Va. committee passes bill banning admissions discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

No, the boxes are not given to anyone. The metaphor here isn't merely the allocation of resources provided by a third party. That's not equity. Equity is what the people gather as a result of their daily life. It's your house, your car, the education you've attained, the travel experiences you've purchased - it's the things you value in your life. That's equity. The additional resources you provide to your kids for their education - that's the metaphorical box you've built for your kid to stand on. They don't just want to provide a free box to the other kid, but they want to take the one you have made for your kid away, so that your kid doesn't have that box to stand on. *THAT* is equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

Clearly, the answer is that every goal made by an Asian player should earn 1 additional point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

Clearly, the answer is that every goal made by an Asian player should earn 1 additional point.

And every Asian politician should have 10% of the vote added to them automatically since they would benefit the most and this would have the most impact. The underrepresentation of Asians on the fcps school board is unbelievably low as in "0" and I believe the county's Asian student population is 20%. So, under the SJW's equity arguments, Asians should make up 20% of the school board members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

Clearly, the answer is that every goal made by an Asian player should earn 1 additional point.

And every Asian politician should have 10% of the vote added to them automatically since they would benefit the most and this would have the most impact. The underrepresentation of Asians on the fcps school board is unbelievably low as in "0" and I believe the county's Asian student population is 20%. So, under the SJW's equity arguments, Asians should make up 20% of the school board members.

The school board should be representative of the student body. Should have been 70% Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

Clearly, the answer is that every goal made by an Asian player should earn 1 additional point.

And every Asian politician should have 10% of the vote added to them automatically since they would benefit the most and this would have the most impact. The underrepresentation of Asians on the fcps school board is unbelievably low as in "0" and I believe the county's Asian student population is 20%. So, under the SJW's equity arguments, Asians should make up 20% of the school board members.

It’s impossible to imagine that there won’t be a single Asian on the next FCPS school board. But you get there by winning elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

The time to evaluate whether or not they’ll be able to do that - and therefore whether or not the admissions process is successful - is when those kids graduate.

But TJ does not need 2000 kids to be on elite academic teams, nor do they need 2000 kids to get through LinAlg and DiffEQ and Discrete Math and Multi.

It is a high school that offers everything that a regular high school offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Everything else you've typed can be discussed, debated, etc. What's clearly evil and wrong is that you admit the new policy to be racist yet you support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.