Cheating Scandal Triggering TJ Change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/906227.page

Guys, this is as close to the "scandal" as I can find. One prep center was doing too good. I can see they prepped similar tests and the students, in their excitement and remember they are 14, boasted that they got the "exact" prep question.

Harvesting past test question isn't cheating. Guys.

DP. Agree.

Plus: THIS THREAD WAS STARTED FOUR (4) YEARS AGO !! But someone bumped it: WHY??

Seems clear that someone out there has a major grudge against TJ, the Curie test prep center, or both.

To that person: please who you are and what your motive is here?

I've been as big a contributor to this discussion as anyone. My intent in initially bringing the matter to light was to highlight the fact that there had been students getting into TJ for years on largely false pretenses.

What happened at Curie (and folks, please stop arguing that it didn't happen - you're living in an alternate reality) was designed to create imbalances in the TJ Admissions process, and did so successfully.

Worse yet, the flagship course that created these imbalances and provided undeserved advantages:
- were available for the low, low price of $5,000;
- committed students to 16 months of targeted study specifically to crack the TJ exam, which was supposed to be secured;
- appeared based on their published list to be only available to students of South Asian descent.

Did Curie do anything wrong? The answer is probably no. But did they expose a massive flaw in the TJ Admissions process that needed to be rectified, creating conditions that led to the adoption of the new admissions process so reviled by the community that they aim to exclusively serve? Yes, yes they did.

As I've said many times before, I bear no specific ill will towards Curie, except inasmuch as they are part of the very problematic industry that seeks to create imbalances in elite school admissions processes that favor families with resources. All I ever wanted was for FCPS to adjust the TJ Admissions process so that families would not be directly and obviously rewarded for participating in that industry.

And again, I and my people won. Convincingly, resoundingly, and with yet another 12-0 School Board and with the Supreme Court declining to take the case, seemingly permanently.

Again, saying you "won" is meaningless.

Your barometer is in part a 12-0 vote from a school board to support a resolution it created itself - with well-known dubious motives - after its members paid a PR firm to tell themselves what a good idea it was. The school board is a political body, and anyone knows that policies that look like they support equity receive overwhelming popular support, independent of their merit. Nobody's surprised by a unanimous vote from this echo chamber.

As to the Suproeme Court, realize that we live in America, where stupid, self-defeating ideas are legal, and hypocrisy isn't illegal up to a point. A failure of the Supreme Court to hear the case should not be interpreted as a success.

What you've accomplished is to push forward an unsatisfactory policy in wait of a better one to replace it. Yet you're harming the ability to do so by throwing around silly phrases like "we won".

The failure of the supreme court to hear this case highlights the fact that facially neutral laws are not violations of the 14th amendment merely because they were born of racist motives.
It took the voting rights act explicitly outlawing literacy tests and poll taxes, they didn't get outlawed by the civil rights act or the 14th amendment.
It's why racially motivated voter ID laws are perfectly legal, because they are in fact facially neutral.
This new admissions process is basically a modified lottery and is non-discriminatory, almost by definition (it also doesn't filter for merit).

We probably can't win this one in the courts.
We will have to win at the ballot box.

It does filter for “merit”.

30% of the students in FCPS are qualified to apply. After that it's so subjective that it's basically random.

So a lottery for merit students. Sounds good to me.

Only 20% of students get into AAP.

Picking TJ admits from a pool of 30% of 8th graders is merit in a very mediocre world.
So it is a lottery with a very low hurdle for merit.
We are not anywhere close to picking the best students.

Depends on how you define “best”.

No, it doesn't. Picking randomly from the top 30% of students is not "best" under any reasonable definition.

It could be the best allocation of seats for interested kids across the county.

It's the best method of increasing urm without express racial discrimination.

If merit has any value at all then you could have this exact same process plus a test so that you at least get the most capable kids from each of the schools.

There is certainly room for improvement in the current process, but it’s much better than the last one.

Yes, of your primary concern is racial balancing

That's illegal in the US. If you can show that's going on you can win a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Good luck!

Wanting racial balance is not illegal. Changing a merit based process to a race neutral process that de-emphasizes merit in order to achieve more racial balancing is not illegal. That's not affirmative action. No race is getting a preference in the process. The intent behind the change was race driven but the process itself is not racially discriminatory.

WRONG!!! The change was made to address the rampant cheating, which had resulted in only students from wealthy schools who could afford test prep being selected.

You can repeat that as many times as you want but it was clear throughout the rpocess and in the emails beteween FCPS board members that the primary concern was the lack of URM students at the school.

The groups that were underrepresented by the old admissions process are:

Black kids
Latino kids
Poor kids of all races
Girls

Also ELL and SN students. There was little/no representation from a large number of middle schools.

[Anonymous]

The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

The first year of quant q when noone could prep, we saw the gap shrink a bit but the next year, it went right back to where it was before.
You can't have a test that relies on the element of surprise and maintain long term viability.
Testing is still be best way we have of determining academic ability. If we want some racial diversity we can still impose the 1.5% rule and a FARM preference, but eliminating testing has made the admissions process inconsistent with the goals of selecting math and science students.

Sure, writing ability is an academic ability but we are picking a basketball team based on batting averages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

The first year of quant q when noone could prep, we saw the gap shrink a bit but the next year, it went right back to where it was before.
You can't have a test that relies on the element of surprise and maintain long term viability.
Testing is still be best way we have of determining academic ability. If we want some racial diversity we can still impose the 1.5% rule and a FARM preference, but eliminating testing has made the admissions process inconsistent with the goals of selecting math and science students.

Sure, writing ability is an academic ability but we are picking a basketball team based on batting averages.

This is another way of saying "You can't use a standardized test and keep things fair for kids without resources".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

The first year of quant q when noone could prep, we saw the gap shrink a bit but the next year, it went right back to where it was before.
You can't have a test that relies on the element of surprise and maintain long term viability.
Testing is still be best way we have of determining academic ability. If we want some racial diversity we can still impose the 1.5% rule and a FARM preference, but eliminating testing has made the admissions process inconsistent with the goals of selecting math and science students.

Sure, writing ability is an academic ability but we are picking a basketball team based on batting averages.

This is another way of saying "You can't use a standardized test and keep things fair for kids without resources".

Standardized tests are pretty fair. A prep book for the SHSAT costs less than $20.
There is nothing that you learn in a test prep course that is not available in an SHSAT book.
The fact of the matter is that we have proven that standardized tests do not reflect wealth. This is why places like harvard are bringing back the SATs

A recent study found that standardized test scores were not measures of wealth at least as measured by subsequent academic performance.
If they were measures of wealth rather than academic ability, you would expect lower income kids with higher sat scores to outperform wealthy kids with the same sat score and they do not, their performance based on college grades are statistically about the same.
The recent test optional period at lots of top colleges and universities have given us a food idea of how important test scores are in predicting college success and the kids who did not submit test scores are struggling relative to their test taking counterparts.
The study assumes that a significant portion of the kids who did not submit test scores had below the median sat scores for the school.
You can ignore the data, you can disregard peer reviewed papers but that would put you in the same category as climate change deniers and vaccine conspiracy theorists.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

Here is what I originally wrote but lost that comment and missed that part when I rushed to retype.
“it certainly was easier to address than, say, the long-term effects of redlining.”

And I never said all disparities are due to systemic racism. Here is what I said:
“There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.”


There are many, big issues in our society that aren’t easily fixed in a public school admissions process. BUT they can certainly try to reduce disparities caused by expensive test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

Here is what I originally wrote but lost that comment and missed that part when I rushed to retype.
“it certainly was easier to address than, say, the long-term effects of redlining.”

And I never said all disparities are due to systemic racism. Here is what I said:
“There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.”


There are many, big issues in our society that aren’t easily fixed in a public school admissions process. BUT they can certainly try to reduce disparities caused by expensive test prep.

And it turns out that you are completely wrong about testing.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

Here is what I originally wrote but lost that comment and missed that part when I rushed to retype.
“it certainly was easier to address than, say, the long-term effects of redlining.”

And I never said all disparities are due to systemic racism. Here is what I said:
“There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.”


There are many, big issues in our society that aren’t easily fixed in a public school admissions process. BUT they can certainly try to reduce disparities caused by expensive test prep.

And it turns out that you are completely wrong about testing.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

??
I didn’t say anything about testing.

Testing with equal opportunity to prep is ideal.

It’s the $$$$ test prep that is inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

Here is what I originally wrote but lost that comment and missed that part when I rushed to retype.
“it certainly was easier to address than, say, the long-term effects of redlining.”

And I never said all disparities are due to systemic racism. Here is what I said:
“There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.”


There are many, big issues in our society that aren’t easily fixed in a public school admissions process. BUT they can certainly try to reduce disparities caused by expensive test prep.

And it turns out that you are completely wrong about testing.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

??
I didn’t say anything about testing.

Testing with equal opportunity to prep is ideal.

It’s the $$$$ test prep that is inequitable.

unfortunately that doesn't exist and people will always find a way to game the system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $$$ test prep industry was aggravating the disparity in representation at TJ.

It wasn't the only issue, but it certainly was easier to address than the long-term effects of redlining.

What were the long term effects of redlining?

The population of non whites in fairfax was tiny
88k white, 9.7K blacks and no separately measurable hispanics to speak of in 1950 (also 100 asians and 40 all others combined)
260K white, 13.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1960 (also 900 asians and 94 all others combined)
435K white, 15.8K blacks and no measurable hispanic population in 1970 (also 2200 asians and 1100 all others combined)
539K white, 36K black , 26K all other minority combined in 1980.

How did they redline against the hispanics that weren't here?
And why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asians?

It wasn't test prep that was aggravating racial disparity at tj. It was any sort of merit based testing. For a few years people got it in their heads that tests were racist.

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

Expensive test prep certainly aggravated the disparity. Look at the results from the test prep companies.

So how did they redline against hispanics that weren't here?
Why didn't they redline against the largest non-black minority group, asian?

Redlining is just one example of how systemic racism still affects people today. There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.

The only example presented was redlining and that seems like a stretch because of the demographics of fairfax during the redlining period.

So what systemic racism limited opportunities for brown immigrants of latin american descent but did not limit opportunities for the brown immigrants of indian descent?
They are both immigrant groups.
Systemic racism did not make the indian immigrants welathy and the hispanic immigrants poor.
Systemic racism did not make one group of parents well educated and the other not.
What is the racist system here that elevates asians ABOVE whites in academics and suppresses all other groups?
Why do racist systems seem to like indians so much?

Here is what I originally wrote but lost that comment and missed that part when I rushed to retype.
“it certainly was easier to address than, say, the long-term effects of redlining.”

And I never said all disparities are due to systemic racism. Here is what I said:
“There are many ways that people end up with limited opportunities.”


There are many, big issues in our society that aren’t easily fixed in a public school admissions process. BUT they can certainly try to reduce disparities caused by expensive test prep.

And it turns out that you are completely wrong about testing.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

??
I didn’t say anything about testing.

Testing with equal opportunity to prep is ideal.

It’s the $$$$ test prep that is inequitable.

As long as the previous tests are public, the only real advantage to high $$$ test prep is that they walk you through the $20 book instead of letting you do it on your own.

Honestly, you think there is some secret sauce that they are teaching at kaplan or C4 that noone else knows about?