Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

Friendo, you are getting roasted by someone who is clearly a lot smarter than you. Advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

Friendo, you are getting roasted by someone who is clearly a lot smarter than you. Advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Verbose is not smart. Code not book club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

You're talking about the parents of the 20 kids who have now been consigned to Langley and Mclean? Their high school careers are ruined. But their college acceptances have been improved.

(Also, networking at a high school vs networking at a college? Really?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

" The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students."

[b] If this were true, then the process the judge threw out would have allocated middle school seats by BASE school, NOT by school of attendance. This would have kids from underrepresented schools in AAP go to TJ, not the ones struggling now [b]

1) When I say "we" in this instance I am referring to pro-reform advocates, not to FCPS.

2) I actually think there's a solid argument to be made in favor of allocating seats by zoned middle school, perhaps with a small set-aside number for students who may have been missed by the AAP process but are excelling in their current environment. This may be an eventual compromise that is reached.

That is why you have a TEST! To identify those left out of the pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

And yet we've netted out to MORE Asian students at TJ this year than 3-4 years ago. And a higher % of total Asian population in FCPS.

Seems like they weren't very successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

And yet we've netted out to MORE Asian students at TJ this year than 3-4 years ago. And a higher % of total Asian population in FCPS.

Seems like they weren't very successful.

But they're not Asians from Carson and Longfellow! They're the wrong Asians!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

You're talking about the parents of the 20 kids who have now been consigned to Langley and Mclean? Their high school careers are ruined. But their college acceptances have been improved.

(Also, networking at a high school vs networking at a college? Really?)

Haha.. PP here, this is definitely true. Its a lot easier to get accepted into colleges from base schools than TJ. I have many examples right in my neighborhood

I have been trying to make a point across to some other poster who was 'clearly' invested in new admission process in some way. I am only doing this because I felt its unfair and racially motivated though it is not explicitly said in wording. My kids wouldn't make it to TJ with either old or new process and not really interested as well and so personally it doesn't make much of a difference to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!

Tell this to parents/kids from AAP center schools such as Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run etc, who are sending only about half as many students in spite of increased capacity at TJ. Also, there was a clear evidence that there was a racial motive behind the very specific changes, otherwise judge wouldn't have agreed. End of the day, TJ is being slowly watered down, which we may not realize now, but we will in a few years. If similar courses are offered at other schools, TJ hardly matters anyway.

Yeah. As someone who has been around TJ for a long time, the back half of the kids at Carson are NOT the fastest kids in the 100m. And I mean that figuratively speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The have hat has not been moved from the ultra wealthy communities to economically disadvantaged ones. The top TJ feeders like Carson and Rocky Run are still getting tons of kids in. Now schools that rarely got any one in, Poe/Glasgow/Whitman/whoever, are also assured a solid chunk of seats.

Which communities lost out? Middle class. Rich never give from themselves to low income. Frost went from something like 25 seats to 9, which is probably only the 1.5% they are required to get.

Not sure exactly how it impacted different schools but Elaine Tholen admitted to the McLean PTSA that the school, already overcrowded, picked up 20-30 additional freshmen from Longfellow last fall due to the TJ admissions changes.

This is the problem with how this TJ reform was done. Mclean has far fewer spots at TJ and the School Board did nothing to address the already existing issue with overcrowding at McLean High School ( which are now further overcrowded)

The good way would have been to effect reform at TJ and concurrently address issues at McLean, Langley, Marshall, Oakton, Chantilly and other schools impacted by the TJ policy change. Throw in some dollars to have advanced math/science classes.

The school board did not do that. Instead they fed the flames of "Asians are preppers and cheats". Reform did not have to be about us vs them. But you don't get political mileage unless you make the issue partisan. And this is what the school board did. Tholen was a deer in headlights when all this was happening.

They are certainly preppers, but not cheats, and the testing requirements were biased. Idk what you guys think, but they aren’t going back to the biased process

You are conflating two issues. Issue 1: The previous process was broken. Issue 2: The new process is fair/equitable. You will find many folks like me in agreement with Issue 1 - that process was broken (Curie exemplifies why it was broken) and we are not going back. Let us only talk about Issue 2. The new process is no good and largely because the School Board was in a hurry to implement. Any solution will likely result in fewer Asians at TJ. Most reasonable Asians would be ok as long as you soften the blow by offering some TJ like courses at their home schools. Instead we have had an approach where Braband and the school board have created a victor/vanquished dynamic and supported canards of "cheating Asians" to rally their idealogical base.

This makes no sense. You are assuming this but it's a strange assumption. What do "most reasonable XXXs" want? They don't want a better CS course for their senior year. They either want the cohort, if that is their goal, or they want the cachet, if that is their goal. Neither of those are achieved by adding DiffEq to Mclean. The first is achieved by -going to Mclean-.

I am not assuming. I would do it. Many that I know would do it. What I feel right now is that the school board has changed the rules of the game on TJ on me (my child's odds are way lower and it does not matter to my child - the impcated individual - that the School Board added yet another social justice badge of honor at his expense). Further, the Board has done nothing to fix overcrowding at Mclean (an issue that predates the TJ reform and the reform has further exacerbated it). To me it feels like the Board is tell me to eff-off and they will do anything they can because they have the power. I felt the same when McConnell reused to consider Merrick Garland for Scalia's seat. It was the tyranny of the majority. We have the power and we will ride roughshod over you.

So yes you can go on with your assumption that Asian parents want nothing less than a test that they can "game". It feeds the stereotype that has been assiduously cultivated on this Board - you cannot allow for the existence of reasonable Asian parents. Hence you advocate for this new broken process as the only alternative to the past one

I don't think you guys understand. I am an immigrant who came to this country 20 years back. I have encountered racism as a brown Asian man. However, this act of intentionally targeting people like me and my kids has been the worst by far. Calling us overrepresented and making policies to weed us out. Very upsetting. FCPS owes us an apology.

Are you going to continue to vote for every progressive during elections? If so, nothing is going to change.

I am very struggling with that - as a staunch politically active democrat who has contributed time and money. Still think the hateful progressives are small in number. I am definitely having second thoughts though. Not because I don't believe in progressive ideas but because I can't get behind the hatefulness and thoughtless destructivess of many progressives. It is a "Let's destroy first and ask questions later" approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The have hat has not been moved from the ultra wealthy communities to economically disadvantaged ones. The top TJ feeders like Carson and Rocky Run are still getting tons of kids in. Now schools that rarely got any one in, Poe/Glasgow/Whitman/whoever, are also assured a solid chunk of seats.

Which communities lost out? Middle class. Rich never give from themselves to low income. Frost went from something like 25 seats to 9, which is probably only the 1.5% they are required to get.

Not sure exactly how it impacted different schools but Elaine Tholen admitted to the McLean PTSA that the school, already overcrowded, picked up 20-30 additional freshmen from Longfellow last fall due to the TJ admissions changes.

This is the problem with how this TJ reform was done. Mclean has far fewer spots at TJ and the School Board did nothing to address the already existing issue with overcrowding at McLean High School ( which are now further overcrowded)

The good way would have been to effect reform at TJ and concurrently address issues at McLean, Langley, Marshall, Oakton, Chantilly and other schools impacted by the TJ policy change. Throw in some dollars to have advanced math/science classes.

The school board did not do that. Instead they fed the flames of "Asians are preppers and cheats". Reform did not have to be about us vs them. But you don't get political mileage unless you make the issue partisan. And this is what the school board did. Tholen was a deer in headlights when all this was happening.

They are certainly preppers, but not cheats, and the testing requirements were biased. Idk what you guys think, but they aren’t going back to the biased process

You are conflating two issues. Issue 1: The previous process was broken. Issue 2: The new process is fair/equitable. You will find many folks like me in agreement with Issue 1 - that process was broken (Curie exemplifies why it was broken) and we are not going back. Let us only talk about Issue 2. The new process is no good and largely because the School Board was in a hurry to implement. Any solution will likely result in fewer Asians at TJ. Most reasonable Asians would be ok as long as you soften the blow by offering some TJ like courses at their home schools. Instead we have had an approach where Braband and the school board have created a victor/vanquished dynamic and supported canards of "cheating Asians" to rally their idealogical base.

This makes no sense. You are assuming this but it's a strange assumption. What do "most reasonable XXXs" want? They don't want a better CS course for their senior year. They either want the cohort, if that is their goal, or they want the cachet, if that is their goal. Neither of those are achieved by adding DiffEq to Mclean. The first is achieved by -going to Mclean-.

I am not assuming. I would do it. Many that I know would do it. What I feel right now is that the school board has changed the rules of the game on TJ on me (my child's odds are way lower and it does not matter to my child - the impcated individual - that the School Board added yet another social justice badge of honor at his expense). Further, the Board has done nothing to fix overcrowding at Mclean (an issue that predates the TJ reform and the reform has further exacerbated it). To me it feels like the Board is tell me to eff-off and they will do anything they can because they have the power. I felt the same when McConnell reused to consider Merrick Garland for Scalia's seat. It was the tyranny of the majority. We have the power and we will ride roughshod over you.

So yes you can go on with your assumption that Asian parents want nothing less than a test that they can "game". It feeds the stereotype that has been assiduously cultivated on this Board - you cannot allow for the existence of reasonable Asian parents. Hence you advocate for this new broken process as the only alternative to the past one

I don't think you guys understand. I am an immigrant who came to this country 20 years back. I have encountered racism as a brown Asian man. However, this act of intentionally targeting people like me and my kids has been the worst by far. Calling us overrepresented and making policies to weed us out. Very upsetting. FCPS owes us an apology.

Are you going to continue to vote for every progressive during elections? If so, nothing is going to change.

I am very struggling with that - as a staunch politically active democrat who has contributed time and money. Still think the hateful progressives are small in number. I am definitely having second thoughts though. Not because I don't believe in progressive ideas but because I can't get behind the hatefulness and thoughtless destructivess of many progressives. It is a "Let's destroy first and ask questions later" approach.

Your concerns are very valid... but to be honest, if "hateful" is what you're worried about, you have much bigger issues with the red hat folks than with a few people who are trying to expand access for lower-income Asians in addition to other populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The have hat has not been moved from the ultra wealthy communities to economically disadvantaged ones. The top TJ feeders like Carson and Rocky Run are still getting tons of kids in. Now schools that rarely got any one in, Poe/Glasgow/Whitman/whoever, are also assured a solid chunk of seats.

Which communities lost out? Middle class. Rich never give from themselves to low income. Frost went from something like 25 seats to 9, which is probably only the 1.5% they are required to get.

Not sure exactly how it impacted different schools but Elaine Tholen admitted to the McLean PTSA that the school, already overcrowded, picked up 20-30 additional freshmen from Longfellow last fall due to the TJ admissions changes.

This is the problem with how this TJ reform was done. Mclean has far fewer spots at TJ and the School Board did nothing to address the already existing issue with overcrowding at McLean High School ( which are now further overcrowded)

The good way would have been to effect reform at TJ and concurrently address issues at McLean, Langley, Marshall, Oakton, Chantilly and other schools impacted by the TJ policy change. Throw in some dollars to have advanced math/science classes.

The school board did not do that. Instead they fed the flames of "Asians are preppers and cheats". Reform did not have to be about us vs them. But you don't get political mileage unless you make the issue partisan. And this is what the school board did. Tholen was a deer in headlights when all this was happening.

They are certainly preppers, but not cheats, and the testing requirements were biased. Idk what you guys think, but they aren’t going back to the biased process

You are conflating two issues. Issue 1: The previous process was broken. Issue 2: The new process is fair/equitable. You will find many folks like me in agreement with Issue 1 - that process was broken (Curie exemplifies why it was broken) and we are not going back. Let us only talk about Issue 2. The new process is no good and largely because the School Board was in a hurry to implement. Any solution will likely result in fewer Asians at TJ. Most reasonable Asians would be ok as long as you soften the blow by offering some TJ like courses at their home schools. Instead we have had an approach where Braband and the school board have created a victor/vanquished dynamic and supported canards of "cheating Asians" to rally their idealogical base.

This makes no sense. You are assuming this but it's a strange assumption. What do "most reasonable XXXs" want? They don't want a better CS course for their senior year. They either want the cohort, if that is their goal, or they want the cachet, if that is their goal. Neither of those are achieved by adding DiffEq to Mclean. The first is achieved by -going to Mclean-.

I am not assuming. I would do it. Many that I know would do it. What I feel right now is that the school board has changed the rules of the game on TJ on me (my child's odds are way lower and it does not matter to my child - the impcated individual - that the School Board added yet another social justice badge of honor at his expense). Further, the Board has done nothing to fix overcrowding at Mclean (an issue that predates the TJ reform and the reform has further exacerbated it). To me it feels like the Board is tell me to eff-off and they will do anything they can because they have the power. I felt the same when McConnell reused to consider Merrick Garland for Scalia's seat. It was the tyranny of the majority. We have the power and we will ride roughshod over you.

So yes you can go on with your assumption that Asian parents want nothing less than a test that they can "game". It feeds the stereotype that has been assiduously cultivated on this Board - you cannot allow for the existence of reasonable Asian parents. Hence you advocate for this new broken process as the only alternative to the past one

I don't think you guys understand. I am an immigrant who came to this country 20 years back. I have encountered racism as a brown Asian man. However, this act of intentionally targeting people like me and my kids has been the worst by far. Calling us overrepresented and making policies to weed us out. Very upsetting. FCPS owes us an apology.

Are you going to continue to vote for every progressive during elections? If so, nothing is going to change.

I am very struggling with that - as a staunch politically active democrat who has contributed time and money. Still think the hateful progressives are small in number. I am definitely having second thoughts though. Not because I don't believe in progressive ideas but because I can't get behind the hatefulness and thoughtless destructivess of many progressives. It is a "Let's destroy first and ask questions later" approach.

Your concerns are very valid... but to be honest, if "hateful" is what you're worried about, you have much bigger issues with the red hat folks than with a few people who are trying to expand access for lower-income Asians in addition to other populations.

hence the struggle. however, I have to say I didn't realize the extent of the anti-Asian hate. and the sheer thoughtlessness. I am still not ready to move sides but that's possibly because I am as liberal as they come.

btw adding low-income asian is just specious and you so transparent. don't make it worse. you either don't understand or don't care about low-income asians.

[Anonymous]

What are you seeing that you call anti-Asian hate?

[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:The have hat has not been moved from the ultra wealthy communities to economically disadvantaged ones. The top TJ feeders like Carson and Rocky Run are still getting tons of kids in. Now schools that rarely got any one in, Poe/Glasgow/Whitman/whoever, are also assured a solid chunk of seats.

Which communities lost out? Middle class. Rich never give from themselves to low income. Frost went from something like 25 seats to 9, which is probably only the 1.5% they are required to get.

Not sure exactly how it impacted different schools but Elaine Tholen admitted to the McLean PTSA that the school, already overcrowded, picked up 20-30 additional freshmen from Longfellow last fall due to the TJ admissions changes.

This is the problem with how this TJ reform was done. Mclean has far fewer spots at TJ and the School Board did nothing to address the already existing issue with overcrowding at McLean High School ( which are now further overcrowded)

The good way would have been to effect reform at TJ and concurrently address issues at McLean, Langley, Marshall, Oakton, Chantilly and other schools impacted by the TJ policy change. Throw in some dollars to have advanced math/science classes.

The school board did not do that. Instead they fed the flames of "Asians are preppers and cheats". Reform did not have to be about us vs them. But you don't get political mileage unless you make the issue partisan. And this is what the school board did. Tholen was a deer in headlights when all this was happening.

They are certainly preppers, but not cheats, and the testing requirements were biased. Idk what you guys think, but they aren’t going back to the biased process

You are conflating two issues. Issue 1: The previous process was broken. Issue 2: The new process is fair/equitable. You will find many folks like me in agreement with Issue 1 - that process was broken (Curie exemplifies why it was broken) and we are not going back. Let us only talk about Issue 2. The new process is no good and largely because the School Board was in a hurry to implement. Any solution will likely result in fewer Asians at TJ. Most reasonable Asians would be ok as long as you soften the blow by offering some TJ like courses at their home schools. Instead we have had an approach where Braband and the school board have created a victor/vanquished dynamic and supported canards of "cheating Asians" to rally their idealogical base.

This makes no sense. You are assuming this but it's a strange assumption. What do "most reasonable XXXs" want? They don't want a better CS course for their senior year. They either want the cohort, if that is their goal, or they want the cachet, if that is their goal. Neither of those are achieved by adding DiffEq to Mclean. The first is achieved by -going to Mclean-.

I am not assuming. I would do it. Many that I know would do it. What I feel right now is that the school board has changed the rules of the game on TJ on me (my child's odds are way lower and it does not matter to my child - the impcated individual - that the School Board added yet another social justice badge of honor at his expense). Further, the Board has done nothing to fix overcrowding at Mclean (an issue that predates the TJ reform and the reform has further exacerbated it). To me it feels like the Board is tell me to eff-off and they will do anything they can because they have the power. I felt the same when McConnell reused to consider Merrick Garland for Scalia's seat. It was the tyranny of the majority. We have the power and we will ride roughshod over you.

So yes you can go on with your assumption that Asian parents want nothing less than a test that they can "game". It feeds the stereotype that has been assiduously cultivated on this Board - you cannot allow for the existence of reasonable Asian parents. Hence you advocate for this new broken process as the only alternative to the past one

I don't think you guys understand. I am an immigrant who came to this country 20 years back. I have encountered racism as a brown Asian man. However, this act of intentionally targeting people like me and my kids has been the worst by far. Calling us overrepresented and making policies to weed us out. Very upsetting. FCPS owes us an apology.

Are you going to continue to vote for every progressive during elections? If so, nothing is going to change.

I am very struggling with that - as a staunch politically active democrat who has contributed time and money. Still think the hateful progressives are small in number. I am definitely having second thoughts though. Not because I don't believe in progressive ideas but because I can't get behind the hatefulness and thoughtless destructivess of many progressives. It is a "Let's destroy first and ask questions later" approach.

Your concerns are very valid... but to be honest, if "hateful" is what you're worried about, you have much bigger issues with the red hat folks than with a few people who are trying to expand access for lower-income Asians in addition to other populations.

hence the struggle. however, I have to say I didn't realize the extent of the anti-Asian hate. and the sheer thoughtlessness. I am still not ready to move sides but that's possibly because I am as liberal as they come.

btw adding low-income asian is just specious and you so transparent. don't make it worse. you either don't understand or don't care about low-income asians.

Why? They've been cut out of the process for generations, and the evidence is in the numbers. Now they're present in the school and celebrated.

[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:The have hat has not been moved from the ultra wealthy communities to economically disadvantaged ones. The top TJ feeders like Carson and Rocky Run are still getting tons of kids in. Now schools that rarely got any one in, Poe/Glasgow/Whitman/whoever, are also assured a solid chunk of seats.

Which communities lost out? Middle class. Rich never give from themselves to low income. Frost went from something like 25 seats to 9, which is probably only the 1.5% they are required to get.

Not sure exactly how it impacted different schools but Elaine Tholen admitted to the McLean PTSA that the school, already overcrowded, picked up 20-30 additional freshmen from Longfellow last fall due to the TJ admissions changes.

This is the problem with how this TJ reform was done. Mclean has far fewer spots at TJ and the School Board did nothing to address the already existing issue with overcrowding at McLean High School ( which are now further overcrowded)

The good way would have been to effect reform at TJ and concurrently address issues at McLean, Langley, Marshall, Oakton, Chantilly and other schools impacted by the TJ policy change. Throw in some dollars to have advanced math/science classes.

The school board did not do that. Instead they fed the flames of "Asians are preppers and cheats". Reform did not have to be about us vs them. But you don't get political mileage unless you make the issue partisan. And this is what the school board did. Tholen was a deer in headlights when all this was happening.

They are certainly preppers, but not cheats, and the testing requirements were biased. Idk what you guys think, but they aren’t going back to the biased process

You are conflating two issues. Issue 1: The previous process was broken. Issue 2: The new process is fair/equitable. You will find many folks like me in agreement with Issue 1 - that process was broken (Curie exemplifies why it was broken) and we are not going back. Let us only talk about Issue 2. The new process is no good and largely because the School Board was in a hurry to implement. Any solution will likely result in fewer Asians at TJ. Most reasonable Asians would be ok as long as you soften the blow by offering some TJ like courses at their home schools. Instead we have had an approach where Braband and the school board have created a victor/vanquished dynamic and supported canards of "cheating Asians" to rally their idealogical base.

This makes no sense. You are assuming this but it's a strange assumption. What do "most reasonable XXXs" want? They don't want a better CS course for their senior year. They either want the cohort, if that is their goal, or they want the cachet, if that is their goal. Neither of those are achieved by adding DiffEq to Mclean. The first is achieved by -going to Mclean-.

I am not assuming. I would do it. Many that I know would do it. What I feel right now is that the school board has changed the rules of the game on TJ on me (my child's odds are way lower and it does not matter to my child - the impcated individual - that the School Board added yet another social justice badge of honor at his expense). Further, the Board has done nothing to fix overcrowding at Mclean (an issue that predates the TJ reform and the reform has further exacerbated it). To me it feels like the Board is tell me to eff-off and they will do anything they can because they have the power. I felt the same when McConnell reused to consider Merrick Garland for Scalia's seat. It was the tyranny of the majority. We have the power and we will ride roughshod over you.

So yes you can go on with your assumption that Asian parents want nothing less than a test that they can "game". It feeds the stereotype that has been assiduously cultivated on this Board - you cannot allow for the existence of reasonable Asian parents. Hence you advocate for this new broken process as the only alternative to the past one

I don't think you guys understand. I am an immigrant who came to this country 20 years back. I have encountered racism as a brown Asian man. However, this act of intentionally targeting people like me and my kids has been the worst by far. Calling us overrepresented and making policies to weed us out. Very upsetting. FCPS owes us an apology.

The changes were targeted at wealthy families. Wealthy people don’t like that, so they’ve spared no expense to make you believe that the changes were about race, when in fact low-income Asian students were immeasurably helped by the changes. But it’s easier to get people angry if you claim racism.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even poor Asians are harmed by these changes. Because poor Asians pay for prep. My DH’s family was one such family. DH, a first gen immigrant from one of the poorest nations on earth at the time, attended TJ, then a tippy top engineering program. Now we are rich, but we would never send our kids to TJ.

PP can you explain now why you would never send your kids to TJ? We are also upper middle class and can afford private schools, but if our kid got into TJ (or at least the old TJ) we would send them because of the academics. We are asian if that makes a difference. But I am interested to understand this rags-to-riches through TJ and then you don't want your kids to go there.

DP here, Asian, first-gen "rags to riches" immigrant, who also would never send our kids to TJ because it's not a good match for them. Our kids do pretty well at their home school and we value the sense of community that they get by going to the same school that their nearby friends go to. Our kids are also not sure if they want to go end up in a STEM field. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most important consideration: based on our experience "making it" it just seems to us that developing relationships and networks is a more useful skill to kids who are not hyper-capable at math and science. TJ is a wonderful school but it is not a school for everyone, and not certainly for all Asians. People want different things.

I'm rich, Asian, and love TJ for the networking. But honestly, I am glad others don't want to send their kids so we have less competition.

Isn't it wonderful that as two Asian parents, each of us can raise our kids how we want to raise them, knowing that our efforts will help guide them towards what we think is important, even if our goals are based on different ideas. This is true diversity and it is what makes America a wonderful country, with each individual being able to seek out their path, largely unhindered by discriminatory practices by the government.