Race and TJ admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS did not mess up by allocating seats to underrepresented school. They messed up - and acted in a racist way, one might argue - when they removed the admission test. Test of aptitude. Why did they remove it? Because apparently they did not believe students of color were capable of passing it. Did they ask the affected communities if this was desirable?

Or, more accurately, they removed it because too many kids cheated.

[Anonymous]

If organizations funded by Fairfax county tax payers and the population must be proportionally represented, Asians must be:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- 70% of top 20 positions at TJ;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc. e

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If organizations funded by Fairfax county tax payers and the population must be proportionally represented, Asians must be:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- 70% of top 20 positions at TJ;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc. e

I know you're being facetious, but you're actually serious about making this point. Why is the typical DCUM poster so bad at understanding fallacies in their arguments? Educating children in the general public is entirely different than job placement. Everyone seems to forget that FCPS is a public school system tasked with educating and providing equal opportunity for every child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No pay wall posts.

It’s $4/month! Pay a little for quality journalism instead of tabloidy online only sites.

I am boycotting all MSM that are mostly fake new propaganda arm of the establishment.

I also only subscribe to fake news that confirms my personal bias. MSM is just too hung up on facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If organizations funded by Fairfax county tax payers and the population must be proportionally represented, Asians must be:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- 70% of top 20 positions at TJ;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc. e

Good grief. No one on the side of pro-reform is actually arguing that there must be proportional representation of students at TJ down to the percentage point. Textbook definition of a straw man argument. By and large people are okay with the school being plurality-Asian.

What people ARE arguing is that structural issues that have obviously eliminated economically disadvantaged students from previous classes need to be addressed. The reality of the situation is that because socioeconomic status tracks so well with race in Fairfax County, that's going to have an impact on the racial composition of the school.

[Anonymous]

PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This issue is much more nuanced than simply low expectations for URMs. Imagine the great majority of Black and Hispanic kids in Fairfax County had similar (very high) socio-economic status equivalent to the average wealth of Langley, McLean, Chantilly families who are sending their kids to TJ. In that case, yes, giving URMs bonus points to get into TJ would be ridiculous.

However, the reality is that the majority of URMs are living in the lower-middle class or below poverty level. Why do you think all the "good" school districts have very few Hispanic and Black kids? Why do all the "bad" schools have so many Hispanic and Black kids? It always goes back to the inability to afford expensive housing, which leads to concentrated pockets of poverty in specific schools, which leads to bad outcomes in schools, which leads to what we have now.

BS.

The overwhelming success of Asian children of immigrants (who’s parents arrived here with nothing) blows your tired old Marxist/progressive argument clean out of the water.

Tired of your incessant scolding about “privilege.”

It is a privilege for those children to have parents who have come to America and become wealthy - and who have chosen to make the optimization of the TJ admissions process a priority. That is a humungous advantage that the child did NOTHING to earn, which is the definition of "privilege" in this instance.

Trouble is, in certain communities admission to both TJ and to other elite schools is considered to be an accomplishment not of the child, but rather of the family. Having been connected to TJ as long as I have, I've seen countless announcements of offers of admission to elite colleges over the years, and it's always amazing to me how often the parents of other students will comment congratulating the PARENTS, but not the student.

This is one of the reasons that the kids themselves view TJ's community as "toxic".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

You are not concerned as truth is hard to digest. NYC should be an example for FCPS. Child needs to focus on academics, not keep on playing outside with neighborhood kids, riding bikes, watching tv and playing various sports all the time. Lot of Sacrifice goes into good education. Why are poor disadvantaged kids of NYC able to take advantage and get in magnets but not the Blacks and Hispanics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

You are not concerned as truth is hard to digest. NYC should be an example for FCPS. Child needs to focus on academics, not keep on playing outside with neighborhood kids, riding bikes, watching tv and playing various sports all the time. Lot of Sacrifice goes into good education. Why are poor disadvantaged kids of NYC able to take advantage and get in magnets but not the Blacks and Hispanics?

Good for NYC kids. Nothing about TJ, or any public schooling in Fairfax, should require kids to not be kids. If changing the system means that kids have more time to ride bikes or play with friends, then so much the better. Right now, more poor kids were getting into TJ than under the old system. This is not NYC, here admission to TJ virtually excluded the poor and it no longer does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

You are not concerned as truth is hard to digest. NYC should be an example for FCPS. Child needs to focus on academics, not keep on playing outside with neighborhood kids, riding bikes, watching tv and playing various sports all the time. Lot of Sacrifice goes into good education. Why are poor disadvantaged kids of NYC able to take advantage and get in magnets but not the Blacks and Hispanics?

DP. Was this response a troll who is trying to make Asians look bad? Because that's what you did.

If TJ's admissions process was one that was favoring the types of "sacrifices" that you are touting here, that's a HUGE problem and would do a tremendous job of explaining the serious mental health issues at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Being economically advantaged isn't protected by the constitution so NY could give bonus points to poor kids regardless of race and be allowed to do that. FCPS discriminated based on race where you have to show a very compelling reason for doing because race is protected by the constitution. Balancing race based on the boards preference was not a compelling reason.

In sum, NYC school board probably consulted with their in house lawyers while FCPS did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Being economically advantaged isn't protected by the constitution so NY could give bonus points to poor kids regardless of race and be allowed to do that. FCPS discriminated based on race where you have to show a very compelling reason for doing because race is protected by the constitution. Balancing race based on the boards preference was not a compelling reason.

In sum, NYC school board probably consulted with their in house lawyers while FCPS did not.

FCPS did not discriminate based on race. There are communications that were FOIA'd that, if you read them with a certain viewpoint, can suggest that there was motivation to open avenues for Black and Hispanic students to have a shot at admissions.

[Anonymous]

Can you prove that FCPS doesn’t discriminate based on race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Being economically advantaged isn't protected by the constitution so NY could give bonus points to poor kids regardless of race and be allowed to do that. FCPS discriminated based on race where you have to show a very compelling reason for doing because race is protected by the constitution. Balancing race based on the boards preference was not a compelling reason.

In sum, NYC school board probably consulted with their in house lawyers while FCPS did not.

FCPS did not discriminate based on race. There are communications that were FOIA'd that, if you read them with a certain viewpoint, can suggest that there was motivation to open avenues for Black and Hispanic students to have a shot at admissions.

I'm not sure why you are stating this as fact when a federal court found otherwise.