Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

+1

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. First they supported quotas. The courts struck down quotas so they pivoted to affirmative action. And the latest rebranding is DE&I. It's amazing the arguments they will use to justify a racist policy. "It's about creating an inclusive environment." "They bring a different perspective and that makes the team stronger." "Race is just one of the many factors we take into account during the hiring and promotions process."

They are as bad as the crazies still counting ballots to prove Trump won. They have been buying into propoganda for so long that they can't even think clearly or objectively. I can't, for the life of me, understand why nobody on the left (even moderates) ever questions the idea that all aspects of society must have proportional racial representation. It's a very strange goal and if you told someone from another country about our policies, they would look at you like you are crazy.

I can't think of a single notable person on the left, right, or center who actually believes that ALL aspects of society must have proportional representation. What I do hear people believing is that desirable opportunities - especially in education - should be accessible to all demographic groups, and the reality of the prior admissions process is that TJ was inaccessible to neurodivergent students, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students who for whatever reason were not identified as being worthy of AAP placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

The board won the case.

Of course FCPS was so quick to send a gloating email.

It was such a derriere-covering email, too. Like, "We found a judge who agrees with us, therefore there's no longer any intellectual or ethical basis to dispute the policy anymore, and we indisputably weren't being racist behind closed doors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

They don't know the applicants' race or name. This means it's truly really truly race blind.

Suppose all Asians are in one middle school, and are getting 90% of the spots. One way to reduce Asian numbers at TJ in this scenario would be to say you are going to give a maximum X number of seats from each school. This would lower the Asian number to about 5% in this scenario from 90%, with a race-blind application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

Indians should take their caste and racism back to India

We don’t need more racist people here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

The faulty assumption that you are making when you repeat this point - and expect everyone to agree with you - is that every kid in AAP is more qualified to go to TJ than EVERY kid from the non-center schools. And that’s just not the case.

I do think these kids are probably more qualified. Maybe not all of them, but some of them. I am saying the kids who went to AAP from Whitman should be allowed to compete with other students from Whitman for Whitman's automatic spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

The faulty assumption that you are making when you repeat this point - and expect everyone to agree with you - is that every kid in AAP is more qualified to go to TJ than EVERY kid from the non-center schools. And that’s just not the case.

They're also assuming that there is enough interest at Whitman and Sandberg to even hit the allocation. From those numbers, it looks like Whitman didn't and Sandberg missed by at least one kid.

Probably someone from Sandberg declined, and then it went to the general waitlist. Even worse if Whitman had fewer applicants than spots, and someone from Whitman going to AAP at Sandberg missed a spot.

[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:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

The faulty assumption that you are making when you repeat this point - and expect everyone to agree with you - is that every kid in AAP is more qualified to go to TJ than EVERY kid from the non-center schools. And that’s just not the case.

They're also assuming that there is enough interest at Whitman and Sandberg to even hit the allocation. From those numbers, it looks like Whitman didn't and Sandberg missed by at least one kid.

The spots are there if kids want to use them. If they don't then kids from other schools can pick up those spots. It is not like the spots go unfilled. I like that the County is doing something to make sure that all kids across the county have the chance to attend an amazing school if they meet specific requirements. I am fine with tweaking the requirements some, say all honors classes were possible and kids finish Geometry by the end of 8th grade, but I like the geographic distribution for a portion of the seats.

I agree. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter which school you count a kid inbounds at whitman attending the center at sanberg as attending because neither school actually uses their full allocation. For all the teeth gnashing, TJ is still overwhelming populated by kids from the same schools that it has always been

I used Whitman/Sandberg as an example. The policy applies to all the schools. Are you saying this never happens at other schools that send kids for AAP elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

+1

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. First they supported quotas. The courts struck down quotas so they pivoted to affirmative action. And the latest rebranding is DE&I. It's amazing the arguments they will use to justify a racist policy. "It's about creating an inclusive environment." "They bring a different perspective and that makes the team stronger." "Race is just one of the many factors we take into account during the hiring and promotions process."

They are as bad as the crazies still counting ballots to prove Trump won. They have been buying into propoganda for so long that they can't even think clearly or objectively. I can't, for the life of me, understand why nobody on the left (even moderates) ever questions the idea that all aspects of society must have proportional racial representation. It's a very strange goal and if you told someone from another country about our policies, they would look at you like you are crazy.

I can't think of a single notable person on the left, right, or center who actually believes that ALL aspects of society must have proportional representation. What I do hear people believing is that desirable opportunities - especially in education - should be accessible to all demographic groups, and the reality of the prior admissions process is that TJ was inaccessible to neurodivergent students, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students who for whatever reason were not identified as being worthy of AAP placement.

That’s an interesting take given the frequency with which parents of TJ kids admitted under the old process talked about how their “2E” kids would have floundered anywhere but TJ.

And if you have issues with AAP placements then changing TJ admissions practices is an incredibly crude and inefficient way to address them.

It’s very hard to think the changes were not politically driven. The powers that be were happy to throw Asian kids under the bus, especially if they lived in certain areas, to shore up their political standing in other communities. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will take on the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

The faulty assumption that you are making when you repeat this point - and expect everyone to agree with you - is that every kid in AAP is more qualified to go to TJ than EVERY kid from the non-center schools. And that’s just not the case.

I do think these kids are probably more qualified. Maybe not all of them, but some of them. I am saying the kids who went to AAP from Whitman should be allowed to compete with other students from Whitman for Whitman's automatic spots.

Agree with this. It should be picked based on base school not attending school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

The board won the case.

Of course FCPS was so quick to send a gloating email.

It’s more than a little disingenuous for FCPS to highlight that “TJ continues to be ranked as the #1 high school in the country” when any such rankings are based on the performance of students admitted under the old system.

But it’s about what you’d expect. It’s a PR machine run by people with little capacity for the truth and no shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

The board won the case.

Of course FCPS was so quick to send a gloating email.

It’s more than a little disingenuous for FCPS to highlight that “TJ continues to be ranked as the #1 high school in the country” when any such rankings are based on the performance of students admitted under the old system.

But it’s about what you’d expect. It’s a PR machine run by people with little capacity for the truth and no shame.

Aw, sorry you’re feeling sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

The board won the case.

Of course FCPS was so quick to send a gloating email.

It’s more than a little disingenuous for FCPS to highlight that “TJ continues to be ranked as the #1 high school in the country” when any such rankings are based on the performance of students admitted under the old system.

But it’s about what you’d expect. It’s a PR machine run by people with little capacity for the truth and no shame.

Aw, sorry you’re feeling sad.

More angry than sad with the liars driving FCPS into the ground. And you’re a twit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

They don't know the applicants' race or name. This means it's truly really truly race blind.

Suppose all Asians are in one middle school, and are getting 90% of the spots. One way to reduce Asian numbers at TJ in this scenario would be to say you are going to give a maximum X number of seats from each school. This would lower the Asian number to about 5% in this scenario from 90%, with a race-blind application process.

The scenario you described is one reason why max quotas are usually considered less acceptable than minimum quotas.

But there isn’t any middle school in FCPS where Asians are a plurality, much less a majority. So the thought experiment is largely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

+1

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. First they supported quotas. The courts struck down quotas so they pivoted to affirmative action. And the latest rebranding is DE&I. It's amazing the arguments they will use to justify a racist policy. "It's about creating an inclusive environment." "They bring a different perspective and that makes the team stronger." "Race is just one of the many factors we take into account during the hiring and promotions process."

They are as bad as the crazies still counting ballots to prove Trump won. They have been buying into propoganda for so long that they can't even think clearly or objectively. I can't, for the life of me, understand why nobody on the left (even moderates) ever questions the idea that all aspects of society must have proportional racial representation. It's a very strange goal and if you told someone from another country about our policies, they would look at you like you are crazy.

I can't think of a single notable person on the left, right, or center who actually believes that ALL aspects of society must have proportional representation. What I do hear people believing is that desirable opportunities - especially in education - should be accessible to all demographic groups, and the reality of the prior admissions process is that TJ was inaccessible to neurodivergent students, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students who for whatever reason were not identified as being worthy of AAP placement.

That’s an interesting take given the frequency with which parents of TJ kids admitted under the old process talked about how their “2E” kids would have floundered anywhere but TJ.

And if you have issues with AAP placements then changing TJ admissions practices is an incredibly crude and inefficient way to address them.

It’s very hard to think the changes were not politically driven. The powers that be were happy to throw Asian kids under the bus, especially if they lived in certain areas, to shore up their political standing in other communities. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will take on the case.

There weren’t very many legitimately 2E kids at TJ under the old process. The number of kids there with an IEP was staggeringly low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get for voting for these left wing extremists to the school board. Serves them right.

The board won the case.

Of course FCPS was so quick to send a gloating email.

It was such a derriere-covering email, too. Like, "We found a judge who agrees with us, therefore there's no longer any intellectual or ethical basis to dispute the policy anymore, and we indisputably weren't being racist behind closed doors."

The school board wasn’t being racist. The superintendent, it has come to light, was - and the text messages that Asra disingenuously cut and pasted into the infamous “TJ Papers” were from the board members about him.