TJ admissions results out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

I have made ZERO claims. Others have confirmed that FCPS has relevant data - which they always do and it would make sense that they do.

No one has questioned the FARMS data that was cited from previous years. They only question it now because it's convenient to do so.

It's not safe to assume anything because no one has formally requested any clarifications from FCPS. Whining on here and pretending that you've called the admissions office is not confirmation of your suspicions.

The word for what you're doing is "sophistry". Look it up.

Call the TJ Admissions office and ask them. I did back in November and they confirmed that parents could say yes.

FCPS does not have income data on families. Full stop. They are not collecting tax returns. The only data used to give the economically disadvantaged experience factor was how parents responded to these two questions.

If I was the parent of a child with an IEP or a child that was actually low income, I would be very upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will FCPS issue the press release?

Looking forward to analysis from the FOIA data!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/25/tj-class-of-2026-data/

The Class of 2026 at TJ, as the school is known, will include 550 students accepted from a pool of 2,544 applicants. Of the offers sent to eighth-graders, about 60 percent went to Asian students, 21 percent to White students, 8 percent to Hispanic students and 6 percent to Black students. Roughly 33 percent of offers went to low-income students and 51 percent went to female students.

The Class of 2025, the first to be admitted under the system, was about 54 percent Asian, 22 percent White, 11 percent Hispanic and 7 percent Black. Roughly 25 percent of students receiving offers were economically disadvantaged.

Why is there no information in this article about Special Education students? It seems like this would be more relevant than race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TJ has now asked parents of wait list students to either drop off the list, or confirm they want to remain. They usually do this.

List should be a lot smaller come next week.

Isn’t this thread supposed to be about admissions?

Bumping my post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

I have made ZERO claims. Others have confirmed that FCPS has relevant data - which they always do and it would make sense that they do.

No one has questioned the FARMS data that was cited from previous years. They only question it now because it's convenient to do so.

It's not safe to assume anything because no one has formally requested any clarifications from FCPS. Whining on here and pretending that you've called the admissions office is not confirmation of your suspicions.

The word for what you're doing is "sophistry". Look it up.

Call the TJ Admissions office and ask them. I did back in November and they confirmed that parents could say yes.

FCPS does not have income data on families. Full stop. They are not collecting tax returns. The only data used to give the economically disadvantaged experience factor was how parents responded to these two questions.

If I was the parent of a child with an IEP or a child that was actually low income, I would be very upset.

But they do have FARMS data for all current students - FULL STOP. Stop trying to create a conspiracy where none exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will FCPS issue the press release?

Looking forward to analysis from the FOIA data!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/25/tj-class-of-2026-data/

The Class of 2026 at TJ, as the school is known, will include 550 students accepted from a pool of 2,544 applicants. Of the offers sent to eighth-graders, about 60 percent went to Asian students, 21 percent to White students, 8 percent to Hispanic students and 6 percent to Black students. Roughly 33 percent of offers went to low-income students and 51 percent went to female students.

The Class of 2025, the first to be admitted under the system, was about 54 percent Asian, 22 percent White, 11 percent Hispanic and 7 percent Black. Roughly 25 percent of students receiving offers were economically disadvantaged.

Why is there no information in this article about Special Education students? It seems like this would be more relevant than race.

I guess the author wanted to focus on other details but the data was listed by the county in their document which was linked in another thread a few days ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ has now asked parents of wait list students to either drop off the list, or confirm they want to remain. They usually do this.

List should be a lot smaller come next week.

Isn’t this thread supposed to be about admissions?

Bumping my post.

I will just bump my own post. AGAIN. This thread is for parents of students applying to TJ.

Take your political / partisan bickering to one of the other dozen threads meant for TJ bickering, not here.

[Anonymous]

I know several students in Loudoun admitted to TJ who are declining.

At one school, I know of 3 admits. One is definitely TJ level. The other two are pretty surprising, I could name 20 at the school that are more STEM capable. One was waitlisted to one of the Academy of Loudoun schools. The third student is declining TJ, not sure if accepted or waitlisted to Academies of Loudoun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

I have made ZERO claims. Others have confirmed that FCPS has relevant data - which they always do and it would make sense that they do.

No one has questioned the FARMS data that was cited from previous years. They only question it now because it's convenient to do so.

It's not safe to assume anything because no one has formally requested any clarifications from FCPS. Whining on here and pretending that you've called the admissions office is not confirmation of your suspicions.

The word for what you're doing is "sophistry". Look it up.

The FARMS data from previous years is not a valid comparison. FCPS changed eligibility of FARMS during the Pandemic (remember the world turned upside down during the pandemic?) making just about everyone eligible. Hence the issue. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

The fact is the claim of admitting more low income students is extremely dubious and will likely be exposed over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

Nope.

+1
DD applied this year and we are FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

I have made ZERO claims. Others have confirmed that FCPS has relevant data - which they always do and it would make sense that they do.

No one has questioned the FARMS data that was cited from previous years. They only question it now because it's convenient to do so.

It's not safe to assume anything because no one has formally requested any clarifications from FCPS. Whining on here and pretending that you've called the admissions office is not confirmation of your suspicions.

The word for what you're doing is "sophistry". Look it up.

Here is the word that describes your posturing on this board - “charlatan”. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

My child attends an FCPS middle school and applied this year. Here are the two questions that his TJ Application asked:

1. Are you eligible for free meals?
2. Are you currently receiving free meals?

I contacted the TJ Admissions office and they said that they were aware of the issue and that parents could say Yes to Question #1. If your child was actually eating the free meals, they could say yes to #2.

It did not make any sense at the time and it still does not make sense.

Exactly!
As to knowing FCPS did not verify it…at some point someone will spend the money on a FOIA to get that. I have not. But again, I’d be willing to bet my house that they did not verify actual low income status simply because the 33% low income is so ludicrously high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

My child attends an FCPS middle school and applied this year. Here are the two questions that his TJ Application asked:

1. Are you eligible for free meals?
2. Are you currently receiving free meals?

I contacted the TJ Admissions office and they said that they were aware of the issue and that parents could say Yes to Question #1. If your child was actually eating the free meals, they could say yes to #2.

It did not make any sense at the time and it still does not make sense.

Exactly!
As to knowing FCPS did not verify it…at some point someone will spend the money on a FOIA to get that. I have not. But again, I’d be willing to bet my house that they did not verify actual low income status simply because the 33% low income is so ludicrously high.

Why does that seem low?

FCPS is 27% low income.

[Anonymous]

^ I mean why does that seem high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

I have made ZERO claims. Others have confirmed that FCPS has relevant data - which they always do and it would make sense that they do.

No one has questioned the FARMS data that was cited from previous years. They only question it now because it's convenient to do so.

It's not safe to assume anything because no one has formally requested any clarifications from FCPS. Whining on here and pretending that you've called the admissions office is not confirmation of your suspicions.

The word for what you're doing is "sophistry". Look it up.

Call the TJ Admissions office and ask them. I did back in November and they confirmed that parents could say yes.

FCPS does not have income data on families. Full stop. They are not collecting tax returns. The only data used to give the economically disadvantaged experience factor was how parents responded to these two questions.

If I was the parent of a child with an IEP or a child that was actually low income, I would be very upset.

But they do have FARMS data for all current students - FULL STOP. Stop trying to create a conspiracy where none exists.

The data is from the 2019-2020 school year.

[Anonymous]

FCPS has been strangely silent on a press release. I’m also very curious about how the “free meals for all” policy affected the applicant pool including special education, etc.