Reflections on the "TJ Papers"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

Totally agree. The bill may not fly but the politicians on the other side have no business using the platform of the School system to put forth their overtly political position. And to use (in the most politically expedient way) a rainbow mix of kids as props. What a travesty. Scotty knows the end is nigh. The gloves are off and his pretense is over. He wants to follow Qarni to a D&I role someplace hence the last paragraph…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Whenever someone says this, my sense is always that what they really want is for admissions to stay exactly as it is so that kids who already have the advantage of early “mentoring” (in the form of parents who are highly interested in education) will continue to be the ones who go to TJ.

And to add, they don’t really have a strong interest in helping kids who have fewer advantages than their own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

It references politics but is not siding Republican or Democrat. It sounds like you're the one implying that it is a partisan issue.

[Anonymous]

Considering that proposed legislation was written by the plaintiff in the suit to particularly target TJ, it doesn’t seem inappropriate to address it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Whenever someone says this, my sense is always that what they really want is for admissions to stay exactly as it is so that kids who already have the advantage of early “mentoring” (in the form of parents who are highly interested in education) will continue to be the ones who go to TJ.

And to add, they don’t really have a strong interest in helping kids who have fewer advantages than their own kids.

Interesting you'd say that, because there was probably no more active group of tutors than the TJ parents and students, mostly Asian, who volunteered their time at Weyanoke and other elementary schools near TJ.

It's just bizarre that the number of Black, Hispanic and FARMS kids at TJ was allowed to become the main test as to whether FCPS is helping less advantaged kids. They can rejigger their admissions process yet again to ensure the admission of more URM and FARMS kids and still the vast majority of kids in FCPS will still be attending other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

Totally agree. The bill may not fly but the politicians on the other side have no business using the platform of the School system to put forth their overtly political position. And to use (in the most politically expedient way) a rainbow mix of kids as props. What a travesty. Scotty knows the end is nigh. The gloves are off and his pretense is over. He wants to follow Qarni to a D&I role someplace hence the last paragraph…..

It's very hard not to think that's the case, and it's sad to see FCPS allow its resources to be used so blatantly in service to Scott Brabrand's post-Superintendent aspirations. He can cash in on what he's "achieved" without going this far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

It references politics but is not siding Republican or Democrat. It sounds like you're the one implying that it is a partisan issue.

No I did not mean political in that sense. What I am meant is that this is a highly charged policy and social topic and the language FCPS uses on that page is quite strong. Beyond that it is not their role to take a position on pending legislation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

It references politics but is not siding Republican or Democrat. It sounds like you're the one implying that it is a partisan issue.

No I did not mean political in that sense. What I am meant is that this is a highly charged policy and social topic and the language FCPS uses on that page is quite strong. Beyond that it is not their role to take a position on pending legislation

Not to mention they may end up talking out of both sides of their mouths.

FCPS Now: "This is terrible legislation that would reverse the important changes we made to TJ admissions to promote equity."

FCPS If Legislation Passes: "The legislation doesn't apply to us because the criteria for 'proxy discrimination' under the bill are not satisfied."

Plaintiff/State AG: "Your honor, as Exhibit 1, please see FCPS's January 2022 web page."

[Anonymous]

They absolutely can take a position on pending legislation. They have a page that spells out their legislative program. When state legislation so directly controls them, they sure do have a right to comment upon it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am concerned that a state legislator has proposed a bill about TJ admissions that was written by the Coalition for TJ. It would great to have a neutral approach, not a partisan one.

And, this was written as a reaction to what our SB did last year--I think.

And, FCPS has put a statement against this bill on their website--which I find troubling. Claiming that TJ is #1 is kind of interesting as we have yet to see the results of the changes.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/see-what-makes-tjhsst-one-highest-rated-high-schools-nation

I find this too political to be on a public school system's website.

Wow. That is a VERY political page. Surprised to see something worded like that from FCPS. It does read to me a bit like they copy and pasted from whatever the lawyer prepared to defend on the case.

Regardless why is a public school system taking a position on state legislation? That does not seem at all appropriate for them to do regardless of the topic

It references politics but is not siding Republican or Democrat. It sounds like you're the one implying that it is a partisan issue.

No I did not mean political in that sense. What I am meant is that this is a highly charged policy and social topic and the language FCPS uses on that page is quite strong. Beyond that it is not their role to take a position on pending legislation

They literally adopt a legislative agenda every year that outlines what legislation they will lobby for or support. It's just unusual for them to publicly attack a particular bill in such a public manner.

[Anonymous]

I never knew they did that. That said “they” appears to be the elected SB, NOT the publicly funded school district itself.

Here is the 2022 page: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/performance-and-accountability/school-board-legislative-program.

There is also a huge difference between broad principles in dry language like laid out in the SB doc above vs the flaming language directly by FCPS itself about a specific piece of pending legislation. I do not think things like this new webpage are common and I don’t think it is appropriate for FCPS to take this stance. If the SB issues a statement saying the same thing that is different than FCPS saying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never knew they did that. That said “they” appears to be the elected SB, NOT the publicly funded school district itself.

Here is the 2022 page: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/performance-and-accountability/school-board-legislative-program.

There is also a huge difference between broad principles in dry language like laid out in the SB doc above vs the flaming language directly by FCPS itself about a specific piece of pending legislation. I do not think things like this new webpage are common and I don’t think it is appropriate for FCPS to take this stance. If the SB issues a statement saying the same thing that is different than FCPS saying it.

Your link isn’t working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never knew they did that. That said “they” appears to be the elected SB, NOT the publicly funded school district itself.

Here is the 2022 page: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/performance-and-accountability/school-board-legislative-program.

There is also a huge difference between broad principles in dry language like laid out in the SB doc above vs the flaming language directly by FCPS itself about a specific piece of pending legislation. I do not think things like this new webpage are common and I don’t think it is appropriate for FCPS to take this stance. If the SB issues a statement saying the same thing that is different than FCPS saying it.

Your link isn’t working.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/performance-and-accountability/school-board-legislative-program


Or just search for legislative program on the FCPS website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Agreed. But how do we do this? Very important issue so I am truly interested in hearing how this can be achieved.

I am no education expert. Teachers can start to identify gifted kids from K, you don’t have to be an advanced reader to be gifted. Maybe teachers need to figure how how to identify giftedness without assessing advanced reading and math skills. Parents play a big role in their child’s education and future. Unfortunately gifted kids will be left behind if they don’t have an involved parent. Each title one school should have a mentor for these kids, make sure they are doing what they need to stay on track. The mentor along with the AART should make sure these students to have what they need to thrive and be ready for TJ if that’s where they want to go.

And the best part is TJ gets to not have URM or FARMs students for another decade while the experiment is conducted and the data is analyzed.

DP, but it's odd that somehow in the midst of a pandemic Brabrand and the School Board decided that one of FCPS's top priorities should be increasing the number and percentage of URM and FARMS students at one school out of the 200 or so schools in FCPS. It's certainly not like they don't have other schools with demographics that are anything but representative of the county as a whole.

Um. There is only one school that is a magnet school that draws from the whole county. Of course it is a priority. It is the most prestigious, most well known, most controversial, most highly funded school in the county. Making equity at that school a priority makes absolute sense for a board that ran in equity as a focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Agreed. But how do we do this? Very important issue so I am truly interested in hearing how this can be achieved.

If you read through the docs, there was a blurb backed with actual stats that there were enough URM black and hispanic kids in level IV centers taking geometry in 8th to fill half a TJ freshman class, but they were not applying for TJ .

If the students are prepared, but not interested, for whatever reason, then lowering the standards to something almost any fcps can meet (algebra in 8th and low GPA cut off for middle school) is a huge mistake.

As a parent of a TJ kid, I think the bolded needs to be looked at. WHY are kids/parents not interested? (And some are overly interested.)

Why is it hard to understand that a 45+ minute commute to high school isn't desirable for a lot of kids especially if it means having to drop sports and activities.

Seriously. I refused when my guidance counselor asked me to apply to TJ, because I almost lived in Loudoun county and I knew the bus ride would be at least an hour each way, vs. my base school which was a sub 5 min walk. As a middle/high schooler, FCPS forced me to learn how to get things done while massively sleep deprived as it was, I wasn't going to compound the problem that much.