TJ Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ MathCounts, AMC, Olympiads, ”

And those also aren’t offered everywhere. We aren’t in a “bad” pyramid either. Just a middle of the road one for FCPS.

Mathcounts allows students to sign up as non school competitors if their school isn't competing.
AMCs are offered by Fairfax math circle, FCAG, AoPS, and a number of other places.
Any motivated kid should be able to participate in both of these, even if it's not offered by their school.

But what if they can’t participate because they have to take care of their younger brother because both parents work?

If they're so overburdened with childcare or other responsibilities that they cannot even escape for a single day for an academic competition, how on earth are they going to have the time to be successful TJ students? TJ is a huge time sink, even for the kids who are minimally participating in all that TJ has to offer.

DP. That is for them to figure out, not for you to pretend concern over.

The idea that kids who have adversity to deal with should not have access to elite educational opportunities because they would take a different approach than you would is gross.

You do a disservice to people who are on your side when you make comments like this - making them appear uncaring and out of touch with reality.

I agree. We should get rid of these holistic criteria that only serve to exclude poorer kids.

This is where testing comes in.
You don't need expensive time consuming extracurriculars to paint a holistic picture. Just be smart.
Stuyvesant uses a single test and half the kids there are on free or reduced lunch.
Some FARM kid has good test scores, let them in, they will be able to catch up.
Their poverty is their extracurricular.
Being poor should count for as much as anything that money can buy.

Stuyvesant's catchment area is mostly kids on free or reduced lunch. It doesn't come as a surprise that the school has a significant composition of those students.

It's all of NYC.
There are definitely some UMC people in NYC.
Their average SAT score is the same as TJs used to be.
Those stuy kids are as smart as TJ kids but the stuy kids are poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ MathCounts, AMC, Olympiads, ”

And those also aren’t offered everywhere. We aren’t in a “bad” pyramid either. Just a middle of the road one for FCPS.

Mathcounts allows students to sign up as non school competitors if their school isn't competing.
AMCs are offered by Fairfax math circle, FCAG, AoPS, and a number of other places.
Any motivated kid should be able to participate in both of these, even if it's not offered by their school.

But what if they can’t participate because they have to take care of their younger brother because both parents work?

If they're so overburdened with childcare or other responsibilities that they cannot even escape for a single day for an academic competition, how on earth are they going to have the time to be successful TJ students? TJ is a huge time sink, even for the kids who are minimally participating in all that TJ has to offer.

DP. That is for them to figure out, not for you to pretend concern over.

The idea that kids who have adversity to deal with should not have access to elite educational opportunities because they would take a different approach than you would is gross.

You do a disservice to people who are on your side when you make comments like this - making them appear uncaring and out of touch with reality.

That's not the idea. The idea is that when you eliminate all testing, because you feel that poor kids are incapable of prepping themselves, you eliminate all consideration of extracurricular achievements, because poor kids might be stuck babysitting the siblings, you eliminate consideration of math level, because even though 7th grade Algebra I is offered at every middle school and every single bright FCPS kid should have reasonable access, you feel that poor kids simply can't make it work, you eliminate teacher recommendations, because they might be biased, and you don't even require the kids to take all honors, because poor kids might not opt into them for whatever reason, there isn't much left.

You can either admit a broad spectrum of kids and accept that there will be high attrition at TJ, or you can admit a narrower group of kids and minimize attrition. Neither view is specifically incorrect. It comes down to whether you think it's worse to bar kids from TJ who have obstacles and haven't yet demonstrated that they can rise above those obstacles, or whether you think it's worse to set up a bunch of kids to wash out of TJ. For my part, I'm not a fan of setting kids up for failure or using kids to score political points. I hope all of the kids who are admitted understand what they're getting into and whether they really are prepared for the rigor.

I appreciate your response on some level, although I'm not sure that you really believe that both perspectives are valid.

While I recognize that most people on my side of the conversation disagree with this, I personally believe that teacher recommendations are an absolute necessity to return to the TJ admissions process. They should be similar to scantrons rather than long and narrative-based, and they should ask teachers to compare students against each other within their schools and classes. They should include ratings on grit, determination, academic integrity, contributions to the classroom environment, and an honest evaluation of whether the student is more interested in grades or learning. And they should be able to be completed in 5-10 minutes tops.

And while we're at it, afford each teacher the ability to write in greater depth about at most 3-5 students, whether to encourage admission or to warn about a student whose profile might appear worthy of TJ but who for other reasons (integrity or poor classroom ethic) would be a detriment to the educational environment.

Ideally we would use tests to measure the thing that tests measure better than any subjective criteria, but if we can't have objective measures because we would end up with too many asians, then yes, let's at least get the teacher's opinions of who should go to TJ. It's not perfect but it's better than what we have now.

You can keep your darned 1.5% but add some objective criteria or even recommendations. Because the current method is not great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does FCPS offer free summer geometry?

But what if a kid has to watch their younger brother and can’t take free summer geometry?

The family has to figure it out.
Frequently this means extended family and friends helping out.

Are you honestly concerned or just trying to make excuses?
Because a lot of poor families make a lot of painful sacrifices to get the same opportunities that affluent families can take for granted and in the end, their kids simply will not get the same opportunities.
We are never going to make access to opportunity perfectly level in one generation but each generation has the ability to improve their position so that they can provide that opportunity to the next generation.

Most of the asian boomers and gen x born here were not wealthy growing up but their children generally have had all the resources necessary to access opportunity.

We see a similar generational improvement among hispanic millenials and gen z that were born here. They were frequently not born into affluent conditions but have the resources so their children can access opportunities.

The stubborn problem is the legacy black community. It is a very hard thing to excise the less helpful parts of your culture without losing the structural integrity of the culture. The culture is changing for black women but doesn't seem to be improving for black men.

Harry Jackson has entered the chat, ladies and gentlemen.

Children who are born into families that are able to and choose to prioritize academic enrichment from an early age already grow up with a cornucopia of otherwise unearned advantages. We should not be in the business of gatekeeping publicly-funded educational advancement opportunities from students with their own internal ambition and work ethic who do not carry those advantages for whatever reason.

It is a good thing that TJ is now a realistic possibility for economically disadvantaged families. It is a good thing that poor, education-focused Asian families are now able to dream about TJ in the same way that their affluent counterparts are able to, and it is beyond question that they could not realistically do so before.

The world is moving too fast. Children should not have to wait until the next generation comes along for their children to have opportunities. Equity is not perfectly achievable but to suggest it's anything other than a worthwhile goal when the resources exist to support it is tantamount to feudalism or casteism.

You may not understand what TJ (and schools like TJ) represents.
TJ is not a prize, it's not a ticket out of poverty.
You are not made smarter or more successful merely by getting into TJ and you are not made smarter by merely graduating from TJ.
Getting into TJ is no more useful to the unqualified student than getting into seal training is for the unqualified candidate, you're just taking up a spot that should go to someone else.

The resources do not exist to support discarding the hierarchy of merit for marxist notions of equity.
Those resources will never exist.
We cannot select poor kids in this way for these sort of spots at a societal level in the hopes that it will somehow even things out.

Poverty is not a permanent condition in this country, not even close.
This isn't caste, this isn't feudalism. You have to be blindingly privileged to think something as stupid as that.
Immigrant wave after immigrant wave achieves the american dream every generation.
Generational poverty today is not society's fault.
If people cannot be arsed to make a better life for their own kids then perhaps their kids will be less shortsighted and make the necessary sacrifices for their own children.
If their children don't do that, then the poverty will continue for another generation.

If you think things are unfair and want more poor kids then eliminate holistic admissions.
Rewarding wealthy mediocrity is how we end up with situations like this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YrXXTF6bsAk

The specialized science high schools in NYC are majority FARM students and those three schools have produced 19 nobel laureates and more than its share of turing, fields, and wolf awards.
Admissions are based solely on a single test, the SHSAT, the same test we used to use.
If equity is so important to people like you then why are so many of you so dead set against a method that seems to work better for poor kids than holistic admissions.
Get rid of essays that amount to "what I did during my summer vacation"
Every FARM student that got into the "pool" under the old method should get into TJ but what happened was that the chances of being selected out of the pool was way lower for poorer kids than it was for wealthier kids.

And if after all that, poor kids still don't get in then figure out why that is and address THAT, don't shoehorn unqualified poor kids where they don't belong.

Tell me you have no idea what's actually going on at TJ without telling me you have no idea what's actually going on at TJ. Clown.

What did i say that you disagree with, sweetheart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does FCPS offer free summer geometry?

But what if a kid has to watch their younger brother and can’t take free summer geometry?

The family has to figure it out.
Frequently this means extended family and friends helping out.

Are you honestly concerned or just trying to make excuses?
Because a lot of poor families make a lot of painful sacrifices to get the same opportunities that affluent families can take for granted and in the end, their kids simply will not get the same opportunities.
We are never going to make access to opportunity perfectly level in one generation but each generation has the ability to improve their position so that they can provide that opportunity to the next generation.

Most of the asian boomers and gen x born here were not wealthy growing up but their children generally have had all the resources necessary to access opportunity.

We see a similar generational improvement among hispanic millenials and gen z that were born here. They were frequently not born into affluent conditions but have the resources so their children can access opportunities.

The stubborn problem is the legacy black community. It is a very hard thing to excise the less helpful parts of your culture without losing the structural integrity of the culture. The culture is changing for black women but doesn't seem to be improving for black men.

Harry Jackson has entered the chat, ladies and gentlemen.

Children who are born into families that are able to and choose to prioritize academic enrichment from an early age already grow up with a cornucopia of otherwise unearned advantages. We should not be in the business of gatekeeping publicly-funded educational advancement opportunities from students with their own internal ambition and work ethic who do not carry those advantages for whatever reason.

It is a good thing that TJ is now a realistic possibility for economically disadvantaged families. It is a good thing that poor, education-focused Asian families are now able to dream about TJ in the same way that their affluent counterparts are able to, and it is beyond question that they could not realistically do so before.

The world is moving too fast. Children should not have to wait until the next generation comes along for their children to have opportunities. Equity is not perfectly achievable but to suggest it's anything other than a worthwhile goal when the resources exist to support it is tantamount to feudalism or casteism.

Agree, it's a positive step in the right direction that TJ serves all residents not just a few who attend wealthy feeders like in years past.

Academic ability is not spread evenly across every school.

Nor are spaces at TJ under the new admissions process. Some schools end up with five, and some schools end up with 50.

Academic ability is also not completely concentrated within a few schools, and the AAP process does not perfectly identify academic ability.

Academic ability is bunched at centers.
The AAP process generally OVER identifies academic ability.
The few instances where it under identifies it tends to be in wealthier areas, not poorer areas and those UMC kids eventually get identified because their parents have the resources to make sure they eventually get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ FCPS acknowledges that the same four top middle schools are where advanced STEM talent is nurtured to not just meet the TJ rigor but enroll in advanced courses there.”

DC has been doing great at TJ but still won’t have as much schedule space as others because she “only” started at Math 3 level (Alg 2). She could definitely have skipped a year and done Alg 1 in 6th but not all the centers do that - she would have had to go to the secondary school for that and no clue how transpiration for that would have worked. Not all centers have the same opportunity for the full acceleration spectrum that the “feeder” schools offer.

The majority of TJ students have always started HS with Algebra 2.
They take calculus in their junior year and they take electives in their senior year.
That is very typical.

No they have not. There are not that many kids taking Algebra 2 in MS. I ran the SOL numbers for the last three years. I actually went back and ran the numbers for a 10 year period, 2021 was the first year to have over 200 students take the Algebra 2 SOL in 8th grade. I am not going to hand jam the numbers though.

Algebra 1 in 6th grade:
2021-2022: 22 FCPS students
2022-2023: 31 FCPS Students
2023-2024: 25 FCPS students

Algebra 2 in 8th grade:
2021-2022: 221 FCPS students
2022-2023: 210 FCPS students
2023-2024 201 FCPS students

I would say that the majority of kids at TJ have had Geometry and are taking Algebra 2. Very few kids are offered the path to Algebra 1 in 5th grade and a small group of kids choose to take Geometry in the summer. If you read the various summer threads on Geometry in the summer it is either not that hard for a kid but a time suck or stupidly hard and the kids drop it or expunge the grade. It feels like a 50/50 split but there is going to be a bias based on who chooses to post.

Most of the kids at TJ will take Calculus as Juniors about a quarter will take Calculus as Sophomores.

Yup.

60% of the class of 2024 took geometry in 8th, per FCAG.

34% took algebra 2+.

I think everybody is on the same page.

Then the class of 2025 increase the kids who took 8th grade algebra from 5% to 35%.
Why did they do this?
There was a 1.5% quota at each school that they needed to fill.

I have no problem with insuring that kids from every MS in TJs area are accepted at the school. TJ is a public resource that should be available to everyone in the County. Do I think the admin criteria can be tweaked? Sure.

I think the kids should have completed Geometry in 8th grade to be able to apply. Every MS has kids taking Geometry so I see that as a reasonable threshold.

I think there should be points awarded for completing classes beyond Geometry, similar to the points awarded for IEPs and FARMs status.

I don’t think that the Q test should be used. I don’t think we should be using something that is easily gamed and provides a significant bump to families that can pay for enrichment.

I think that there could be points awarded to kids who participate in school sponsored math and science activities, like Math Counts and Science Olympiad. Those can be available at every school and show a level of interest in math and science that is beyond the class requirements.

I don’t think after school activities should be included in the application, TJ admissions points should be based on what is available or could be available at every MS in FCPS.

I do think that kids should be ranked based on the MS that they are attending, which is what they are doing now, on not what their base MS could have been. If you want to be the big fish in the small pond and increase your chances of attending TJ, attend your base school. If nyou are going to decide to take a Center spot then that is who you compete against.

I think you can tweak the admissions criteria as they stand to strengthen the candidates enter TJ while maintaining open access for every MS. I have no problem with the geographic distribution.

I'm the loudest and most well-informed pro-reform person on this board and I think this is an excellent perspective. FCPS has taken a big swing at TJ reform and I think it was laudable - and I think they went a small step too far.

I don't entirely agree with the Geometry requirement but I do see where you are coming from. I think it would have positives and negatives. I have seen dozens of exceptional kids at TJ graduate and have major impacts while coming in with only Algebra, so I'm not sure how much of a necessity it is. That said, eliminating the need for Geometry courses at TJ would open up more opportunities for expansion of the back end of the math program.

The only other thing I'd say is that we don't need "points" or a rubric. A rubric creates a false sense of objectivity while being comprised of entirely subjective evaluations - even the question of how many points to assign to a GPA standard is a subjective question. You use a kid's socioeconomic status to create context for the other pieces of the application.

Here's how I'd do it:

Applications due mid-October. They will include, essentially, the student's middle school transcript and two fillable recommendations from 7th grade teachers - these will be scantron oriented as I said before, would take no more than 5-10 minutes to complete, and would ask teachers to evaluate students against each other across broad, mostly soft-skill categories. You'll get the first quarter grades in mid-November and you use those elements to get from ~3,000 applicants down to about ~1,000 finalists, and you do this in mid-January at the latest. You inform the other ~2,000 that they didn't make the cut and they get to move on to apply for private schools or whatever they want to do.

For the finalists, they are then required to get similar recommendations filled out by two eighth-grade teachers. You'll get their second quarter grades in mid-February. And then, in late February, you bring them all in to TJ, set them up with laptops, and you have them answer four questions:

1. What is your proudest achievement in STEM? (Disqualify any student who attempts to reference more than one.)
2. What is your proudest achievement outside of STEM? (Same deal, and use this question to create a class with diverse interests.)
3. What do you hope to get from your four years at TJ? (This is where you tell kids that if they do not want to attend TJ, to indicate it here and their parents won't know.)
4. How do you hope to impact TJ during your four years?

You then use the first semester grades, the teacher recommendations, and the question responses to build a class that is going to be strong as a group. First you select the allotted students from each school, which will amount to 300 or so, and then you throw the other 700 finalists in a big pot for the other 250 spots.

You would get an exceptional, well-balanced class that was strongly likely to be prepared for TJ. You would have enough information to identify which FARMS students were truly deserving of the opportunity without using a standardized exam and without giving them any "extra points", and I'm betting you'd still get a very solid number of them. And you'd have a much stronger idea of what the group would be able to contribute moving forward, with a solid wait-list to choose from.

[Anonymous]

It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

It's a false choice. The fact that that is happening with a few TJ students at the moment is not justification for scrapping a plan that has improved access to TJ.

And it's also not catastrophic for kids to get an occasional C or D. It's been happening at TJ for decades and in some cases, it's a great chance for kids to actually experience and overcome academic adversity. Plenty of kids have been getting Cs and Ds at TJ for as long as it's existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ MathCounts, AMC, Olympiads, ”

And those also aren’t offered everywhere. We aren’t in a “bad” pyramid either. Just a middle of the road one for FCPS.

Mathcounts allows students to sign up as non school competitors if their school isn't competing.
AMCs are offered by Fairfax math circle, FCAG, AoPS, and a number of other places.
Any motivated kid should be able to participate in both of these, even if it's not offered by their school.

But what if they can’t participate because they have to take care of their younger brother because both parents work?

If they're so overburdened with childcare or other responsibilities that they cannot even escape for a single day for an academic competition, how on earth are they going to have the time to be successful TJ students? TJ is a huge time sink, even for the kids who are minimally participating in all that TJ has to offer.

DP. That is for them to figure out, not for you to pretend concern over.

The idea that kids who have adversity to deal with should not have access to elite educational opportunities because they would take a different approach than you would is gross.

You do a disservice to people who are on your side when you make comments like this - making them appear uncaring and out of touch with reality.

That's not the idea. The idea is that when you eliminate all testing, because you feel that poor kids are incapable of prepping themselves, you eliminate all consideration of extracurricular achievements, because poor kids might be stuck babysitting the siblings, you eliminate consideration of math level, because even though 7th grade Algebra I is offered at every middle school and every single bright FCPS kid should have reasonable access, you feel that poor kids simply can't make it work, you eliminate teacher recommendations, because they might be biased, and you don't even require the kids to take all honors, because poor kids might not opt into them for whatever reason, there isn't much left.

You can either admit a broad spectrum of kids and accept that there will be high attrition at TJ, or you can admit a narrower group of kids and minimize attrition. Neither view is specifically incorrect. It comes down to whether you think it's worse to bar kids from TJ who have obstacles and haven't yet demonstrated that they can rise above those obstacles, or whether you think it's worse to set up a bunch of kids to wash out of TJ. For my part, I'm not a fan of setting kids up for failure or using kids to score political points. I hope all of the kids who are admitted understand what they're getting into and whether they really are prepared for the rigor.

I appreciate your response on some level, although I'm not sure that you really believe that both perspectives are valid.

While I recognize that most people on my side of the conversation disagree with this, I personally believe that teacher recommendations are an absolute necessity to return to the TJ admissions process. They should be similar to scantrons rather than long and narrative-based, and they should ask teachers to compare students against each other within their schools and classes. They should include ratings on grit, determination, academic integrity, contributions to the classroom environment, and an honest evaluation of whether the student is more interested in grades or learning. And they should be able to be completed in 5-10 minutes tops.

And while we're at it, afford each teacher the ability to write in greater depth about at most 3-5 students, whether to encourage admission or to warn about a student whose profile might appear worthy of TJ but who for other reasons (integrity or poor classroom ethic) would be a detriment to the educational environment.

I do believe that both perspectives are valid, providing that falling back to base school from TJ isn't too devastating for the kids and doesn't ruin their college chances too much. My biggest issue with the current admissions process is that the inputs are too sparse. I agree with you that teacher recommendations are necessary. I also would love to see PSAT 8/9 or SHSAT added, at the very least as a baseline competency test. The cynical side of me feels that FCPS designed the admissions to get the best press release possible, but they don't overly care about what happens to the kids after they've been admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ MathCounts, AMC, Olympiads, ”

And those also aren’t offered everywhere. We aren’t in a “bad” pyramid either. Just a middle of the road one for FCPS.

Mathcounts allows students to sign up as non school competitors if their school isn't competing.
AMCs are offered by Fairfax math circle, FCAG, AoPS, and a number of other places.
Any motivated kid should be able to participate in both of these, even if it's not offered by their school.

But what if they can’t participate because they have to take care of their younger brother because both parents work?

If they're so overburdened with childcare or other responsibilities that they cannot even escape for a single day for an academic competition, how on earth are they going to have the time to be successful TJ students? TJ is a huge time sink, even for the kids who are minimally participating in all that TJ has to offer.

DP. That is for them to figure out, not for you to pretend concern over.

The idea that kids who have adversity to deal with should not have access to elite educational opportunities because they would take a different approach than you would is gross.

You do a disservice to people who are on your side when you make comments like this - making them appear uncaring and out of touch with reality.

That's not the idea. The idea is that when you eliminate all testing, because you feel that poor kids are incapable of prepping themselves, you eliminate all consideration of extracurricular achievements, because poor kids might be stuck babysitting the siblings, you eliminate consideration of math level, because even though 7th grade Algebra I is offered at every middle school and every single bright FCPS kid should have reasonable access, you feel that poor kids simply can't make it work, you eliminate teacher recommendations, because they might be biased, and you don't even require the kids to take all honors, because poor kids might not opt into them for whatever reason, there isn't much left.

You can either admit a broad spectrum of kids and accept that there will be high attrition at TJ, or you can admit a narrower group of kids and minimize attrition. Neither view is specifically incorrect. It comes down to whether you think it's worse to bar kids from TJ who have obstacles and haven't yet demonstrated that they can rise above those obstacles, or whether you think it's worse to set up a bunch of kids to wash out of TJ. For my part, I'm not a fan of setting kids up for failure or using kids to score political points. I hope all of the kids who are admitted understand what they're getting into and whether they really are prepared for the rigor.

I appreciate your response on some level, although I'm not sure that you really believe that both perspectives are valid.

While I recognize that most people on my side of the conversation disagree with this, I personally believe that teacher recommendations are an absolute necessity to return to the TJ admissions process. They should be similar to scantrons rather than long and narrative-based, and they should ask teachers to compare students against each other within their schools and classes. They should include ratings on grit, determination, academic integrity, contributions to the classroom environment, and an honest evaluation of whether the student is more interested in grades or learning. And they should be able to be completed in 5-10 minutes tops.

And while we're at it, afford each teacher the ability to write in greater depth about at most 3-5 students, whether to encourage admission or to warn about a student whose profile might appear worthy of TJ but who for other reasons (integrity or poor classroom ethic) would be a detriment to the educational environment.

I do believe that both perspectives are valid, providing that falling back to base school from TJ isn't too devastating for the kids and doesn't ruin their college chances too much. My biggest issue with the current admissions process is that the inputs are too sparse. I agree with you that teacher recommendations are necessary. I also would love to see PSAT 8/9 or SHSAT added, at the very least as a baseline competency test. The cynical side of me feels that FCPS designed the admissions to get the best press release possible, but they don't overly care about what happens to the kids after they've been admitted.

We are pretty much in agreement. I think if a PSAT or something similar were used as a baseline (i.e. clear the hurdle and then throw the score out before evaluating the kids that met the threshold), I could live with that as long as it didn't incur significant additional costs.

I also think that you might be on to something with respect to FCPS. It's important as part of this conversation to decouple FCPS and TJ - no one at TJ had any input whatsoever in the design of, implementation of, or execution of the current admissions process. I can guarantee you that the current TJ administration is deeply invested in the success of the kids who are currently attending, but I haven't seen evidence that FCPS is equally invested in that effort.

I'm appreciating the level of nuance in this conversation and the attempt to meet mutually agreeable goals through pragmatism. While I have no interest in serving the folks who just want to protect privileged access to elite educational opportunities, I believe that there's more we can do to ensure that it's the right kids from underrepresented schools and socioeconomic backgrounds who end up at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

It's a false choice. The fact that that is happening with a few TJ students at the moment is not justification for scrapping a plan that has improved access to TJ.

And it's also not catastrophic for kids to get an occasional C or D. It's been happening at TJ for decades and in some cases, it's a great chance for kids to actually experience and overcome academic adversity. Plenty of kids have been getting Cs and Ds at TJ for as long as it's existed.

What has been happening at TJ? There are now 120+ admitted in the lowest TJ Math 1 course, historically it was not even a class full, less than 20. Many more getting Cs or Ds now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

It's a false choice. The fact that that is happening with a few TJ students at the moment is not justification for scrapping a plan that has improved access to TJ.

And it's also not catastrophic for kids to get an occasional C or D. It's been happening at TJ for decades and in some cases, it's a great chance for kids to actually experience and overcome academic adversity. Plenty of kids have been getting Cs and Ds at TJ for as long as it's existed.

What has been happening at TJ? There are now 120+ admitted in the lowest TJ Math 1 course, historically it was not even a class full, less than 20. Many more getting Cs or Ds now.

As to the first point, so what? There have always been students at other high schools who didn't get into TJ even though they were highly advanced in math - now there are enough that those high schools will be able to justify raising the ceiling of their math department. Win.

As to the second point, provide data to support your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

It's a false choice. The fact that that is happening with a few TJ students at the moment is not justification for scrapping a plan that has improved access to TJ.

And it's also not catastrophic for kids to get an occasional C or D. It's been happening at TJ for decades and in some cases, it's a great chance for kids to actually experience and overcome academic adversity. Plenty of kids have been getting Cs and Ds at TJ for as long as it's existed.

What has been happening at TJ? There are now 120+ admitted in the lowest TJ Math 1 course, historically it was not even a class full, less than 20. Many more getting Cs or Ds now.

As to the first point, so what? There have always been students at other high schools who didn't get into TJ even though they were highly advanced in math - now there are enough that those high schools will be able to justify raising the ceiling of their math department. Win.

As to the second point, provide data to support your assertion.

How is it a Win, when just one or two student from low performing middle school are being placed into lowest rigorous classes at TJ, while hundreds are left behind to advance to even lower performing High School without the support of their somewhat higher-achieving peers. It's a big Loss when those already struggling high schools are even more depleted of their top students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to convince an above average MS who is used to mostly As, to be at the bottom of class at TJ and accept Cs and Ds as normal.

It's a false choice. The fact that that is happening with a few TJ students at the moment is not justification for scrapping a plan that has improved access to TJ.

And it's also not catastrophic for kids to get an occasional C or D. It's been happening at TJ for decades and in some cases, it's a great chance for kids to actually experience and overcome academic adversity. Plenty of kids have been getting Cs and Ds at TJ for as long as it's existed.

What has been happening at TJ? There are now 120+ admitted in the lowest TJ Math 1 course, historically it was not even a class full, less than 20. Many more getting Cs or Ds now.

As to the first point, so what? There have always been students at other high schools who didn't get into TJ even though they were highly advanced in math - now there are enough that those high schools will be able to justify raising the ceiling of their math department. Win.

As to the second point, provide data to support your assertion.

They can't but they're very invested in this false narrative because they hate the new system that broadens access to more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does FCPS offer free summer geometry?

But what if a kid has to watch their younger brother and can’t take free summer geometry?

The family has to figure it out.
Frequently this means extended family and friends helping out.

Are you honestly concerned or just trying to make excuses?
Because a lot of poor families make a lot of painful sacrifices to get the same opportunities that affluent families can take for granted and in the end, their kids simply will not get the same opportunities.
We are never going to make access to opportunity perfectly level in one generation but each generation has the ability to improve their position so that they can provide that opportunity to the next generation.

Most of the asian boomers and gen x born here were not wealthy growing up but their children generally have had all the resources necessary to access opportunity.

We see a similar generational improvement among hispanic millenials and gen z that were born here. They were frequently not born into affluent conditions but have the resources so their children can access opportunities.

The stubborn problem is the legacy black community. It is a very hard thing to excise the less helpful parts of your culture without losing the structural integrity of the culture. The culture is changing for black women but doesn't seem to be improving for black men.

Harry Jackson has entered the chat, ladies and gentlemen.

Children who are born into families that are able to and choose to prioritize academic enrichment from an early age already grow up with a cornucopia of otherwise unearned advantages. We should not be in the business of gatekeeping publicly-funded educational advancement opportunities from students with their own internal ambition and work ethic who do not carry those advantages for whatever reason.

It is a good thing that TJ is now a realistic possibility for economically disadvantaged families. It is a good thing that poor, education-focused Asian families are now able to dream about TJ in the same way that their affluent counterparts are able to, and it is beyond question that they could not realistically do so before.

The world is moving too fast. Children should not have to wait until the next generation comes along for their children to have opportunities. Equity is not perfectly achievable but to suggest it's anything other than a worthwhile goal when the resources exist to support it is tantamount to feudalism or casteism.

Agree, it's a positive step in the right direction that TJ serves all residents not just a few who attend wealthy feeders like in years past.

Academic ability is not spread evenly across every school.

Nor are spaces at TJ under the new admissions process. Some schools end up with five, and some schools end up with 50.

Academic ability is also not completely concentrated within a few schools, and the AAP process does not perfectly identify academic ability.

But at least now all students have a chance and it's not limited to the few whose parents can afford expensive prep classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ FCPS acknowledges that the same four top middle schools are where advanced STEM talent is nurtured to not just meet the TJ rigor but enroll in advanced courses there.”

DC has been doing great at TJ but still won’t have as much schedule space as others because she “only” started at Math 3 level (Alg 2). She could definitely have skipped a year and done Alg 1 in 6th but not all the centers do that - she would have had to go to the secondary school for that and no clue how transpiration for that would have worked. Not all centers have the same opportunity for the full acceleration spectrum that the “feeder” schools offer.

The majority of TJ students have always started HS with Algebra 2.
They take calculus in their junior year and they take electives in their senior year.
That is very typical.

No they have not. There are not that many kids taking Algebra 2 in MS. I ran the SOL numbers for the last three years. I actually went back and ran the numbers for a 10 year period, 2021 was the first year to have over 200 students take the Algebra 2 SOL in 8th grade. I am not going to hand jam the numbers though.

Algebra 1 in 6th grade:
2021-2022: 22 FCPS students
2022-2023: 31 FCPS Students
2023-2024: 25 FCPS students

Algebra 2 in 8th grade:
2021-2022: 221 FCPS students
2022-2023: 210 FCPS students
2023-2024 201 FCPS students

I would say that the majority of kids at TJ have had Geometry and are taking Algebra 2. Very few kids are offered the path to Algebra 1 in 5th grade and a small group of kids choose to take Geometry in the summer. If you read the various summer threads on Geometry in the summer it is either not that hard for a kid but a time suck or stupidly hard and the kids drop it or expunge the grade. It feels like a 50/50 split but there is going to be a bias based on who chooses to post.

Most of the kids at TJ will take Calculus as Juniors about a quarter will take Calculus as Sophomores.

Yup.

60% of the class of 2024 took geometry in 8th, per FCAG.

34% took algebra 2+.

I think everybody is on the same page.

Then the class of 2025 increase the kids who took 8th grade algebra from 5% to 35%.
Why did they do this?
There was a 1.5% quota at each school that they needed to fill.

I have no problem with insuring that kids from every MS in TJs area are accepted at the school. TJ is a public resource that should be available to everyone in the County. Do I think the admin criteria can be tweaked? Sure.

I think the kids should have completed Geometry in 8th grade to be able to apply. Every MS has kids taking Geometry so I see that as a reasonable threshold.

I think there should be points awarded for completing classes beyond Geometry, similar to the points awarded for IEPs and FARMs status.

I don’t think that the Q test should be used. I don’t think we should be using something that is easily gamed and provides a significant bump to families that can pay for enrichment.

I think that there could be points awarded to kids who participate in school sponsored math and science activities, like Math Counts and Science Olympiad. Those can be available at every school and show a level of interest in math and science that is beyond the class requirements.

I don’t think after school activities should be included in the application, TJ admissions points should be based on what is available or could be available at every MS in FCPS.

I do think that kids should be ranked based on the MS that they are attending, which is what they are doing now, on not what their base MS could have been. If you want to be the big fish in the small pond and increase your chances of attending TJ, attend your base school. If nyou are going to decide to take a Center spot then that is who you compete against.

I think you can tweak the admissions criteria as they stand to strengthen the candidates enter TJ while maintaining open access for every MS. I have no problem with the geographic distribution.

I'm the loudest and most well-informed pro-reform person on this board and I think this is an excellent perspective. FCPS has taken a big swing at TJ reform and I think it was laudable - and I think they went a small step too far.

I don't entirely agree with the Geometry requirement but I do see where you are coming from. I think it would have positives and negatives. I have seen dozens of exceptional kids at TJ graduate and have major impacts while coming in with only Algebra, so I'm not sure how much of a necessity it is. That said, eliminating the need for Geometry courses at TJ would open up more opportunities for expansion of the back end of the math program.

The only other thing I'd say is that we don't need "points" or a rubric. A rubric creates a false sense of objectivity while being comprised of entirely subjective evaluations - even the question of how many points to assign to a GPA standard is a subjective question. You use a kid's socioeconomic status to create context for the other pieces of the application.

Here's how I'd do it:

Applications due mid-October. They will include, essentially, the student's middle school transcript and two fillable recommendations from 7th grade teachers - these will be scantron oriented as I said before, would take no more than 5-10 minutes to complete, and would ask teachers to evaluate students against each other across broad, mostly soft-skill categories. You'll get the first quarter grades in mid-November and you use those elements to get from ~3,000 applicants down to about ~1,000 finalists, and you do this in mid-January at the latest. You inform the other ~2,000 that they didn't make the cut and they get to move on to apply for private schools or whatever they want to do.

For the finalists, they are then required to get similar recommendations filled out by two eighth-grade teachers. You'll get their second quarter grades in mid-February. And then, in late February, you bring them all in to TJ, set them up with laptops, and you have them answer four questions:

1. What is your proudest achievement in STEM? (Disqualify any student who attempts to reference more than one.)
2. What is your proudest achievement outside of STEM? (Same deal, and use this question to create a class with diverse interests.)
3. What do you hope to get from your four years at TJ? (This is where you tell kids that if they do not want to attend TJ, to indicate it here and their parents won't know.)
4. How do you hope to impact TJ during your four years?

You then use the first semester grades, the teacher recommendations, and the question responses to build a class that is going to be strong as a group. First you select the allotted students from each school, which will amount to 300 or so, and then you throw the other 700 finalists in a big pot for the other 250 spots.

You would get an exceptional, well-balanced class that was strongly likely to be prepared for TJ. You would have enough information to identify which FARMS students were truly deserving of the opportunity without using a standardized exam and without giving them any "extra points", and I'm betting you'd still get a very solid number of them. And you'd have a much stronger idea of what the group would be able to contribute moving forward, with a solid wait-list to choose from.

Maybe but they stopped using teacher recs because it has been shown they are racially biased and unless you can address that issue while maintaining a race blind process it's not a sound plan.