FCPS Appeals decision are out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

No one is suggesting eliminating Asian Americans from the pool of candidates for these programs - indeed, they will almost certainly always be remarkably over-represented in them. What is being suggested is that the programs would be significantly more robust if they were somewhat less over-represented than they currently are.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

+1000. Have you, first quoted PP, ever read the science on how mathematical models and computer algorithms (ex: facial recognition) are significantly impacted by over and under representation of different populations in math and computer programming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

There is a significant difference between AAP and elite academic settings: AAP in theory has unlimited space and is supposed to be available for all who need something beyond gen ed. Harvard, TJ, or other elite academic settings have a hard cap on the number of students they can admit. Harvard has a pool of eminently qualified candidates that is much larger than the number of available seats. This makes it easy and proper for them to seek a diverse student body, as they have many qualified candidates from many different backgrounds.

Limiting participation in AAP would be like telling an Asian 2nd grader that he tested at DRA 38 and above grade level in math, but since Asians are overrepresented in the highest reading and math groups, he instead needs to be placed in the DRA 28 group and in regular math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

It really doesn't. The lower end of the TJ student body - ESPECIALLY the Asian American students who are in that threshold - generally does worse in the college admissions process than they would be expected to do as one of the top 15% of students at their base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"If you scroll down to page 66, you can see average CogAT and NNAT scores of LIV eligible kids broken down by race. It's very enlightening. For the kids who got accepted to AAP - CogAT Q score: Asian mean = 130.95. AA mean: 119.8 Hispanic mean: 118.9"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

Asian Americans have been subjected to this for decades in admissions to selective high schools and colleges.

Indeed. Many of these schools (not yet to include TJ) have recognized that the value of their education and their brand increases when legitimate diversity exists within their student body, in response to numerous peer-reviewed studies that confirm this assertion. They have successfully transitioned towards a superior model that seeks to create a stronger class of students rather than simply evaluating each individual student against identical criteria - which does nothing but create a homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another.

Harvard University could very easily select the 1700 or so students who come closest to reaching some imagined "ideal" criteria based on an artificial construct of what "merit" is - solely referencing GPA, board scores, and resumes. They correctly understand that their classrooms will be more dynamic and their students will be better prepared to serve and change the world if their students come from different backgrounds and perspectives.

It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

"homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another"

Well you've revealed your bias. You're not going to be able to make a convincing case for your views after that. Randomly tossing in words like "correctly" and "undeniably" isn't going to fool anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is willing to understand why it's important to close the achievement gap between Hispanics/African Americans, they should read this first: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20Sector/Our%20Insights/The%20economic%20impact%20of%20closing%20the%20racial%20wealth%20gap/The-economic-impact-of-closing-the-racial-wealth-gap-final.pdf

It's easy to say "not our problem," but what FCPS is trying to do has some merit. It starts with closing the gap in the years that make a difference to the trajectory of the child's life.

I haven't seen anyone say, "It's not our problem." But admitting unqualified students to an AAP program is not the way to close the gap. You're sending the wrong message to these kids. They may come to believe that they don't need to work hard. They may have self-esteem issues if they can't keep up. Or the program becomes watered down and the truly gifted kids suffer.

[Anonymous]

Asian students are also over-represented in AP courses. What's the solution? Is it to pressure AA and Hispanic kids into taking the courses, even if their academic record suggests that the course would be too challenging? Is it to have the courses be open enrollment, except for Asians who will have limited seats in those classes?

What about 7th grade Algebra I Honors, which also has Asian over-representation and Black under-representation? Is the solution to change the threshold such that Black kids are eligible to take 7th grade Algebra with a 70% IAAT and a 450 on the SOL, but Asian kids now need a 99% IAAT and 600 SOL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

It really doesn't. The lower end of the TJ student body - ESPECIALLY the Asian American students who are in that threshold - generally does worse in the college admissions process than they would be expected to do as one of the top 15% of students at their base school.

Contrary to the popular myth, many TJ students, including Asian students, attend TJ for the unique experience of being around other highly intellectually capable and curious students instead of being bullied for being a serous academic student, taking advantage of the many unique post-AP courses offered only at TJ as well as many advanced labs/equipments and, teachers who are actually capable of teaching highly able, curious and ambitious students who often hold PhDs, JDs, from top universities and/or other relevant academic research experiences more so than playing games to gain some "advantage" in obtaining acceptances to the DCUM obsessed Ivy League schools or other top schools.

In addition, TJ grads tend to do far better at colleges/universities than base high school graduates being better prepared for college level courses and often obtaining higher gpas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

There is a significant difference between AAP and elite academic settings: AAP in theory has unlimited space and is supposed to be available for all who need something beyond gen ed. Harvard, TJ, or other elite academic settings have a hard cap on the number of students they can admit. Harvard has a pool of eminently qualified candidates that is much larger than the number of available seats. This makes it easy and proper for them to seek a diverse student body, as they have many qualified candidates from many different backgrounds.

Limiting participation in AAP would be like telling an Asian 2nd grader that he tested at DRA 38 and above grade level in math, but since Asians are overrepresented in the highest reading and math groups, he instead needs to be placed in the DRA 28 group and in regular math.

That statement is the real crux of the problem. It started with FCPS personnel who have been consistently putting out that false narrative. It is wholeheartedly false and it's up to all of us to understand that. Each center school has a quota against which the AAP selection committee works. FCPS movement in setting the composite score on a yearly basis is based on the quota of entrants they are seeking for the given year. There is not "unlimited space" for every kid who meets the threshold. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a central "selection" committee. FCPS could publish the threshold on a yearly basis and each kid that makes the threshold, encompassing of the GBRS score, would gain entry. Done! We wouldn't have these long forums on the reason for rejection or what score your child received and what are the chances. All of that would become moot if there truly was unlimited space. You would be able to streamline the entire process, and the stress of the yearly application process would significantly dissipate. It's just a non-factual statement and if you, as parents, hear that from your AART or Principal or Gatehouse, challenge it. Keep challenging it. If you challenge it enough times, FCPS will have to stop spreading the false narrative. The program is like all other programs--a limited number of spots for a larger applicant pool. In that scenario, some kids who should gain entry due to what is on paper will end up not getting entry because there are "other" non-published factors. Racial profiling to close the achievement gap is one such factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

Of course parents are aware - that's pretty much the point of this whole thread. Holistic means test scores, GBRS, work samples, + race. For people comparing this to college admissions, that situation sucks but obviously there are other colleges. Here, a truly gifted Asian could be left out in favor of a lesser qualified student and have no other options for advanced enrichment. Great, you increased diversity, but to the detriment of a deserving child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

It really doesn't. The lower end of the TJ student body - ESPECIALLY the Asian American students who are in that threshold - generally does worse in the college admissions process than they would be expected to do as one of the top 15% of students at their base school.

Contrary to the popular myth, many TJ students, including Asian students, attend TJ for the unique experience of being around other highly intellectually capable and curious students instead of being bullied for being a serous academic student, taking advantage of the many unique post-AP courses offered only at TJ as well as many advanced labs/equipments and, teachers who are actually capable of teaching highly able, curious and ambitious students who often hold PhDs, JDs, from top universities and/or other relevant academic research experiences more so than playing games to gain some "advantage" in obtaining acceptances to the DCUM obsessed Ivy League schools or other top schools.

In addition, TJ grads tend to do far better at colleges/universities than base high school graduates being better prepared for college level courses and often obtaining higher gpas.

The PP isn't talking about how a TJ grad does once they enter college, but rather the disadvantage of being in the bottom 15% of TJ graduating class rather than being the top 1% of the base high school graduating class. There is empirical data on this. You may be taking all AP classes, but if you're consistently barely making the mark at TJ because the competition is that fierce, and you could be in the top 1% of every single class you took in your base high school, if you know anything about college admissions process, you know which profile student would end up with better admissions stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

No one is suggesting eliminating Asian Americans from the pool of candidates for these programs - indeed, they will almost certainly always be remarkably over-represented in them. What is being suggested is that the programs would be significantly more robust if they were somewhat less over-represented than they currently are.

How about we eliminate testing, and just admit randomly selected students in a ratio equal to the population race ratio. Would that satisfy you? Because if you do take test scores into account, Asian Americans are not over-represented.