Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G8_GLO_2017.pdf. (8th grade)
https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G9_GLO_2017.pdf (9th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus. (8th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-9-maths-syllabus (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!

The ISCE link for 8th grade wasn’t geometry. Looks like prealgebra concepts.

This is basically pre-algebra.


https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus

Chapter 01 : Number System
The first chapter, Rational number properties, which include closure, communicative, associative, distributive, identity and inverse properties and represents rational numbers on a number line. Students find ways to find a square of a number and characteristics of square roots and find ways to find a cube of a number and characteristics of cube roots from this chapter. Students get to know set theory from this chapter. This chapter talks about the exponential form and how to use it in expressing a number—properties of power and exponents.

Chapter 02 : Ratio & Proportion
The concept of compound interest and tax problem covers the second chapter. This chapter also solves problems related to time and work—the concept of inverse proportion and direction proportion with perfect examples.

Chapter 03 : Algebra
The chapter also teaches Solving linear equations in one variable, the clear Understanding of expression of linearity, and Solving a linear equation with both side variables. This chapter introduces the concept of the term “Factorization” and How to do division and multiplication of Algebraic equations and inequalities is also explained.

Chapter 04 : Geometry
This chapter gives a clear idea about quadrilaterals which includes parallelogram, rectangle, rhombus, square. The respective definitions and properties are also included in the Syllabus. The definition and properties of polygons. Measurements of exterior angles of square and rectangle are also mentioned.

Chapter 05 : Mensuration
Mensuration introduction with ways to find the area of Trapezium, polygons, and quadrilaterals and Finding the surface area of a cylinder, cubes, and formula to find the volume of cylinder and cubes are also discussed. The volume and capacity of cube measurement are also explained here.

Chapter 06 : Data Handling
This chapter explains Data organization and the meaning of data. An introduction to the probability concept with a Diagrammatic representation of the pie chart is also discussed.

My kid is learning geometry concepts from above chapters 4 and 5 in his honors geometry in 8th and they haven’t even started 3D yet. May be your kids school is teaching different. Probability (chapter 6) isn’t even talked about yet. Asian math curriculum is a little different as the concepts get introduced in one grade and then go in depth in higher grades. For ex Algebra first get introduced in 6th or 7th grade and continues all the way into 10th grade. Geometry probably in 7th or 8th, Trig (pre cal?) and stats starts in 9th and calc in 11th etc. Not sure pros and cons of each, but I like the Asian approach of mastering concepts over several years instead of dumping all in one grade. Btw, I am an asian who studied eng there (and masters here) and I can definitely say that Asian standard math is definitely on par with advanced math track here - you are free to disagree btw. It has been a while, but I do remember our 11th and 12th grade math felt a lot more difficult compared to engineering math though it was all calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

Totally agree. I posted few comments here against the new changes, but as you said, TJ might not be best case scenario for all. Its very difficult to stand out in TJ and I have seen it first hand (in our own neighborhood), base HS kids who lost out TJ were able secure admissions into better ranked universities our TJ kids. The workload for TJ kids was much higher than base school and made us question if it’s really worth it. Having said, my kid has been dreaming of TJ for last two years and if happens to get in, I am not sure if I want take it away even if there are cons. But being in feeder school where 300 kids apply and only 20-30 make it with almost everyone applying having very similar grades, it’s unlikely that my kid makes it.

[Anonymous]

This whole debate fails to address the fundamental question - what is the mission of a school like TJ? Is that mission still valid 30 years after its founding? If we can't agree on the mission of the school, we will not agree on how the school should be run or whether such a school should even exist in this era.

If the mission is to group academically advanced kids - who would otherwise be bored in the base-school curriculum - together in a single school with difficult and challenging classes, then the job of the admission should simply be identifying such kids who are advanced learners and need that challenging environment. The racial makeup of such a school shouldn't be of any concerns. The school doesn't provide "better" education. All it does is providing more challenging and difficult classes. The "education" or the teaching quality is the same for base school and such a magnet school. Getting into such a school is not some kind of "benefit" or a "resource" to be hoarded. Putting more URMs into such a school doesn't necessarily benefit them.

If the mission has changed, the SB has not articulated what the new mission of TJ is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the links have shown us that:

standard track Asia = standard track US

Nah, standard track in Asia and Europe = advanced track in US if that.

Citation/example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G8_GLO_2017.pdf. (8th grade)
https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G9_GLO_2017.pdf (9th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus. (8th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-9-maths-syllabus (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!

The ISCE link for 8th grade wasn’t geometry. Looks like prealgebra concepts.

This is basically pre-algebra.


https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus

Chapter 01 : Number System
The first chapter, Rational number properties, which include closure, communicative, associative, distributive, identity and inverse properties and represents rational numbers on a number line. Students find ways to find a square of a number and characteristics of square roots and find ways to find a cube of a number and characteristics of cube roots from this chapter. Students get to know set theory from this chapter. This chapter talks about the exponential form and how to use it in expressing a number—properties of power and exponents.

Chapter 02 : Ratio & Proportion
The concept of compound interest and tax problem covers the second chapter. This chapter also solves problems related to time and work—the concept of inverse proportion and direction proportion with perfect examples.

Chapter 03 : Algebra
The chapter also teaches Solving linear equations in one variable, the clear Understanding of expression of linearity, and Solving a linear equation with both side variables. This chapter introduces the concept of the term “Factorization” and How to do division and multiplication of Algebraic equations and inequalities is also explained.

Chapter 04 : Geometry
This chapter gives a clear idea about quadrilaterals which includes parallelogram, rectangle, rhombus, square. The respective definitions and properties are also included in the Syllabus. The definition and properties of polygons. Measurements of exterior angles of square and rectangle are also mentioned.

Chapter 05 : Mensuration
Mensuration introduction with ways to find the area of Trapezium, polygons, and quadrilaterals and Finding the surface area of a cylinder, cubes, and formula to find the volume of cylinder and cubes are also discussed. The volume and capacity of cube measurement are also explained here.

Chapter 06 : Data Handling
This chapter explains Data organization and the meaning of data. An introduction to the probability concept with a Diagrammatic representation of the pie chart is also discussed.

My kid is learning geometry concepts from above chapters 4 and 5 in his honors geometry in 8th and they haven’t even started 3D yet. May be your kids school is teaching different. Probability (chapter 6) isn’t even talked about yet. Asian math curriculum is a little different as the concepts get introduced in one grade and then go in depth in higher grades. For ex Algebra first get introduced in 6th or 7th grade and continues all the way into 10th grade. Geometry probably in 7th or 8th, Trig (pre cal?) and stats starts in 9th and calc in 11th etc. Not sure pros and cons of each, but I like the Asian approach of mastering concepts over several years instead of dumping all in one grade. Btw, I am an asian who studied eng there (and masters here) and I can definitely say that Asian standard math is definitely on par with advanced math track here - you are free to disagree btw. It has been a while, but I do remember our 11th and 12th grade math felt a lot more difficult compared to engineering math though it was all calculus.

Here are the math 8 standards (ZERO acceleration):
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/2016/stds/stds-grade8.pdf

Number and Number Sense
8.1 The student will compare and order real numbers.
8.2 The student will describe the relationships between the subsets of the real number system.
8.3 The student will
a) estimate and determine the two consecutive integers between which a square root lies;
and
b) determine both the positive and negative square roots of a given perfect square.

Computation and Estimation
8. 4 The student will solve practical problems involving consumer applications.

Measurement and Geometry
8.5 The student will use the relationships among pairs of angles that are vertical angles, adjacent angles, supplementary angles, and complementary angles to determine the measure of unknown angles.
8.6 The student will
a) solve problems, including practical problems, involving volume and surface area of
cones and square-based pyramids; and
b) describe how changing one measured attribute of a rectangular prism affects the
volume and surface area.
8.7 The student will
a) given a polygon, apply transformations, to include translations, reflections, and
dilations, in the coordinate plane; and
b) identify practical applications of transformations.
8.8 The student will construct a three-dimensional model, given the top or bottom, side, and front views.
8.9 The student will
a) verify the Pythagorean Theorem; and
b) apply the Pythagorean Theorem.
8.10 The student will solve area and perimeter problems, including practical problems, involving composite plane figures.

Probability and Statistics
8.11 The student will
a) compare and contrast the probability of independent and dependent events; and
b) determine probabilities for independent and dependent events.
8.12 The student will
a) represent numerical data in boxplots;
b) make observations and inferences about data represented in boxplots; and
c) compare and analyze two data sets using boxplots.
8.13 The student will
a) represent data in scatterplots;
b) make observations about data represented in scatterplots; and
c) use a drawing to estimate the line of best fit for data represented in a scatterplot.

Patterns, Functions, and Algebra
8.14 The student will
a) evaluate an algebraic expression for given replacement values of the variables; and
b) simplify algebraic expressions in one variable.
8.15 The student will
a) determine whether a given relation is a function; and
b) determine the domain and range of a function.
8.16 The student will
a) recognize and describe the graph of a linear function with a slope that is positive,
negative, or zero;
b) identify the slope and y-intercept of a linear function, given a table of values, a graph, or
an equation in y = mx + b form;
c) determine the independent and dependent variable, given a practical situation modeled
by a linear function;
d) graph a linear function given the equation in y = mx + b form; and
e) make connections between and among representations of a linear function using verbal
descriptions, tables, equations, and graphs.
8.17 The student will solve multistep linear equations in one variable with the variable on one or both sides of the equation, including practical problems that require the solution of a multistep linear equation in one variable.
8.18 The student will solve multistep linear inequalities in one variable with the variable on one or both sides of the inequality symbol, including practical problems, and graph the solution on a number line.


It’s not a matter of “agreeing” with you or not. I’m just looking for any evidence that supports your claim. That link isn’t it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate fails to address the fundamental question - what is the mission of a school like TJ? Is that mission still valid 30 years after its founding? If we can't agree on the mission of the school, we will not agree on how the school should be run or whether such a school should even exist in this era.

If the mission is to group academically advanced kids - who would otherwise be bored in the base-school curriculum - together in a single school with difficult and challenging classes, then the job of the admission should simply be identifying such kids who are advanced learners and need that challenging environment. The racial makeup of such a school shouldn't be of any concerns. The school doesn't provide "better" education. All it does is providing more challenging and difficult classes. The "education" or the teaching quality is the same for base school and such a magnet school. Getting into such a school is not some kind of "benefit" or a "resource" to be hoarded. Putting more URMs into such a school doesn't necessarily benefit them.

If the mission has changed, the SB has not articulated what the new mission of TJ is.

The new mission of TJ is to serve as a demonstration project that kids from diverse economic backgrounds and middle schools that generally have poor test scores can graduate from TJ. It advances the equity agenda because it serves the narrative that talent is equally distributed across geographic and SES lines and that any differences in observed outcomes elsewhere in FCPS must be due to systemic issues requiring constant attention.

To fit this narrative it will be critical that kids who enter TJ under the new admissions criteria graduate from the school, and the courses will be less rigorous if necessary to achieve that end. The notion that TJ exists to educate students who would not be challenged elsewhere will either be dismissed as antiquated or hold out as still valid - just without any real evidence that it applies to an ever-increasing percentage of students, who in reality would have been just as well served at their base schools.

[Anonymous]

If you want to become more familiar with VA math standards:
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/

Many concepts, including geometry and probability, are threaded throughout the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G8_GLO_2017.pdf. (8th grade)
https://www.nischina.org/uploaded/files/G9_GLO_2017.pdf (9th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus. (8th grade)
https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-9-maths-syllabus (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!

The ISCE link for 8th grade wasn’t geometry. Looks like prealgebra concepts.

This is basically pre-algebra.


https://www.eduauraa.com/courses/icse-class-8-maths-syllabus

Chapter 01 : Number System
The first chapter, Rational number properties, which include closure, communicative, associative, distributive, identity and inverse properties and represents rational numbers on a number line. Students find ways to find a square of a number and characteristics of square roots and find ways to find a cube of a number and characteristics of cube roots from this chapter. Students get to know set theory from this chapter. This chapter talks about the exponential form and how to use it in expressing a number—properties of power and exponents.

Chapter 02 : Ratio & Proportion
The concept of compound interest and tax problem covers the second chapter. This chapter also solves problems related to time and work—the concept of inverse proportion and direction proportion with perfect examples.

Chapter 03 : Algebra
The chapter also teaches Solving linear equations in one variable, the clear Understanding of expression of linearity, and Solving a linear equation with both side variables. This chapter introduces the concept of the term “Factorization” and How to do division and multiplication of Algebraic equations and inequalities is also explained.

Chapter 04 : Geometry
This chapter gives a clear idea about quadrilaterals which includes parallelogram, rectangle, rhombus, square. The respective definitions and properties are also included in the Syllabus. The definition and properties of polygons. Measurements of exterior angles of square and rectangle are also mentioned.

Chapter 05 : Mensuration
Mensuration introduction with ways to find the area of Trapezium, polygons, and quadrilaterals and Finding the surface area of a cylinder, cubes, and formula to find the volume of cylinder and cubes are also discussed. The volume and capacity of cube measurement are also explained here.

Chapter 06 : Data Handling
This chapter explains Data organization and the meaning of data. An introduction to the probability concept with a Diagrammatic representation of the pie chart is also discussed.

My kid is learning geometry concepts from above chapters 4 and 5 in his honors geometry in 8th and they haven’t even started 3D yet. May be your kids school is teaching different. Probability (chapter 6) isn’t even talked about yet. Asian math curriculum is a little different as the concepts get introduced in one grade and then go in depth in higher grades. For ex Algebra first get introduced in 6th or 7th grade and continues all the way into 10th grade. Geometry probably in 7th or 8th, Trig (pre cal?) and stats starts in 9th and calc in 11th etc. Not sure pros and cons of each, but I like the Asian approach of mastering concepts over several years instead of dumping all in one grade. Btw, I am an asian who studied eng there (and masters here) and I can definitely say that Asian standard math is definitely on par with advanced math track here - you are free to disagree btw. It has been a while, but I do remember our 11th and 12th grade math felt a lot more difficult compared to engineering math though it was all calculus.

Where does your child go to school? Mine is in 6th grade AAP (so doing 7th grade math), and they have been talking about polygons for years. This year, they’re doing SA and volume of rectangular prisms and cylinders, for instance, in addition to angles and various computations involving them. There was probability last year, for sure. They’re building on it this year. Pretty much every year has built upon earlier concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the links have shown us that:

standard track Asia = standard track US

Nah, standard track in Asia and Europe = advanced track in US if that.

Citation/example?

Here we go again. My kid is in AAP and I regularly check on him and help with his math/science some times (Ex. I always try to prove the formulas so he doesn’t automatically assume that formulas fall from sky and must be memorized). I studied in Asia and there was no separate advanced for us and still I always tell my kid that math and tests we had to do were definitely a lot more challenging. Our screening/entrance tests were whole another level and required extensive after school prep as our schools wouldn’t cover the level of difficulty. This is my personal experience and take it with grain of salt and you don’t need to believe what I say - it doesn’t really make any difference to either of us. Did you ever wonder why Asians are generally good at math? There is no real magic there and Asians are not inherently better at math. Asians put a lot of emphasis on math and hope their kids work at least as hard as they did and better if possible and use their experience to guide them. 😀 - I am sure we will find a lot more kids take on so called advanced math with proper emphasis and good teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the links have shown us that:

standard track Asia = standard track US

Nah, standard track in Asia and Europe = advanced track in US if that.

Citation/example?

Here we go again. My kid is in AAP and I regularly check on him and help with his math/science some times (Ex. I always try to prove the formulas so he doesn’t automatically assume that formulas fall from sky and must be memorized). I studied in Asia and there was no separate advanced for us and still I always tell my kid that math and tests we had to do were definitely a lot more challenging. Our screening/entrance tests were whole another level and required extensive after school prep as our schools wouldn’t cover the level of difficulty. This is my personal experience and take it with grain of salt and you don’t need to believe what I say - it doesn’t really make any difference to either of us. Did you ever wonder why Asians are generally good at math? There is no real magic there and Asians are not inherently better at math. Asians put a lot of emphasis on math and hope their kids work at least as hard as they did and better if possible and use their experience to guide them. 😀 - I am sure we will find a lot more kids take on so called advanced math with proper emphasis and good teaching.

I agree that the teaching and reinforcement is lacking here. Not challenging enough from that perspective.

Someone said the content covered in the US “advanced” track was like the “standard” track elsewhere. No one has demonstrated that yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

TJ is not the only magnet/application school in the country. Literally there are hundreds of them. Don't act like TJ is a bad idea all of sudden. Also, it has been mentioned hundreds of times on these boars that many if not most attend TJ for the education and other opportunities and NOT for college admissions. TJ parents are not that stupid as the various posts claim they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I understand both sides of the argument, and both have good points. But to me, the main problem is that TJ should never have been set up this way in the first place. TJ is publicly funded. It was always very questionable to set up a public school in such a manner that taxpayers have to fund with their property taxes but can't send their children there.

If any of the successful TJ alumni want to set up a private school to carry on the tradition, have at it. But to me, this has always been an inappropriate way to operate a publicly funded high school.

Uhhh, I pay for the school basketball team through my taxes and can't send my kids to play on the team.

+1 - Public schools spend a lot of money and resources on sports that are super competitive. My kid loves swimming and wanted to get into HS swim team, but couldn't qualify. All I thought at the time was my kid wasn't good enough. May be we should have complained that the kids who got selected in trials paid a lot of money for swim schools/coaches, swim team memberships that we couldn't afford i.e., time or money. Obviously we don't have the leg up in the game. Now I think its totally unfair and we should demand a quota for kids who are not 'prepped' for the sports and may be if my kid were given a chance and she would have done quite well - who knows?.

OMG, not this again. When will you grasp that sports are not the same as public education? The analogy is flawed. Please move on.

Right, sport superstars make lot more money than academic superstars . In addition, the main FOCUS/PURPOSE of public schools is to educate not sports.

Not sure I understand - So if something is a "main focus/purpose" then equity applies, but if its not the main focus/purpose we have a competitive merit based process for it? Please explain when merit should apply and when it should not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate fails to address the fundamental question - what is the mission of a school like TJ? Is that mission still valid 30 years after its founding? If we can't agree on the mission of the school, we will not agree on how the school should be run or whether such a school should even exist in this era.

If the mission is to group academically advanced kids - who would otherwise be bored in the base-school curriculum - together in a single school with difficult and challenging classes, then the job of the admission should simply be identifying such kids who are advanced learners and need that challenging environment. The racial makeup of such a school shouldn't be of any concerns. The school doesn't provide "better" education. All it does is providing more challenging and difficult classes. The "education" or the teaching quality is the same for base school and such a magnet school. Getting into such a school is not some kind of "benefit" or a "resource" to be hoarded. Putting more URMs into such a school doesn't necessarily benefit them.

If the mission has changed, the SB has not articulated what the new mission of TJ is.

The new mission of TJ is to serve as a demonstration project that kids from diverse economic backgrounds and middle schools that generally have poor test scores can graduate from TJ. It advances the equity agenda because it serves the narrative that talent is equally distributed across geographic and SES lines and that any differences in observed outcomes elsewhere in FCPS must be due to systemic issues requiring constant attention.

To fit this narrative it will be critical that kids who enter TJ under the new admissions criteria graduate from the school, and the courses will be less rigorous if necessary to achieve that end. The notion that TJ exists to educate students who would not be challenged elsewhere will either be dismissed as antiquated or hold out as still valid - just without any real evidence that it applies to an ever-increasing percentage of students, who in reality would have been just as well served at their base schools.

A middle class kid who has fluent English speaking parents who constantly provided extra educational enrichment for the child is NOT congenitally more intelligent or talented to the ESL poor kid whose parents work 60 hours weeks just to put food on the table.

Equity is about removing all those environmental factors that make a difference so that an inherently smart poor kid can best a mediocre rich kid on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I understand both sides of the argument, and both have good points. But to me, the main problem is that TJ should never have been set up this way in the first place. TJ is publicly funded. It was always very questionable to set up a public school in such a manner that taxpayers have to fund with their property taxes but can't send their children there.

If any of the successful TJ alumni want to set up a private school to carry on the tradition, have at it. But to me, this has always been an inappropriate way to operate a publicly funded high school.

Uhhh, I pay for the school basketball team through my taxes and can't send my kids to play on the team.

+1 - Public schools spend a lot of money and resources on sports that are super competitive. My kid loves swimming and wanted to get into HS swim team, but couldn't qualify. All I thought at the time was my kid wasn't good enough. May be we should have complained that the kids who got selected in trials paid a lot of money for swim schools/coaches, swim team memberships that we couldn't afford i.e., time or money. Obviously we don't have the leg up in the game. Now I think its totally unfair and we should demand a quota for kids who are not 'prepped' for the sports and may be if my kid were given a chance and she would have done quite well - who knows?.

OMG, not this again. When will you grasp that sports are not the same as public education? The analogy is flawed. Please move on.

Right, sport superstars make lot more money than academic superstars . In addition, the main FOCUS/PURPOSE of public schools is to educate not sports.

Not sure I understand - So if something is a "main focus/purpose" then equity applies, but if its not the main focus/purpose we have a competitive merit based process for it? Please explain when merit should apply and when it should not.

No I think you misunderstand. All children deserve equal access to these programs. Not just ones whose parents can afford outside enrichment. Spots on the other hand have noting to do with school. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be something the county pays for but if they are yes they should provide equal access to all students. The NBA however can operate however it wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.