here or any other country. You don't want to dumb down the entire curriculum designed for everyone just because few kids aren't able to keep up for whatever reason. Left out doesn't mean kids will be automatically kicked out (some will drop out, sure, just like here), it only means they are performing well below the average kid in the class and in that case its better for those kids to spend an extra year to improve the skills than bring everyone down.
All the PP was saying is Geometry in 8th is not a really high bar reserved for truly gifted and you might find quite a few kids do it if FCPS lifts the restrictions for Algebra I in 7th and teach pre-algebra in 6th as a standard.
After all, we talking about TJ, which is supposed to be best STEM 'Magnent' school in the country. So, Geometry in 8th as a minimum requirement is not that difficult to meet. Even right now, about 20-25% of 8th graders are already taking Geo in 8th grade and if we open it up for all, I am sure 30-40% will be able to take and there will be plenty of TJ aspirants that will satisfy this requirement. You are free to disagree if you want to!
ICSE is one of the education standards and many schools choose to follow or they can follow their state designed curriculum. ICSE is usually the most common among the schools as it makes it easier for kids/parents to relocate from one location to another (or state to state) without significant impact on the education.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids. I send my kid to RSM. I support his participating in math competitions. I send him to STEM based summer camps that he chooses.
I don't think that his participation in those programs means he should have a better chance of attending a public magnet school then kids who don't have those opportunities.
The Q test and the PSAT and all of that gave an advantage with the kids whose kids, like mine, could give them more. The new system looks to make decisions based on the areas that every kid in FCPS has access to. So my kid loses his advantage because I could give him more.
If my kid doesn't get into TJ, I can send him to private school. I can afford a better college. My ability to provide for him will continue to give him opportunities that the kid from a low SES school doesn't have.
How convenient it is that in the new system that you champion, your kid is actually more likely to get admitted to TJ than he would have in the old. Carson has quite a lot of brilliant, highly accomplished kids. In the past, your kid most likely had a 0% chance of being one of those kids. Now, every single garden variety bright kid will look the exact same as the highly gifted ones, meaning that with a good essay, they'll leapfrog the truly gifted kids who need TJ. Convenient.
Only on this board do people think that kids taking Geometry in 8th grade is a "garden variety bright kid." You don't know if my kid is gifted or not, hell I don't know if my kid is gifted or not.
Gifted does not automatically equal taking higher level math classes in the summer to move ahead in math so that they can go to TJ.
haha. only in the US, learning geometry in 8th is considered gifted. In many other countries, especially asian, its just standard curriculum and kids start learning trig and stats by 9th and may even get introduced calc by 9th in some places - btw, this is just standard instruction and not for gifted students
citation?
Here you go - I just found this with quick google search - this is standard curriculum for every one in the school. (Note: may be calc in 9th grade might be for advanced track - I might have remembered incorrectly, but trig/stats do start in 9th grade)
Interesting.. So, advanced math in US appears to be just a standard track in asian countries. It should be noted that Algebra in 7th or Geometry is 8th is considered two grade levels above here. I am sure kids here are no different and can pick up if given the opportunity and no need to make a big deal about it.
Nanjing International School is not a Chinese public school. ICSE is a standard for a subset of schools in India, and is considered more difficult than the standard track.
So, are you really saying TJ STEM magnet school is sub-standard when compared to a large number of regular schools (though slightly difficult track) that follow ICSE in India? We are NOT talking about introducing ICSE like syllabus for entire FCPS here. Its just that it should not be that high of a bar for TJ aspirants.
Anonymous wrote:It's funny (and sad) how Asians are mad at African Americans while the number of white students getting in hasn't been impacted.
I think you are interpreting this wrong. I am an asian and I am not mad african americans or whites. In fact, I am happy that more african americans are able to get into TJ. What I am mad at is the process fcps implemented with out thinking through much and in fact going with not so explicit target of cutting down asian students from specific feeder schools without saying race anywhere, but old critiera that was taken out or weightage/points given to new criteria so undermine advantages for specific groups of kids. In the end, they came up with a process that could easily eliminate more deserved students vs others as the new process makes it difficult to identify talent. I would rather be so much happier if they just implemented a lottery for all the qualified candidates as it will be totally unbiased and fair.
it seems more likely because the spots for others have to come from somewhere and with Asians having 70%+ of all spots they were impacted but are still the most well-represented group...
It’s not that I don’t get it. Of course the numbers have to come from somewhere. What I am basically pointing at is the new admission process makes it difficult to identify the STEM talent especially when the writing skills (essay and portrait sheet) gets 2X weightage as compared to entire GPA for all courses put together and on top the unweighted GPA discourages taking advanced courses.
You don’t believe me when I say that my kid probably has equal chances of getting in his feeder school compared to some of his friends who are taking Algebra 2 and even pre-cal in 8th grade. Under the older system with teacher input he would have very little chance. But I still think its unfair for my kid to get selected over his much smarter friends (according my kid), if it actually happens.
All of the kids have to take Honors or AAP Science and Math and at least one other class as an honors class. So their overall GPA included a minimum of three honors classes. I am not sure if electives even have an honors option.
How do you identify STEM talent in 8th grade without including the extra curricular activities? Activities that not every kid has access to because of lack of knowledge, parents with time to take them to and from, or the money to afford the activity. Is it fair that I can afford to send my kid to RSM and robotics club while a kid from a lower SES family is needed at home to watch his/her siblings and cannot afford either activity? That kid could be interested in STEM but never got the chance to explore it to figure that out because they were not exposed while my kid got to take art classes, coding classes, robotics, rec sports, and other things in order to figure out what he liked. Requiring that kids have a solid academic background to attend TJ allows kids who are smart and have STEM skills to attend a school that will push them and expose them to activities and courses that they may not have access to.
I know kids who passed all the tests and had teacher recommendations and were accepted to TJ who went to college and became English Teachers. They had all the STEM credentials a kid needed but could careless about STEM. They went to TJ because their parents wanted them to go there because it was the best and they did great. But they were not STEM kids.
I do think the bar should be raised and that kids should need to have Geometry and Algebra 1 in MS to apply, I don't think that is unreasonable. I think they should keep the guaranteed seats from each MS school. I think you should be judged against the students at the MS school you choose to attend. You have a choice to attend a Center school or not, if you choose the Center school you are accepting the fact that there will be more competition for those seats. I am fine with bringing back letters of recommendation. But TJ should look like the County. There are plenty of smart, motivated kids at lower SES MS who will do well there and they should have a seat at the school. The old system was structured in a way that made that incredibly hard and favored higher SES families. There is nothing wrong with balancing that out and there is nothing wrong with giving kids who have had far fewer opportunities a chance to discover STEM.
I don't think we should put so much responsibility on 6th graders and their school choice shouldn't determine their chances of getting into TJ. If you really want to do it the right away, there shouldn't be a default placement for AAP kids into center school. Instead, at orientation, counselors should openly tell all the 6th graders about how their school choice hurts or benefits their chances of getting into TJ and kids who knew and care about TJ should really think choose their middle school carefully etc. Most 6th graders aren't even aware of this and probably not thinking about high school prospects in 6th grade. My strong opinion is kids chances shouldn't be hurt by his/her choice of middle school and if it does it is totally unfair.
In our case, we were hardly thinking about TJ in 6th grade and our biggest worry at the time was elem->middle transition and what courses/electives to plan and choose when we had so many options to choose from unlike elementary school. We just went with the default placement. Even if they asked us to make our middle school choice based on TJ, we probably would have paid much attention to it.
The best solution (as you said earlier) is to raise the bar a little higher by making Geo Honors required by 8th grade (make Algebra I HN open to all in 7th) and also require all the core courses in both 7th and 8th grade to be Honors (already open to all), raise the min GPA to 3.75 (required to be maintained by end of 8th or admission can be revoked), consider at least 3 quarters of 8th grade GPA at selection time (slight delay in decisions, but plenty of time as there won't any essays to grade etc) and require at least 1 or 2 STEM electives that were offered at their attending middle school. This should cut down the pool a bit, but ensures that TJ aspirants clearly demonstrate interest in STEM by taking advantage of all the resources available at whatever middle school they are attending. Then, choose the kids via LOTTERY from all the who met the criteria and remained in the pool. It eliminates all the bias, whether it is racial, geographical, teacher/school, financial etc. I know our opinions don't really matter, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think about this?
I think you make some fair points and I could see something like this working if you give it time for Alg 1 to be offered openly everywhere in 7th without an IOWA gatekeeper. But I've never liked the lottery concept because I still think you run into too many kids being left out who would genuinely be best served at TJ and cannot be well-served anywhere else.
I bolded the piece about school choice determining TJ access because in reality, the previous admissions process did just that. If you were at a center school, you had an EXCELLENT chance to get in for various reasons, and if you didn't, you were likely out of luck. The number of structural advantages that center schools had under the previous process goes far beyond just having more AAP students - you had entire communities that prioritized the TJ process for years and helped each other with navigating it for years. The new admissions process gives every interested student a chance to believe that they might be selected and afforded the advanced opportunities.
If the new admission process provides better opportunity for all kids, then there is no need to punish the kids who happened to default center school as they weren’t aware it would hurt their TJ chances right?
I would not have had an additional experience factor for “attends underrepresented school” on top of the 1.5% allocation. That was a bridge too far, I thought.
I agree! This is the most upsetting part of the new process for me. The new process is unfairly punishing AAP kids who are automatically defaulted to center schools and many/most of them aren't aware or might not even be thinking much about TJ in the 6th grade. At the time I didn't even realize that my kid actually had an option to choose base school until he mentioned that one girl from his class was going to base school because her mom works there.
Using attending school rather than zoned school is unfair, even without the additional experience factor for underrepresented schools. Obviously, the policy punishes AAP kids who were trying to have a more rigorous education. But, even if one of the goals is to identify and admit gen ed kids who were missed by the AAP process, they're handling it in an unfair manner. Gen Ed kids zoned to a non-AAP middle school will have minimal competition for the allocated seats. Comparable Gen Ed kids whose base school is an AAP center will find it nearly impossible to get admitted to TJ since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also all of the extra AAP kids zoned to other schools but attending the center.
1000% this! I still don’t understand why proponents of the new process in this forum just don’t get this simple logic and keep defending it!
The logic is just fine. You just want the best of both worlds. You want your kid to go tot he AAP Center and to have the advantage of being at an under represented base school. You can't have both, choose one. If cohort is important to you, then go to the AAP Center. If having a marginally higher chance of getting into TJ is important to you, stay at your base school.
Your other issue is that you think that students who "deserve" TJ fit a specific mold in the math track. Not everyone shares that thought. There are kids who take the next years math class so that they can get an A in it during school. The same thing happens in high school for science classes. Those kids have an advantage over kids whose parents don't have the money to pay for a math class through a private vendor during the summer. Or the time because the kid needs to work to help the family financially or to watch their siblings.
There are kids, like mine, who are in math enrichment programs during the school year. They are more likely to perform well on the IAAT and SOLs making them more likely to be eligible for Algebra in 7th grade. My kid is smart and loves math. He enjoys math classes and competitions, I suspect he would do just fine on the IAAT and SOL without the classes. But there are kids in AAP who are going to mathnasium and RSM and other programs so they can keep pace in AAP. They were attending those programs before they were in AAP, which gave them an edge in selection for AAP. Do those kids "deserve" TJ more because they did better in math, or were in AAP, or had higher standardized test scores? How would htey have performed without the extra math programs? DS started in 3rd, because of COVID and the distance learning mess but we know people whose kids were going in K.
I don't think "deserve" = kids who have done more because their parents knew more about programs and could afford programs.
I think "deserve" means kids who are far better then others in school and want to explore a more advanced option. I don't think that you tell a kid that they don't deserve a spot at a Public School because they did not have the same opportunities as kids at different public schools. And while I get that there are kids who just love math, I don't buy for a second that all the kids in Algebra 2 in 8th grade are there because they love math. I would guess that a decent percentage of those kids are there because their parents want them to go to TJ.
I don't care if TJ is the number one high school in the country. I care that TJ provides a challenging curriculum for really smart kids in FCPS who have an interest in STEM. I don't think you withhold an opportunity from kids who have not had the same exposure to math and science at home but who are also really smart, good at math and science, and just finding it in MS. I think that the kids from homes where there has been less emphasis on school and performing at a high level who end up in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS are probably more impressive then the kid in Algebra 2 in 8th grade. Because the kids from Lower SES families have not had the same chances to get ahead and have made it further then most other kids in the County. They didn't have the math support at home or through supplemental programs. The Algebra 2 kid is good at math and might even love math but they are also more likely to have had support from their parents and been attending a supplemental program.
So my definition of who "deserves" TJ is different then yours. I am far more impressed with the kids who excel in math and school in general from schools were parents are less involved and there are fewer supports. Those kids have been driven by their individual desire to thrive and learn, they have a grit that my kid does not. Those kids, they deserve TJ.
You are making big assumptions here, which is the kids who are in AAP have parental support and those who go to center schools have an extra edge. This is simply not true. Sure, my kids do benefit from having educated parents with science background who check on their progress regularly, but some of my kids friends from same schools say that their parents never care or hardly know what they are doing, so they are essentially on their own when it comes to studies. So you conclude non-AAP kids who zoned to center fare way too much competition are just out of their luck and AAP kids who chose to go to non-center school for whatever reason just got lucky because there will be so little competition? Also can you confidently say that kids who got in from non-center schools have done so with out any parental support - may be that support gave them the boost (in addition to other experience factors) over other more ‘deserved’ kids from the same school.
In my opinion, the only ones that need the extra support from schools are poor kids who’s can’t afford or don’t know enough to support their kids - provided, we correctly identify them and not just by clicking ‘yes’ in checkbox that says free meals - I am sure many parents/kids did incorrectly this year as every kid is technically getting free meals this year. Expect for the poor kids, every other kid, irrespective of the school should have equal opportunity to get into TJ.
This attitude is so counter-productive, so anti-progress, that I find it incredibly disheartening that not only are there proponents for it, but that these proponents have been able to implement policies at the top high school in TJ. And here we are having to practice mental self-flagellation and make excuses for the simple act of parents providing for their kids. *WHY* is it is problem for parents to provide for their kids? The entire recorded history of human progress is one where parents provide additional resources and support for their kids, who in turn take advantage of the privileges they are provided with, and our civilization moves forward as a result. We are all in agreement that we should help provide additional support to kids who may have parents who are not able to or are unwilling to provide adequate support for their kids. But there is no rational basis for *penalizing* a child because of the support that the parents provide. This is vile, evil, and destructive.
DP. It isn't a problem for parents to provide for their kids. It IS a problem when ALL of the resources allocated by the county go EXCLUSIVELY to kids who enjoy that advantage.
Believing that it is a punishment to share access is the mindset of the entitled. You should be providing for your kids so that they have a great life that contributes to society, not so that they have a leg up in a school admissions process.
I am not aware that FCPS operates one school and one school only.
It is absolutely a punishment to deny someone the enjoyment of a resource which they are otherwise qualified to enjoy, based solely on the rationale that they are the recipient of certain levels of parental support.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
