Thomas Jefferson TJHSST - why not Honors Algebra I/Honors Geometry for TJ admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every student in FCPS can access Honors Algebra I and Honors Geometry online. Any student ending 8th grade without taking Honors Geometry online through FCPS or an equivalent program. Summer Geometry can be provided to students outside of FCPS for any student accepted to TJ. Any student that doesn’t meet this requirement before 9th grade will free up spots for the next kids on the list who have met the requirements.

If this was the case, all FCPS students that are applying to TJ should get the 0.5 bump on their GPA for taking an honors high school class (or a 1.0 bump for taking AP Pre-Calculus or higher level AP courses). This would allow the committee to include aptitude for higher levels of math in their holistic review for FCPS students (this doesn’t need to be a requirement for other counties).

If the concern is about equity and students from lower income households needing to provide child care for younger siblings and not being able to take a summer course, Fairfax County can provide that care through camps (which are already set up in most high FARMS middle schools and add elementary students).

This would allow the committee to find students for aptitude to take higher level courses. Students who aren’t able to keep up with online math courses won’t need to access the higher level AP math/science courses at TJ as they will not surpass what would be offered through local high schools.

How is it equitable some kids only have the opportunity to take H algebra or H geometry online? Obviously a kid who is able to be in a classroom with a teacher and motivated peers is going to do better than someone trying to take an online class. I don't understand this argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

I specifically said “with the goal of gaining admission to TJ”. If it’s your kid’s sincere interest, sure. But if your kid shows a mild interest and you push it because you want them to go to TJ then it is “gaming” the system.

That is the dumbest definition of "gaming" the system I have ever heard.
If you don't want to push your kid to study and strive for academic excellence unless they have a natural interest in studying then that's up to you but what you call "gaming" the system is usually better known as good parenting.

Pushing your kid into certain activities just because you want them to go to TJ is not “academic excellence”, it’s gaming the system. And it’s how we ended up with a school full of over-pushed kids instead of true STEM-loving kids.

That is what ruined TJ for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a few wealthy ES's that offered pre-algebra in 5th grade unlike the bulk of FCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

+1
Those aren’t the one in a M kids that TJ needs to catch. They are no different than bright advanced kids who don my do outside prep and so certainly do not deserve a leg up in admissions just for the outside prep time.

The effect that you get through studying isn't a "leg up"
It's not some unearned privilege.
It is the consequence of studying.

But another kid who is naturally strong in math and in advanced math classes in school can hold their own at TJ just as well as someone who has “studied” a lot outside of what is needed for classes at school. I see no reason the latter kid should get a preference in TJ admissions.

How can you tell who is naturally strong at math?
The GPAs are all 4.0 or so close to it that it doesn't matter.
The kids who do the extra studying are actually better at math.
They are demonstrably better at math right now. No need to guess.

Studying is virtue not a ethical breach.
This is the big difference between asian culture and mainstream american culture that explains pretty much the entire achievement gap between asians and others.
"Natural talent" is just a big engine attached to nothing; it goes nowhere, does nothing, drinks petrol and just makes a loud noise.
Build a machine around that engine, tune it and refine it and you can get a lot more done even with a less powerful engine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

+1
Those aren’t the one in a M kids that TJ needs to catch. They are no different than bright advanced kids who don my do outside prep and so certainly do not deserve a leg up in admissions just for the outside prep time.

The effect that you get through studying isn't a "leg up"
It's not some unearned privilege.
It is the consequence of studying.

But another kid who is naturally strong in math and in advanced math classes in school can hold their own at TJ just as well as someone who has “studied” a lot outside of what is needed for classes at school. I see no reason the latter kid should get a preference in TJ admissions.

As it is now, neither are getting in due to the process pretty much being random selection among students who took algebra 1 in 8th or earlier.

To be fair, there is self selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every student in FCPS can access Honors Algebra I and Honors Geometry online. Any student ending 8th grade without taking Honors Geometry online through FCPS or an equivalent program. Summer Geometry can be provided to students outside of FCPS for any student accepted to TJ. Any student that doesn’t meet this requirement before 9th grade will free up spots for the next kids on the list who have met the requirements.

If this was the case, all FCPS students that are applying to TJ should get the 0.5 bump on their GPA for taking an honors high school class (or a 1.0 bump for taking AP Pre-Calculus or higher level AP courses). This would allow the committee to include aptitude for higher levels of math in their holistic review for FCPS students (this doesn’t need to be a requirement for other counties).

If the concern is about equity and students from lower income households needing to provide child care for younger siblings and not being able to take a summer course, Fairfax County can provide that care through camps (which are already set up in most high FARMS middle schools and add elementary students).

This would allow the committee to find students for aptitude to take higher level courses. Students who aren’t able to keep up with online math courses won’t need to access the higher level AP math/science courses at TJ as they will not surpass what would be offered through local high schools.

How is it equitable some kids only have the opportunity to take H algebra or H geometry online? Obviously a kid who is able to be in a classroom with a teacher and motivated peers is going to do better than someone trying to take an online class. I don't understand this argument.

If you are gifted bough for TJ math it shouldn’t matter where/how you take geometry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

I specifically said “with the goal of gaining admission to TJ”. If it’s your kid’s sincere interest, sure. But if your kid shows a mild interest and you push it because you want them to go to TJ then it is “gaming” the system.

That is the dumbest definition of "gaming" the system I have ever heard.
If you don't want to push your kid to study and strive for academic excellence unless they have a natural interest in studying then that's up to you but what you call "gaming" the system is usually better known as good parenting.

Pushing your kid into certain activities just because you want them to go to TJ is not “academic excellence”, it’s gaming the system. And it’s how we ended up with a school full of over-pushed kids instead of true STEM-loving kids.

That is what ruined TJ for everyone.

Studying is not "certain activities" it is the primary method of education.
Studying ruined TJ for the kids that didn't study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

But none of that is needed to access geometry in 7th. Any kid who is naturally bright at math will end up in the FCPS advanced math track. Among those kids, any who are bright and mathy should be able to clear the IAAT bar without any prep or studying. Algebra I in 7th is a path that doesn't require parents to do anything at all. Any kid who is naturally 98th percentile or higher should easily qualify without any parental intervention or outside enrichment or anything. Last year, a reasonable number of FARMS 8th graders took the Geometry SOL, and a few even took the Algebra II one. It's kind of absurd not to look at math level, since the FARMS kids who are accelerated like that are certainly naturally gifted at math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

I specifically said “with the goal of gaining admission to TJ”. If it’s your kid’s sincere interest, sure. But if your kid shows a mild interest and you push it because you want them to go to TJ then it is “gaming” the system.

Anyone who is, by your definition, “gaming the system” will simply say “My child loves math and asks to take the extra classes.” Your definition is unenforceable, not to mention ridiculous. I understand that we don’t want to penalize kids for not having access to enrichment but the idea that you want to create some arbitrary definition for when enrichment is acceptable or not is silly.

I have no problem with admission to TJ being based on activities available at all MS. That means grades, rigor of classes (H vs non-H), and participation in STEM clubs at the school after school. Yes, kids who have participated in enrichment will likely do well in the classes that they have been in enrichment for. That does not prevent other kids from doing well in those same classes. Very few kids are in Algebra 1 in 6th grade so the enrichment push is not giving kids a huge advantage in acceleration.

Math classes should be weighted so that kids who are in Algebra II receive the most credit, then kids in Geometry, then Algebra 1. My kid will finish Geometry in 8th grade, he is not doing Geometry this summer. I do think a kid who is further ahead in math can benefit more from TJ’s class offerings so I understand why it would be weighted that way. The weight needs to be applied based on what is available at the school. If the highest class offered at the MS is Geometry then the kids in Geometry get that highest weight.

I also think participation in STEM clubs shows an interest in the activity on a kids part. Math Counts, Science Olympiad, Science Bowl that type of thing. The weight could be simply participating in an activity and not a count of activities. Did the child participate in one of the STEM clubs in 7th grade? 8th grade?

I think looking at the electives makes sense. Engineering and the Computer classes should mean something. Again, one or the other because I know lots of kids take a foreign language or orchestra/band and there needs to be room for other activities.

I do think that it is bogus that foreign language is counted in the GPA but the other electives are not. A student who decides to take a challenging class could be penalized while others who didn’t take that risk are not? If you count the GPA of one elective, include them all. DS has an A in his language it just doesn’t seem to fair. If you are not going to count all the electives then the kids taking a foreign language should get some type of weight for their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

But none of that is needed to access geometry in 7th. Any kid who is naturally bright at math will end up in the FCPS advanced math track. Among those kids, any who are bright and mathy should be able to clear the IAAT bar without any prep or studying. Algebra I in 7th is a path that doesn't require parents to do anything at all. Any kid who is naturally 98th percentile or higher should easily qualify without any parental intervention or outside enrichment or anything. Last year, a reasonable number of FARMS 8th graders took the Geometry SOL, and a few even took the Algebra II one. It's kind of absurd not to look at math level, since the FARMS kids who are accelerated like that are certainly naturally gifted at math.

Very few kids have access to Geometry in 7th grade because very few kids take Algebra 1 in 6th grade. The reason why kids end up in Algebra II in 8th grade is that they take Geometry in the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

But none of that is needed to access geometry in 7th. Any kid who is naturally bright at math will end up in the FCPS advanced math track. Among those kids, any who are bright and mathy should be able to clear the IAAT bar without any prep or studying. Algebra I in 7th is a path that doesn't require parents to do anything at all. Any kid who is naturally 98th percentile or higher should easily qualify without any parental intervention or outside enrichment or anything. Last year, a reasonable number of FARMS 8th graders took the Geometry SOL, and a few even took the Algebra II one. It's kind of absurd not to look at math level, since the FARMS kids who are accelerated like that are certainly naturally gifted at math.

Very few kids have access to Geometry in 7th grade because very few kids take Algebra 1 in 6th grade. The reason why kids end up in Algebra II in 8th grade is that they take Geometry in the summer.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Few kids have Geometry in 7th, but 7th grade geometry is not being proposed as a requirement. Geometry in 8th is. Every FCPS kid who is bright at math should have no problem accessing Algebra I in 7th and Geometry in 8th without any need for outside prep or parental involvement.

That being said, the FARMS kids who took Algebra II in 8th are likely exceptional and would thrive at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

But none of that is needed to access geometry in 7th. Any kid who is naturally bright at math will end up in the FCPS advanced math track. Among those kids, any who are bright and mathy should be able to clear the IAAT bar without any prep or studying. Algebra I in 7th is a path that doesn't require parents to do anything at all. Any kid who is naturally 98th percentile or higher should easily qualify without any parental intervention or outside enrichment or anything. Last year, a reasonable number of FARMS 8th graders took the Geometry SOL, and a few even took the Algebra II one. It's kind of absurd not to look at math level, since the FARMS kids who are accelerated like that are certainly naturally gifted at math.

Very few kids have access to Geometry in 7th grade because very few kids take Algebra 1 in 6th grade. The reason why kids end up in Algebra II in 8th grade is that they take Geometry in the summer.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Few kids have Geometry in 7th, but 7th grade geometry is not being proposed as a requirement. Geometry in 8th is. Every FCPS kid who is bright at math should have no problem accessing Algebra I in 7th and Geometry in 8th without any need for outside prep or parental involvement.

That being said, the FARMS kids who took Algebra II in 8th are likely exceptional and would thrive at TJ.

I am not. Read my post and the one I was responding to. The post I am responding to says “None of that is needed to access Geometry in 7th grade.” The implication of that statement is that geometry in 7th grade is a regular thing. My response says that it is not a regular occurrence and that the kids in Algebra II are choosing to take Geometry over the summer. I am fine with Geometry being the bench mark for TJ because it is accessible to students through FCPS progression with Advanced Math/AAP. I do think that kids who are in Algebra II should receive a bump for it if it is available at their MS. Not every school offers it but I think the kids in Algebra II with As in Algebra 1 and Geometry should be in the 1.5% for their school over a kid with Geometry and that a kid with Geometry should be ahead of a kid with Algebra in 8th.

And while I would agree that a kid from a high FARMS school in Algebra II in 8th grade would thrive at TJ, I don’t think that there are that many because the high FARMS/ESOL schools struggle to put together a Geometry class in 8th grade. Many times the issue is that most FARMS and ESOL kids are starting behind and catching up so they are less likely to end up in the hyper advanced category. The ones that end up in Algebra 1 as a 7th grader are doing exceptionally well because they tend to have less support at home, less access to enrichment opportunities, and are advancing on their own work ethic and intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

Isn't 8th grade geometry available at all middle schools? Why isn't that metric used?

Because it would cut out all of the kids whose parents didn’t know how to game the system by pushing their kids into extra accelerated classes early on.

It was encouraging the race to nowhere.

But none of that is needed to access geometry in 7th. Any kid who is naturally bright at math will end up in the FCPS advanced math track. Among those kids, any who are bright and mathy should be able to clear the IAAT bar without any prep or studying. Algebra I in 7th is a path that doesn't require parents to do anything at all. Any kid who is naturally 98th percentile or higher should easily qualify without any parental intervention or outside enrichment or anything. Last year, a reasonable number of FARMS 8th graders took the Geometry SOL, and a few even took the Algebra II one. It's kind of absurd not to look at math level, since the FARMS kids who are accelerated like that are certainly naturally gifted at math.

Very few kids have access to Geometry in 7th grade because very few kids take Algebra 1 in 6th grade. The reason why kids end up in Algebra II in 8th grade is that they take Geometry in the summer.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Few kids have Geometry in 7th, but 7th grade geometry is not being proposed as a requirement. Geometry in 8th is. Every FCPS kid who is bright at math should have no problem accessing Algebra I in 7th and Geometry in 8th without any need for outside prep or parental involvement.

That being said, the FARMS kids who took Algebra II in 8th are likely exceptional and would thrive at TJ.

I am not. Read my post and the one I was responding to. The post I am responding to says “None of that is needed to access Geometry in 7th grade.” The implication of that statement is that geometry in 7th grade is a regular thing. My response says that it is not a regular occurrence and that the kids in Algebra II are choosing to take Geometry over the summer. I am fine with Geometry being the bench mark for TJ because it is accessible to students through FCPS progression with Advanced Math/AAP. I do think that kids who are in Algebra II should receive a bump for it if it is available at their MS. Not every school offers it but I think the kids in Algebra II with As in Algebra 1 and Geometry should be in the 1.5% for their school over a kid with Geometry and that a kid with Geometry should be ahead of a kid with Algebra in 8th.

And while I would agree that a kid from a high FARMS school in Algebra II in 8th grade would thrive at TJ, I don’t think that there are that many because the high FARMS/ESOL schools struggle to put together a Geometry class in 8th grade. Many times the issue is that most FARMS and ESOL kids are starting behind and catching up so they are less likely to end up in the hyper advanced category. The ones that end up in Algebra 1 as a 7th grader are doing exceptionally well because they tend to have less support at home, less access to enrichment opportunities, and are advancing on their own work ethic and intelligence.

Sorry. That was my post and a typo. None of that is needed to access Geometry in 8th. Oops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families who send their kids to outside enrichment, including test prep, with the goal of gaining admission to TJ are “gaming” the system.

Not really, at least not all of us. DS loves math and loves his math competition class. Does that mean he has a bit of a leg up in his math class? Sure, he has been exposed to many of the concepts before and he has probably had more math practice than kids who don’t do math outside of school. Are we gaming the system? Not intentionally. He dropped the grade level math class he initially took in favor of math competition and we were fine with that. Would he have a leg up on the Quant test if they still had it? Probably, but that is not the reason why he is taking the class.

So it is “ok” for him to participate in enrichment because he loves math vs a kid who is strong at math and whose parents are interested in TJ?

I don’t have a problem with them dropping the Quant test as it was, that test was being specifically prepped for and did provide an advantage to students who could afford prep.

I like seats for each MS. We know that those seats are not all used by kids from those schools and I appreciate them making sure that there is space for kids who are interested in STEM at schools where the kids are less likely to have the outside support to imp[rove or strengthen academic skills.

I like that the criteria is now focused on STEM measures that are available at all schools, so classes. I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a way to weight participation in Mathcounts, Science Olympiad and the like if they are available at all MS. I do think that those clubs show additional interest/investment in STEM but they need to be available to all the kids and not just the ones with AAP Centers.

I would not have a problem if the applications were weighted based on the highest level of math available at each MS. The MS with Algebra II can add a weight to those kids scores to choose their top 1.5%. The schools that only have a few kids in Geometry and more kids in Algebra can still send those kids. But punishing kids who come from families that don’t know about AAP or math paths or that their kid is really good at math shouldn’t be denied access to a great cohort of kids and some amazing opportunities. The AAP Centers with Algebra 2 kids and Geometry kids should be sending those kids. The schools with smaller cohorts send kids with Algebra 1 H and TJ is in a position to support those kids and their interest in STEM in a unique way. But the Algebra 1 only kids would be a smaller group of kids who are interested in STEM and need some supports that the Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, Rocky Run kids don’t need.

I specifically said “with the goal of gaining admission to TJ”. If it’s your kid’s sincere interest, sure. But if your kid shows a mild interest and you push it because you want them to go to TJ then it is “gaming” the system.

That is the dumbest definition of "gaming" the system I have ever heard.
If you don't want to push your kid to study and strive for academic excellence unless they have a natural interest in studying then that's up to you but what you call "gaming" the system is usually better known as good parenting.

Pushing your kid into certain activities just because you want them to go to TJ is not “academic excellence”, it’s gaming the system. And it’s how we ended up with a school full of over-pushed kids instead of true STEM-loving kids.

That is what ruined TJ for everyone.

Studying is not "certain activities" it is the primary method of education.
Studying ruined TJ for the kids that didn't study.

If by studying you mean buying the test answers, then sure!