Reply to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school"

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]The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.[/quote]

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.[/quote]

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?[/quote]

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.[/quote]

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth. :D [/quote]

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.[/quote]

Hahahahaha  That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ?  You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth![/quote]

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.[/quote]

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.  :lol: [/quote]

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries![/quote]

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.[/quote]

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics.  This metric was self reported last year.  The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”.  Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no.  Many others said yes.  Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty.  Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data.  This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter).  You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS[/quote]

Are you calling Asians liars? [/quote]

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many.  I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.  [/quote]

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying [/quote]

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names.  Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not.  The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response.   School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous.  They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul.  That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  [/quote]

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".[/quote]

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question.  This is also the standard proxy  used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes.  It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?[/quote]

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.[/quote]

We are not talking about how the data is collected.  If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed.  Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application.  Which opens up a whole new line of concern.  [/quote]

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file [/quote]

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled.  Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families.  The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal.  None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.  [/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