TJ admissions results out?

[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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Agreed.

But FCPS did not ask for income. It asked the 2 FARMS questions and all county residents would be totally ethical in saying yes to question #1; and many could have said yes to #2.

[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.

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.

100%. Basically what is being said is that one in three TJ students come from families with an income of below $48K per year, as per the definition of low income. Seems very dubious.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

I disagree. The question was written very poorly. Everyone is eligible for free meals this year and some might be receiving them. DD has had the school lunch the entire year. However, I answered no on both of those questions because I just assumed they referred to low income eligibility for free meals. There were people on this forum posting about how they had called TJ admissions and were told that anyone could check the box. If you tried to do the right thing and answer honestly you were penalized. That is what I am assuming unless FCPS provides more guidance on how that question was supposed to be interpreted.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Agreed.

But FCPS did not ask for income. It asked the 2 FARMS questions and all county residents would be totally ethical in saying yes to question #1; and many could have said yes to #2.

+1. I also would assume that all of the prep centers told their students to check yes on those questions.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Very likely since FCPS only audits 3% of those applying for FRM to verify income.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Very likely since FCPS only audits 3% of those applying for FRM to verify income.

It really wouldn't have mattered if they did since they would use the info from their database instead. That question was only there for private school applicants since they don't know it but I guess if you can afford private you wouldn't qualify for farms.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Very likely since FCPS only audits 3% of those applying for FRM to verify income.

It really wouldn't have mattered if they did since they would use the info from their database instead. That question was only there for private school applicants since they don't know it but I guess if you can afford private you wouldn't qualify for farms.

FCPS has never claimed to have any income information in their “database”.

[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.

The fact that you are permitted to answer “yes” is NOT evidence that you’re self-reporting your own experience factors.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Very likely since FCPS only audits 3% of those applying for FRM to verify income.

It really wouldn't have mattered if they did since they would use the info from their database instead. That question was only there for private school applicants since they don't know it but I guess if you can afford private you wouldn't qualify for farms.

It is the charlatan again speaking authoritatively on an issue she knows nothing about.

FCPS does not have any database of income information. They have no access to IRS records. Assessing income/financial need is super complex (case in point is the college FAFSA). FCPS has neither the need nor the ability to do that. So the database you reference is a myth. What FCPS has is the history of a student’s participation in FARMS programs. In most years it is a good proxy of income status. But FCPS expanded eligibility for FARMS during the pandemic (for good reason) but that expanded eligibility killed the use of FARMS as a low-income marker. Historical FARMS information is at best anecdotal as economic circumstances changed for many families during the pandemic. So let go of this FCPS database myth. It does not exist.

You also don’t understand private schools. There are many on scholarship at private school and could ostensibly be FARMS eligible even in non-pandemic years. Unlike you, under no circumstances will a responsible school administration come to a conclusion that if you are in private school you are not FARMS eligible. So there some more BS from you.

[Anonymous]

Pp who keeps arguing 1/3 of the class being low income is plausible….is it because you think they lowered the barbTHAT much? Low income students generally struggle at MUCH higher rates re: academics in FCPS than other kids - and that is comparing them just to the average testing level not the top. Why do you think it is believable that SO many now meet the TJ requirements ? I know they are lower than prior years but they still do mandate GOA and classes that are far less common for low income students.

[Anonymous]

Bar^

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Agreed.

But FCPS did not ask for income. It asked the 2 FARMS questions and all county residents would be totally ethical in saying yes to question #1; and many could have said yes to #2.

No. Everyone understands what the question represents. It’s unethical to answer yes if you aren’t low-income.

We checked no for both because we aren’t low-income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who keeps arguing 1/3 of the class being low income is plausible….is it because you think they lowered the barbTHAT much? Low income students generally struggle at MUCH higher rates re: academics in FCPS than other kids - and that is comparing them just to the average testing level not the top. Why do you think it is believable that SO many now meet the TJ requirements ? I know they are lower than prior years but they still do mandate GOA and classes that are far less common for low income students.

There are only 550 seats. Fewer if you are just looking at FCPS. Out of the approx 3800 low-income 8th graders in FCPS I’m sure there are at least 180 well-qualified students who will succeed at TJ.

I know one low-income kid who was just admitted and this kid is great. Very bright, hard worker, received recognition from school in an academic area. Too in classes. Only in Alg I honors because they moved here two years ago and didn’t understand the rat race math early on. Anyway. Great kid. TJ will be lucky to have them. Glad they have the opportunity with the new admissions process.

I’m sure some unethical parents answered yes, but very unlikely it was many because most understood what the question represented and they didn’t want to cheat.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Very likely since FCPS only audits 3% of those applying for FRM to verify income.

You think non-low-income families really go through all of the paperwork to get free/reduced lunches because they know it’s unlikely they will be audited?

Seems like you are projecting your own unethical behavior on others.

It’s very unlikely that families are falsely applying for low/reduced lunches.

And it’s unlikely that many families answered yes if they aren’t low-income because we all know what the questions represent. It would be unethical to answer yes to both if you aren’t low-income and not actually receiving free meals.

I hope the admissions team disqualified anyone who misrepresented themselves.