TJ Students by FCPS Pyramid 2022-23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

There are other additional evidence.

Please post it if so. This is literally the only quotes I have seen and they do not show the board intended to discriminate against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Lol. It's hilarious that you still maintain this perspective. How can you not see the issue that having 20% Black/Hispanic means there is some kind of discriminatory effect that is hurting them? I could argue that the prior admissions situation was in violation of Equal Educational Opportunities Act because ELL students were excluded from gifted programming.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is irrelevant. It has no obligation to provide fair and equal access unlike public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is irrelevant. It has no obligation to provide fair and equal access unlike public schools.

TJ did provide fair and equal access but the racists want unequal access and equal outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any idea about home school or out of county (Loudoun, PW) or private school

This is based on FCPS data about "transfers" within FCPS pyramids. The only other thing one can discern from this data is that 68% of current TJ students (1345 in total) live in Fairfax County and the other 32% presumably live in Arlington, FCC, Loudoun, and Prince William. It doesn't tell you whether the students were homeschooled or attended private school before attending TJ.

Interesting. Why does fcps open up TJ to other non FCPS students? Is that stipulated somewhere? With the demand of interest, doesn’t make sense.

TJ isn't an FCPS school, it's a governor's school. It's for all the districts that want it (not ACPS, they have declined).

Stop posting nonsense. TJ is an FCPS school that is also a Governor’s School. FCPS owns and operates TJ; FCPS rammed through the admissions changes at the school with little input from other participating districts or the VDOE; and FCPS could unilaterally decide to cease seeking the Governor’s School designation for TJ, which it does on an annual basis.

That would result in a lot less funding for TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The LCPS Academies model with kids going to their base school for History, English, PE, foreign Language/music, and then going to the Academy (or TJ in this case) for the other day to do Science, Math, Tech types of classes makes SO MUCH SENSE!

It allows kids to keep their base school connections, reduced commuting burdens, gives TWICE as many kids access to very top-level STEM classes/peers, and allows the specialty school to actually focus on the SPECIALTY (STEM) without being bogged down with kids who can't pass English or Spanish or whatever.

Let TJ focus on STEM and let twice as many kids have access.

TJ is designed to be a full-service high school. The only reason it has such a strong national reputation when compared with AOS/AET is BECAUSE it's a full-service high school.

You are chasing prestige and that prestige will go away immediately if TJ transitions to an academy model, and besides, it's not built with that in mind. You have tons of rooms in that building that are built for humanities classes. You have two gyms, an auditorium, and a black box theatre. And that building cost $100 million and was completed five years ago.

You're out of your mind if you think the academy model is either possible or a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like my kid can still get in via the automatic 5%. At least it appears that they're making an effort to serve the whole county now.

Agree it's better than just serving the families likely to invest heavy in prep but they need to set an upper bound too. Too many seats going to a handful of wealthy schools is not great.

Maybe FCPS should fund the overdue additions to Chantilly and McLean before they "set an upper bound" on the number of kids from those pyramids going to TJ. They expanded West Potomac to 3000 seats and Madison and Justice to 2500 (when none of those three schools was otherwise due for a renovation), so why can't they build Chantilly out to 3000 and McLean out to 2500?

Chantilly has the smallest available land of any HS. It cannot be built out further. Plus, it’s already at 3000 kids.

False, that's Justice, and then TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to put an upper bound on the percentage at these schools because it seems heavily skewed in favor of wealthier schools where people have the $$$ to buy enrichment. These programs should benefit all bright county residents, not unfairly benefit the wealthiest.

There is effectively an “upper bound,” due to the middle school quotas that ensure students from higher poverty areas get into TJ, even if they are less qualified.

Yes, an upper bound would help limit the impact of outside enrichment on admissions and ensure that all residents get equal access to these opportunities.

Kids had equal access to opportunities.

What the pork barrel politicians want is equal outcomes, but since they can’t pull that off they just mess around with TJ and tolerate much bigger disparities everywhere else.

That’s fine with the phonies behind TJAAG and their allies because it keeps TJ front and center, which plays to their endless narcissism.

Oh no they really didn't since those who could afford prep got early access to the test questions which gave them a huge edge over the less affluent schools.

Oh, please. They could have prepped through programs at those schools, too. They couldn’t compete on merit so the politicians had to come up with quotas.

The Highest Court in the Land will render its Decision in due time to dispense with the unjust affirmative action to preserve the notion of 'Equal Protection under the Law".

They had a chance to do that in April and chose not to. Don't hold your breath. You'll have a new School Board before you'll have a Supreme Court decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This is the key point.

The case that the Coalition might have has more to do with holding the folks accountable who pushed through the changes rather than reversing the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The LCPS Academies model with kids going to their base school for History, English, PE, foreign Language/music, and then going to the Academy (or TJ in this case) for the other day to do Science, Math, Tech types of classes makes SO MUCH SENSE!

It allows kids to keep their base school connections, reduced commuting burdens, gives TWICE as many kids access to very top-level STEM classes/peers, and allows the specialty school to actually focus on the SPECIALTY (STEM) without being bogged down with kids who can't pass English or Spanish or whatever.

Let TJ focus on STEM and let twice as many kids have access.

TJ is designed to be a full-service high school. The only reason it has such a strong national reputation when compared with AOS/AET is BECAUSE it's a full-service high school.

You are chasing prestige and that prestige will go away immediately if TJ transitions to an academy model, and besides, it's not built with that in mind. You have tons of rooms in that building that are built for humanities classes. You have two gyms, an auditorium, and a black box theatre. And that building cost $100 million and was completed five years ago.

You're out of your mind if you think the academy model is either possible or a good idea.

DP, but it seems the impetus for the admissions changes was to serve more "types" of students, so why not switch to an Academy model where TJ could both serve more types of students and more students.

Yes, it would diminish TJ's "prestige," but it would also serve more kids.

Your comments suggest that all you care about is being able to say by 2025 that there are more Black and Hispanic graduates of a "prestige" school, but TJ's prestige is declining now, regardless of whether it has an auditorium and a black box theatre. It's associated now more with politics than with academics, and with court cases that will still take years to resolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

The allocation of seats to different middle schools depends entirely on the number of students in their 8th grade class, not on the race of the students at those schools. Carson has one of the largest allocations because it's one of the largest schools.

You're factually incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The LCPS Academies model with kids going to their base school for History, English, PE, foreign Language/music, and then going to the Academy (or TJ in this case) for the other day to do Science, Math, Tech types of classes makes SO MUCH SENSE!

It allows kids to keep their base school connections, reduced commuting burdens, gives TWICE as many kids access to very top-level STEM classes/peers, and allows the specialty school to actually focus on the SPECIALTY (STEM) without being bogged down with kids who can't pass English or Spanish or whatever.

Let TJ focus on STEM and let twice as many kids have access.

TJ is designed to be a full-service high school. The only reason it has such a strong national reputation when compared with AOS/AET is BECAUSE it's a full-service high school.

You are chasing prestige and that prestige will go away immediately if TJ transitions to an academy model, and besides, it's not built with that in mind. You have tons of rooms in that building that are built for humanities classes. You have two gyms, an auditorium, and a black box theatre. And that building cost $100 million and was completed five years ago.

You're out of your mind if you think the academy model is either possible or a good idea.

You're assuming that people care about the prestige factor. If they want to keep the facilities (instead of just making it another high school), they could easily make 9th and 10th grade offerings academy and 11th and 12th on campus. That would also allow for much larger junior and senior classes