TJ admissions decision - repercussions for Class of 2026

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

It's obvious you don't know anything about TJ if you think this is a plausible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Kids in General Ed should an advantage in the admission system compared to those in AAP. AAP have much smaller class sizes, less disruptive and low abiility students, more challenging classes.The standard of education is much higher in AAP. Kids who succeed in General ed despite the disadvantages should get a bump in comparison.

Using attending school rather than base school simply advantages one set of gen ed kids at the expense of another set. The ones zoned to a non-AAP center will get a huge boost in admissions, since most of the AAP kids will leave for the center. The gen ed kids zoned to the center have almost no chance, since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also a bunch of extra AAP kids enrolled at the center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Kids in General Ed should an advantage in the admission system compared to those in AAP. AAP have much smaller class sizes, less disruptive and low abiility students, more challenging classes.The standard of education is much higher in AAP. Kids who succeed in General ed despite the disadvantages should get a bump in comparison.

Using attending school rather than base school simply advantages one set of gen ed kids at the expense of another set. The ones zoned to a non-AAP center will get a huge boost in admissions, since most of the AAP kids will leave for the center. The gen ed kids zoned to the center have almost no chance, since they have to compete not only with the AAP kids zoned to their school, but also a bunch of extra AAP kids enrolled at the center.

The gen ed base school kids who got in ahead of AAP center students are the ones with the lowest grades at TJ. If you can't get into AAP, why are you at TJ which is AAP on steroids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

It's obvious you don't know anything about TJ if you think this is a plausible idea.

+1000

[ntrainer]

Folks, there is a simple solution for this year's applicant group. First, you have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Hell, I hate that they won't have sufficient data to make the best determination about the "best" applicants, but time is of the essence and why make families suffer through more uncertainty at this point?

(Side issue: The fact that FCPS says they "grade" the student applications based on how well the kids demonstrate the qualities of "Portrait of a Graduate" is a joke, given that this is a STEM school. But I suppose it's legal for them to do this, even if it is absolutely destructive of TJ itself.)

Then FCPS should go through an authentic process of evaluating how best to admit kids to TJ -- the best, the brightest -- and how to expand opportunities for those who haven't had success in the past.

Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

1) You’d pretty much destroy every non-STEM extracurricular at the school - which are a significant part of the school’s culture

2) You’d eliminate a crucial adjustment year for kids to figure out how to navigate the rigor of TJ.

3) No more IBET, which, in addition to the design and tech class that introduces many students (however easily) to principles of engineering also gives them a core group of students to build networks around.

1 is false and 2 is weak (can think of equal counterarguments), 3 has some real validity though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

1) You’d pretty much destroy every non-STEM extracurricular at the school - which are a significant part of the school’s culture

2) You’d eliminate a crucial adjustment year for kids to figure out how to navigate the rigor of TJ.

3) No more IBET, which, in addition to the design and tech class that introduces many students (however easily) to principles of engineering also gives them a core group of students to build networks around.

1 is false and 2 is weak (can think of equal counterarguments), 3 has some real validity though.

1 is absolutely true. Athletes are not leaving their high schools for TJ once they’ve already played there for a year, nor are performing artists.

2 is also absolutely true and crucial, especially in math and science. Freshmen Biology at TJ is a HUGE separator and the only other course that usually presents a level of challenge well above what the students are used to. Having students take that course without TJ teachers would be a catastrophic mistake.

[Anonymous]

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

We have a child who applied this year and I would fully support this. I think at this point, this is the only thing they can realistically do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

We have a child who applied this year and I would fully support this. I think at this point, this is the only thing they can realistically do.

Probably easier (and more effective) to do an online petition. Then add link so people can sign.

This said, the email we got seem to imply they were pretty adamant about pursuing the appeal: "Fairfax County School Board believes the ruling is not supported by law and is considering all options around an appeal." I don't know if the rejection of the stay motion changes things. They may fight tooth and nail to keep the new admissions policy until the very end like late in the summer or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

1) You’d pretty much destroy every non-STEM extracurricular at the school - which are a significant part of the school’s culture

2) You’d eliminate a crucial adjustment year for kids to figure out how to navigate the rigor of TJ.

3) No more IBET, which, in addition to the design and tech class that introduces many students (however easily) to principles of engineering also gives them a core group of students to build networks around.

1 is false and 2 is weak (can think of equal counterarguments), 3 has some real validity though.

TJ already has a process in place for “froshmores” ie sophomore admits. It’s worked beautifully for several decades.

I support not seating the class of 2026 and expanding the sophomore and Junior application numbers.

If you read the judges order, he actually invalidates the entire new admissions system. Every single thing that the changed in the fall of 2020 (including the stupid POG essays!) are now illegal to use. Asra nd her friends are yelling that they need to use a test for the class for the class of 2026. Well, that is going to be expensive and will take time.

Just send the kids to their base schools for freshman year. To ensure that TJ doesn’t go to waste, put out the word to all of the high schools that they are expanding the sophomore and Junior classes. Start the process now if community engagement on how to reform TJ admissions going forward.

Simple. Legal. Uses resources wisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

Read the judge’s order. It’s short and simple. What you suggest involves using pieces of the illegal admissions reform. They cannot use any part of the new system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

Read the judge’s order. It’s short and simple. What you suggest involves using pieces of the illegal admissions reform. They cannot use any part of the new system.

FCPS is not going to give this up based on the opinion of one judge. To think otherwise is a fantasy. They will seek a stay from the Fourth Circuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the of converting TJ to 10th-12th and being able to serve 33% more students through the program on the face of it, but do wonder if there are strong arguments against this that aren’t on my radar. I’d consider any argument about needing to form community or the minor disruption of a student spending 1 year at base HS to be weak arguments, but there may be stronger ones I’m overlooking. Anyone have we’ll-reasoned arguments against this type of change?

1) You’d pretty much destroy every non-STEM extracurricular at the school - which are a significant part of the school’s culture

2) You’d eliminate a crucial adjustment year for kids to figure out how to navigate the rigor of TJ.

3) No more IBET, which, in addition to the design and tech class that introduces many students (however easily) to principles of engineering also gives them a core group of students to build networks around.

1 is false and 2 is weak (can think of equal counterarguments), 3 has some real validity though.

TJ already has a process in place for “froshmores” ie sophomore admits. It’s worked beautifully for several decades.

I support not seating the class of 2026 and expanding the sophomore and Junior application numbers.

If you read the judges order, he actually invalidates the entire new admissions system. Every single thing that the changed in the fall of 2020 (including the stupid POG essays!) are now illegal to use. Asra nd her friends are yelling that they need to use a test for the class for the class of 2026. Well, that is going to be expensive and will take time.

Just send the kids to their base schools for freshman year. To ensure that TJ doesn’t go to waste, put out the word to all of the high schools that they are expanding the sophomore and Junior classes. Start the process now if community engagement on how to reform TJ admissions going forward.

Simple. Legal. Uses resources wisely.

Someone’s kid didn’t get in in 2025 and smells a back door opportunity to get the treasured car magnet….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ntrainer wrote:You have to start with the premise that FCPS has to (gasp!) abide by the court ruling. That means they cannot use the 1.5% minimum -- which is a quota by any other name -- and they cannot use the "Experience Factors." Those were clearly the two elements of the process which were judged unconstitutional.

At this point, they have the applications already in. No need to use an admissions test. No need for teacher recommendations. Admit the kids based on their "fit" for the school. Right now the SB needs to just DO THEIR JOB and give some advisory information to the admissions office in a chaotic situation. It need not be perfect advisory language. But it needs to be legal, and it needs to allow the process to move forward.

If anyone reading this has a child who has applied to be a member of the TJ Class of 2026, please begin your advocacy right now for the School Board to come forward with a reasonable process. The judge has thrown out the current admissions plan and for them to have nothing clear to offer is malpractice. I think what I've said above is reasonable. In short: Throw out the 1.5% minimum per middle school, throw out the "Experience Factors," and then just tell the admissions office to admit the kids based on their evaluation of their existing applications, choosing those whose applications "fit" the mission of the school the best. That's it. The School Board can provide this kind of minimal guidance at this point and it would be enough.

This wouldn't require the Board to retreat on their positions about the admissions process in the short term, but it mops up the mess we have. Then they must start crafting a more complete process for next year's applicants. That process can be (and will be) a huge community discussion. But in the near term, please use your voice to advocate for just moving things along for the Class of 2026 in a reasonable way. They need to hear from us.

We have a child who applied this year and I would fully support this. I think at this point, this is the only thing they can realistically do.

Probably easier (and more effective) to do an online petition. Then add link so people can sign.

This said, the email we got seem to imply they were pretty adamant about pursuing the appeal: "Fairfax County School Board believes the ruling is not supported by law and is considering all options around an appeal." I don't know if the rejection of the stay motion changes things. They may fight tooth and nail to keep the new admissions policy until the very end like late in the summer or something.

It does not. They will request a stay from the Fourth Circuit, and the result of that request will almost certainly be an indicator of how they’ll move forward. If it’s granted, they will proceed with 2026 as they have a reasonable chance to expect to win on appeal.

If the Fourth Circuit denies the stay they will almost certainly drop the appeal.