A data-backed approach to understand the TJ Admissions Process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

No one said that multiracial = poor. But the fact remains that single biggest "edge" you an give your kid under the new admissions system is to move to a school that has historically been under-represented at TJ. By sheer coincidence that has nothing to do with American history or government policies, those happen to be areas that are racially and economically diverse.

You're backtracking. This is what you said:

"Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services."

What the hell do you mean by "actual multiracial families"? There is a right and a wrong way to be multiracial?

And you don't mean "economically diverse", what you really mean is poor.

PP (you?) said that they had checked "multiracial" for their youngest child but white for the older one. The reason was because the father is "brown." Not Black, not Latino. Brown.

So, by "actual multiracial families" I mean families that are actually multiracial. As in families with parents of different races. Not just one parent who darkens up in the summer if he spends enough time at the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

No one said that multiracial = poor. But the fact remains that single biggest "edge" you an give your kid under the new admissions system is to move to a school that has historically been under-represented at TJ. By sheer coincidence that has nothing to do with American history or government policies, those happen to be areas that are racially and economically diverse.

You're backtracking. This is what you said:

"Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services."

What the hell do you mean by "actual multiracial families"? There is a right and a wrong way to be multiracial?

And you don't mean "economically diverse", what you really mean is poor.

PP (you?) said that they had checked "multiracial" for their youngest child but white for the older one. The reason was because the father is "brown." Not Black, not Latino. Brown.

So, by "actual multiracial families" I mean families that are actually multiracial. As in families with parents of different races. Not just one parent who darkens up in the summer if he spends enough time at the pool.

I thought DCUM was worldly and all? You aren't aware of the brown possibilities outside of Blacks and Latinos? Like, say, dark-skinned Arabs? Dark-skinned Persians? And what do we make of your claim that "actual" multiracial families are found only in "economically diverse" (read poor) neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

Shame on our repugnant School Board for creating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

Shame on our repugnant School Board for creating it.

I heard there are 3X more FARMs kids in this class than the previous. It's great that they're doing so much to give these kids a shot. It should be life changing for them whereas the wealthy overprepped kids who got waitlisted willll be fine at their home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

Shame on our repugnant School Board for creating it.

I heard there are 3X more FARMs kids in this class than the previous. It's great that they're doing so much to give these kids a shot. It should be life changing for them whereas the wealthy overprepped kids who got waitlisted willll be fine at their home school

.

There was over 130 Curie kids the previous year so seems like those 40 spots went to more deserving kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

No, that is a product of including kids from every school. The 1.5% of kids from the MS traditionally not represented will have included a majority of kids who were FARMS. And ELL. Does that make up 25%? Probably not but I doubt that the experience factors are as large a factor as some folks think. There are 26 MS in FCPS, how many of those schools had not sent a kid to TJ in ages? And how many of those schools are high FARMS schools?

There is also cross-over between the various factors people are mentioning, I would guess that many of the ELL are also FARMs kids. I don’t know the exact percentage, I have not seen the data. I am aware that ELL can be non-Hispanic, at Fox Mill we have kids who are native Japanese speakers and are learning English who are ELL. I would guess that the majority of ELL speakers are Spanish speaker but I don’t know what percentage.

As for the comments about how race had to be a factor, the drop in Asian acceptances is more likely due to the increase in kids from schools that normally don’t have any kids accepted. That 1.5% adds up across the schools that normally don’t send anyone. If those schools are now sending 8 kids a piece, then there is your difference. The reality is that the schools that normally don’t send kids are less likely to have a larger Asian population. The Asian families that are focused on TJ move to get their kids into MS at the feeder schools, not Herndon MS and the schools who send a lot fewer kids. The MS inclusion served to diversify the population in important ways, I suspect that it is not going to be as easy to over turn as many people on this board think.

I do believe that the original numbers showed that a higher percentage of Asian kids were accepted then applied, even if the overall number of Asian students at the school dropped. I suspect that it is going to be hard to garner much sympathy when the acceptances still led to a greater then 50% Asian student body while increasing the number URM and ELL and FARMs kids at the same time.

The reality is that TJ is a public school and it should be available to everyone in the system and not just the kids at specific schools whose families are only focused on TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

Shame on our repugnant School Board for creating it.

I heard there are 3X more FARMs kids in this class than the previous. It's great that they're doing so much to give these kids a shot. It should be life changing for them whereas the wealthy overprepped kids who got waitlisted willll be fine at their home school.

Let’s see how those poor, under-qualified kids actually perform before deciding getting rid of merit was a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

No, that is a product of including kids from every school. The 1.5% of kids from the MS traditionally not represented will have included a majority of kids who were FARMS. And ELL. Does that make up 25%? Probably not but I doubt that the experience factors are as large a factor as some folks think. There are 26 MS in FCPS, how many of those schools had not sent a kid to TJ in ages? And how many of those schools are high FARMS schools?

There is also cross-over between the various factors people are mentioning, I would guess that many of the ELL are also FARMs kids. I don’t know the exact percentage, I have not seen the data. I am aware that ELL can be non-Hispanic, at Fox Mill we have kids who are native Japanese speakers and are learning English who are ELL. I would guess that the majority of ELL speakers are Spanish speaker but I don’t know what percentage.

As for the comments about how race had to be a factor, the drop in Asian acceptances is more likely due to the increase in kids from schools that normally don’t have any kids accepted. That 1.5% adds up across the schools that normally don’t send anyone. If those schools are now sending 8 kids a piece, then there is your difference. The reality is that the schools that normally don’t send kids are less likely to have a larger Asian population. The Asian families that are focused on TJ move to get their kids into MS at the feeder schools, not Herndon MS and the schools who send a lot fewer kids. The MS inclusion served to diversify the population in important ways, I suspect that it is not going to be as easy to over turn as many people on this board think.

I do believe that the original numbers showed that a higher percentage of Asian kids were accepted then applied, even if the overall number of Asian students at the school dropped. I suspect that it is going to be hard to garner much sympathy when the acceptances still led to a greater then 50% Asian student body while increasing the number URM and ELL and FARMs kids at the same time.

The reality is that TJ is a public school and it should be available to everyone in the system and not just the kids at specific schools whose families are only focused on TJ.

Give it time, dear. NYC's Stuyvesant is like 75-80% Asian and the fact that half of them live at the poverty level doesn't stop the attacks claiming Asian privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admissions office only considered if a child was self-identified as ELL.

FARMS is also self-reported. No one ever verifies and school systems are actually prohibited from verifying.

Two of the “experience” factors rely on self-reporting.

Great.

FCPS bestows an ESOL label on any child who lives in a household where ANY other language is spoken. In theory, a child whose younger sibling has a foreign nanny will be counted as ESOL. Them's the rules.

I agree that parents were just following the rules as set by FCPS. It’s on FCPS to create better rules.

Given that Curie (according to several posts) got at least 90 seats in the class of 2025, I am very skeptical that the numbers of FARMS and ESOL are actually the disadvantaged children that the changes were trying to help.

What a mess.

Shame on our repugnant School Board for creating it.

I heard there are 3X more FARMs kids in this class than the previous. It's great that they're doing so much to give these kids a shot. It should be life changing for them whereas the wealthy overprepped kids who got waitlisted willll be fine at their home school.

You must be the same person who believes that multiracial families must necessarily be poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

No, that is a product of including kids from every school. The 1.5% of kids from the MS traditionally not represented will have included a majority of kids who were FARMS. And ELL. Does that make up 25%? Probably not but I doubt that the experience factors are as large a factor as some folks think. There are 26 MS in FCPS, how many of those schools had not sent a kid to TJ in ages? And how many of those schools are high FARMS schools?

There is also cross-over between the various factors people are mentioning, I would guess that many of the ELL are also FARMs kids. I don’t know the exact percentage, I have not seen the data. I am aware that ELL can be non-Hispanic, at Fox Mill we have kids who are native Japanese speakers and are learning English who are ELL. I would guess that the majority of ELL speakers are Spanish speaker but I don’t know what percentage.

As for the comments about how race had to be a factor, the drop in Asian acceptances is more likely due to the increase in kids from schools that normally don’t have any kids accepted. That 1.5% adds up across the schools that normally don’t send anyone. If those schools are now sending 8 kids a piece, then there is your difference. The reality is that the schools that normally don’t send kids are less likely to have a larger Asian population. The Asian families that are focused on TJ move to get their kids into MS at the feeder schools, not Herndon MS and the schools who send a lot fewer kids. The MS inclusion served to diversify the population in important ways, I suspect that it is not going to be as easy to over turn as many people on this board think.

I do believe that the original numbers showed that a higher percentage of Asian kids were accepted then applied, even if the overall number of Asian students at the school dropped. I suspect that it is going to be hard to garner much sympathy when the acceptances still led to a greater then 50% Asian student body while increasing the number URM and ELL and FARMs kids at the same time.

The reality is that TJ is a public school and it should be available to everyone in the system and not just the kids at specific schools whose families are only focused on TJ.

If it is a "product of including every school" - why do you need to give bonus points for "experience factors?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing URMs isn’t an attack on Asian Americans.

Numbers dropped by twenty percent. So in effect,nit came at the expense of one group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, the Supreme Court will strike this new admissions system down. Might be five years from now, though.

that means striking down UT admissions (which uses the same system) which would mean reversing itself 8 years after a decision. Good luck with that

No, this one is different. Either the Harvard case or this one — with what seems to be the stunning decrease in Asian acceptances — will anger at least 5 Justices.

how is this different? At root admissions is based on results in the home school as a backdoor way to achieve diversity.

It's a direct front door way to ensure geographic diversity which is a worthy goal.

A majority of the Court will find that it failed strict scrutiny. O'Connor wanted it to sunset by something like 2029, and Robers position is clear. The egregious adverse impact on Asians here can't be rationalized.