Reply to Reflections on the "TJ Papers"

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Reflections on the "TJ Papers""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Perhaps by now many have read the "TJ Papers" - a collection of materials obtained from FCPS during discovery in the civil litigation by the plaintiffs challenging the changes to the TJ admissions process.  Many are available at https://defendinged.org/incidents/tjpapers/

Some take-aways:

1.  The three main forces behind the TJ admissions change were Scott Brabrand (Superintendent), Karen Corbett Sanders (School Board member from Mount Vernon District), and Scott Surovell (member of Virginia Senate from the 36th District, which includes the Mount Vernon area).

2.  Brabrand was in major "white savior" mode, as if his legacy depending on his personally pushing through radical changes in the TJ admissions process.  At various times, Brabrand's interactions with staff indicated that his goal was simply to adjust the process, by whatever means necessary, to guarantee the admission of more Black and Hispanic students to TJ, regardless of whether they were otherwise the most qualified candidates.

3.  Corbett-Sanders and Surovell have no guiding principles; they are just retail pork-barrel politicians who seized upon the moment to grab more TJ seats for students in their own part of the county.

4.  Brabrand misled School Board members about the possibility that the VDOE might come down hard on FCPS if they didn't make major changes to TJ admissions, whereas over time it emerged that VDOE did not necessarily expect FCPS's "diversity plan" (which FCPS was required to submit by October 2020) to include changes to the TJ admissions process by 2021.

5.  The process was rushed, incoherent, and marked by School Board members sniping at each other and at Brabrand.  Sizemore-Heizer complained that Keys Gamarra was calling other School Board members racist.  Pekarsky and Omeish referred to Frisch as a liar.  Omeish referred to Brabrand as "too dumb and too white."  Pekarsky and Omeish openly acknowledged that the changes under consideration were "anti-asian." McLaughlin told a constituent that Brabrand's handling of the admissions changes was the worst process she had encountered in her many years as a School Board member.  Cohen and other School Board members admitted after the fact that they hadn't paid attention as to whether the middle school admissions quotas would be based on a student's "base school" or "attending school," even though this had major implications on 8th grade students attending AAP centers.  And so on.

6.  The two School Board members representing the districts with the most TJ students - Pekarsky and Tholen - had reservations but patted themselves on the back for effecting a "compromise" (i.e., rejecting Brabrand's initial "lottery" proposal in favor of a "holistic" approach that might lead to a higher number of Sully and Dranesville kids continuing to get into TJ), but never seriously grappled with (a) whether they should have opposed any changes as a matter of principle or (b) whether the change they ultimately supported would end up chewing up even more of FCPS's time and resources, to the detriment of FCPS's ability to address challenges at other schools.  Ultimately, they were swept along with the tide for fear of being criticized by their colleagues.

7.  Many of the most embarrassing exchanges between School Board members were reflected in text messages produced during discovery in the civil litigation.  This suggests that (a) School Board members often text each other to avoid using their FCPS email accounts to conduct official School Board business; and/or (2) no one in FCPS's legal department ever cautioned these folks that text messages are just as discoverable in civil litigation as emails.

No one who objectively reads these materials can conclude this School Board is competent, principled, or deserving of another term in office.  They embarrass not only themselves, but also everyone in the county who wants Fairfax County to stand for good governance.  If they had any dignity, they would resign now, but in any event they should step aside and let others replace them in 2023.  [/quote]

Interesting... but as far as I can tell the changes weren't radical at all and well within best practice guidelines for GT admissions.[/quote]

Superficially race-neutral changes are not okay if used with the intent and result of racist discrimination. [/quote]

What if they're used with the intent and result of ending racist discrimination that previously took place through a superficially race-neutral but demonstrably discriminatory process that had the impact of shutting out Black, Hispanic, and low-income Asian students?[/quote]

They weren't.  The prior process was race-neutral, not "superficially race-neutral."

And if you really want to go down the path of insisting on measuring everything by its "impact," then you should be worrying about the "process" that leads to FCPS operating Langley High School as a 3% FARMS school with few Black and Hispanic students.  Or the "process" that leads to the under-representation of Asian administrators at senior levels within FCPS.  And so on.

Change TJ to an Academy program, or shut it down entirely if you must, but your arguments are frivolous and the "new" process a sham that has already been deemed invalid by someone with far more legal training than you apparently have. [/quote]

1) False. A process that virtually eliminates Black and Hispanic students may be "race-blind", but by definition cannot be "race-neutral".

2) The process that leads to FCPS operating a neighborhood high school that has 3% FARMS students has to do with geography. We are in agreement that they could probably redraw the boundaries of that school somewhat to include more Black/Hispanic/FARMS students, but the impact would be minimal at best because there are no poor or Black/Hispanic enclaves anywhere near Langley. Those processes are not comparable. Nor are the processes for hiring people for jobs - but by all means, advocate in those areas if they're your fight. We will support you.

3) TJ is not built to be an academy. It is built to be a full-service high school that goes beyond its exceptional STEM offerings. Hilton absolutely has more legal training than I do, but I have far more educational and TJ experience than even the folks who came up with the admissions process that you so despise. It's far from ideal, but it's a significant improvement over the previous system.[/quote]

The problem is #3.  You had a flawed system and you replaced it with a "less" flawed system.  As has been said, two wrongs dont make a right.  There was no reason to rush this through during the Pandemic .  There was not enough consultation.  I am sure a better system would have come about if the process had been conducted with inputs from everyone and the impacted had been consulted.  thatb would have taken time.  But this reform was triggered by ideology and dogma - the TJ papers reveal that the Board wanted to capitalize of the George Floyd sentiment.

Student welfare is secondary to political ideology to this school board.   While I don't believe CRT, et al is being taught today at FCPS, I am convinced that if left unchecked this School Board will introduce all of that.  2 years ago in would have thought all of this was right-wing noise - not any more.

I dont believe anyone on this Board - (many affiliated with the School Board and the reform) when they say they know more and they have "experience".  You cannot see beyond your ideology and deserve your comeuppance at the next election(s)[/quote]

Actually, there was a reason to rush it through during the pandemic. The pandemic made hosting a standardized in-person exam impossible as the deepest depths of the death and hospitalization wave was taking place right in the exam window.

Here are the things where I bet we can agree:

1) It was a mistake to remove rather than reimagine the teacher recommendation form - but I think a big part of that was because they were no longer culling to a semifinalist pool and the teachers would have been overwhelmed

2) There wasn't a need for the additional "underrepresented school" experience factor above and beyond the 1.5% allocation.

Can we agree on those things?[/quote]

Does it really matter whether we agree or disagree on this forum? Having said, in my opinion I would be fine with following simpler changes
1. Replace the 'other' experience factors with teacher recommendations and/or any other noteworthy (not cookie cutter participations) achievements.
2. Remove attending school based quotas OR use the school pyramid or 'base' school as a basis for quotas instead OR If it has to 'attending' school for whatever stupid reason (why?), then cut it down to 0.5% or 1% max to reduce the impact on Level IV students. 
3. Reduce the weightage of essays that don't really test for STEM in favor of additional weightage for GPA. 
4. Make Geometry HN as min requirement unless there is a waiver from school/teacher saying Algebra I HN kid is a really good fit for TJ. 
5. Make middle school honors as min requirement for all core subject areas.

Importantly, don't rush through the changes, introduce the above changes gradually especially give at least 2-3 years of notice before introducing the last two min course requirements so students get enough of head start.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics