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][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.  [b] 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.[/b]  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]

What [i]specifically[/i] would be your problem with some areas of education being informed by Critical Race Theory?[/quote]

I am all for "some areas of education" being informed by CRT.  I don't believe it should be taught in K-12. In fact it should be taught to everyone in college.  It deals with a painful part of our history and our development as a nation (and all our flaws).  There is a lot of merit there.

But CRT is too amorphous to form part of a K-12 curriculum.  Radical teachers (and some not all will be radical) and impressionable students make for a toxic combination.  Leave it to college where kids are mature enough to sieve content from ideology.

[/quote]

Would you agree with the idea of presenting a direct through line from, say, slavery to "separate but equal" to redlining to educational inequality? For say, AP US History students?[/quote]

I would keep all contentious issues outside of K-12 schools.  Not because they are right or wrong but because there has to be a consensus built around these issues in the public domain.  Schools should not be a battleground for ideological issues.  We are already too polarized.

If we allow contentious issues to get a mention then you open a Pandora's box and you may be forced to make mention of creationism for example.  we can use our kids as a sandbox to battle on ideological grounds. There is much merit in CRT among believers (I am one) and much merit among the faithful in creationism (I am not one but i dont douby anybody's faith).  But these issues do not belong n school.  Not yet not till we establish consensus in the broader publ;ic and political domain. [/quote]

How on earth do you teach US history without touching on slavery or Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? How do you teach AP US history without including the Klan or Japanese internment or Tulsa or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the stonewall riots? [/quote]

CRT is not the history of civil rights.  Let us not conflate the two.  Absolutely slavery is something all students should know about. However unless there is braid consensus that history needs to be taught through the lens of CRT, we should stay away.  [/quote]

I was pretty satisfied with the way history was being taught 5 years ago.  We definitely taught the wrongs of history and the social injustice over the years with respect to immigrants, minorities, Black people, and women.  We just didn't add the alleged systemic part and the alleged irredeemable racism of people born with white skin.[/quote]

We may still get to a place where CRT becomes the default approach to US history.  But we are not there yet.  Let the proponents of CRT drive broad consensus around CRT in forums outside the classroom.  Once that happens introduce it to classrooms.

It is particularly insidious to inteoduce contentitious ideologies to K-12 impressionable minds.  [/quote]

I know it's so awful when they discuss slavery. We need to put that behind us.[/quote]

Actually, many arguments are conclusively settled on the playground.  Let us add CRT to it.  Why bother adults when kids can deal with it.[/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