Reply to New TJ principal announced

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "New TJ principal announced "

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The best part is in the email they  had to make sure to talk of the former failed principals fake promotion to gatehouse! Lmao "following Dr. Ann Bonitatibus' promotion to a central office position."

Here is a better article calling out how awful the previous tj principal was pushing racial quotas causing TJ to fall form #1 in the nation to 14.

You are spreading RWNJ misinformation.

There are no quotas.

And TJ went from #5 to #14 out of 25,000 schools on the USNWR rankings. It was only #1 twice in the preceding decade.

[/quote][/quote]

It was #1 at least two years in a row before the admission change and then fell to #5, and then #14, and we’ll see where it ends up when this years rankings comes out in April.  You and your #fakenews[/quote]

It was #5 using data from [u]before[/u] the admissions change. 
[/quote]

And rank #20 in some year in the past.[/quote]
No. The purported #20 ranking in 2017 that you're referencing was a mistake by a poster in another thread who later corrected their error. TJ's actual 2017 ranking was #6.  TJ was always in the top ten over the last decade prior to last year. [/quote]

Yup. That was my error.

2015 #3
2016 #5
2017 #6
2018 #6
2019 #10 
2020 #4 (I believe this was first year that utilized data from bonitatibus' term) 
2021 #1
2022 #1
2023 #5
2024 #14 (first year that utilized data from the new admissions process) 
[/quote]

The rankings are mostly hairsplitting. No doubt TJ will be #1 again soon. I wouldn't give these much weight or read anything into it.[/quote]
Of course it'll be number 1 again. First step towards return to meritocracy is this new qualified principal. [/quote]

You're confused. The old system was rigged. People from a handful of wealthy feeders were buying the test questions. The new system uses merit by selecting the top students from each school![/quote]

The top students from each school are not the same thing as the top students from the participating jurisdictions.  FCPS replaced merit with a spoils system to appease the resentful parents of less qualified applicants.  [/quote]
Parents are in quandry why their students were even offered admissions[b] when the school rigor is a mismatch to student prerequisite skills. [/b]The bottom quarter of current class struggles with poor grades and is constantly in discussions about returning to base school, and staff convincing to stay back and accept low grades as normal.  [/quote]

A review of the prerequisites from the FCPS page state:

"applicants must: (1) have completed a full-year course of Algebra 1, or be currently enrolled in a full-year course of honors-level Algebra 1; [b]applicants attending schools whose curricular programs do not include “honors” Algebra 1 courses must have completed or be enrolled in a full-year course of the highest level of Algebra 1 available at their school [/b]l;  "

That exception alone reflects there are applicants (and admittees) who are not even in Honors Algebra I in eighth grade.  While this exception is "more inclusive," we can all agree it is a step downward from the rigor of the prior process.

It is beyond me why the DEI sycophants here keep trying to assert there has not been a decrease in academic attainment of the incoming freshman classes following the admissions reform.[/quote]
So you think serving all county residents is DEI? All residents pay for these programs and they should be available to all residents. If there is a problem here, it's that all schools aren't offering comparable math education to their students. [/quote]

Over 95% of FCPS high school students don’t have access to TJ resources. You aren’t arguing for making them available to all students. You simply want them distributed to a different yet still limited population to align with a left-wing political agenda.  [/quote]

That's complete nonsense. Limiting TJ to a few wealthy feeders doesn't serve Fairfax county tax payers.[/quote]

You’re full of crap. By your own logic limiting access to TJ to 4% of FCPS high school students ought to be equally distressing to taxpayers.

Unless, of course, you’re just angling to improve your own kid’s odds of being in that 4% at the expense of more qualified applicants. [/quote]

TJ should only be accessible to wealthy feeders because we pay more taxes![/quote]

It should be selective based on academic ability and if that means that the admits are no evenly distributed by geography, income or race, then that is fine.  If it bothers you, then try to fix the deficiencies in education that are also not evenly distributed by geography, income or race.  It would be a lot better to have academically accomplished kids of all race and income levels from all corners of fairfax than to pretend that is the case.[/quote]

No, there is benefit from adding geographic diversity.

I do think we could add a metric (SOLs) to the criteria, but the MS allotments make sense. 
[/quote]

The only benefit from "geographic diversity" (aka "middle school quotas") is political.  It doesn't serve any other purpose and it leads to the exclusion of applicants who have demonstrated greater ability and aptitude.  [/quote]

You seems like a bitter woman!  [/quote]

Is she wrong about the "benefits" of geographic diversity?
Is it unreasonable to be a little pissed about excluding kids with greater demonstrated ability for that "benefit"?[/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