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]Four things:

1.  Where is the data for this year?  My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes?  How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+?  And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years?  That data exists.  How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years?  How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years?  English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared.  That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2.  This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race.  You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud.  P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if  aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3.  The existence of this litigation is not a shock.  If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4.  The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS. [/quote]

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing.  There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here.  FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do.  That's just impossible.  And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again.  The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).  [/quote]

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.[/quote]

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the  selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now.  It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making. [/quote]

You don't do any of those things for hypotheticals. Administering an exam is crazy expensive. Gathering recommendations is a huge time suck for teachers. Again, further evidence of a complete lack of understanding of how admissions processes work.[/quote]

You don’t make contingency plans for events that have a significant possibility of happening?  If I didn’t have a Plan B when Plan looks like might not happen, I’d lose my job. [/quote]

Contingency plans are one thing - and I believe the current contingency plan to be a lottery. Gathering additional data and forcing students and teachers to submit information that may never be used - and in your mind is unlikely to be used because there's no precedent for overturning a race-neutral admissions process - is another thing entirely. [/quote]

Do you have any information suggesting the Board has made any contingency plan at all?  I don’t, and since it has nothing to with litigation strategy, any such plan should have been subject to open meeting laws.

Maybe they have a plan. But I’ve watched them closely since 3/2020 and I think it’s. Entirely possible they don’t.

Another option is to not seat anyone, and to bring in 450 froshmores in 2023, considering year 1 of Hs performance. [/quote]

Here we go again. I don't know how many times it has to be said, but it is NOT AN OPTION to not seat the class this year. The impact on other high schools would be very significant, and the impact on TJ would be as well -[b] you'd have a whole bunch of teachers with no students to teach for a whole year.[/b] Remember, TJ as a school has absolutely nothing to do with this.[/quote]

No you wouldn't. They'd move to other schools or find other jobs. There is no room in the FCPS budget for teachers without classes [/quote]

That's why they won't do it. It would be the acme of stupidity to release some 40 teachers for a year or reassign them to other schools and then bring them back to TJ after one year.

It's amazing the level to which people just don't understand how any of this works and only care about optimizing the prospects for their students. They don't care how many others are damaged in the process.[/quote]

Boniitatibus has been trying to clean house since Glazer left. She would *love* the chance to offload 40 teachers then rehire teachers in her own model of no homework, no stress. [/quote]

Dream on.[/quote]

Not my dream. My older kid was at TJ for the Glazer to Bonitabus transition and the negatives far outweighed the positives. She did some things with hiring that were not kosher and has turned out to be pretty authoritarian.  I can see her advocating for no freshman class and cleaning house.  Now, she shouldn’t be advocating at all. Admissions is not her job. But, that doesn’t stop her. [/quote]

She doesn't advocate for anything with respect to admissions. You're projecting.[/quote]

Are you kidding me!?!   She and Brabrand went into a meeting with the Education Secretary at the state State level. Came out and announced to that admissions must be changed AT THE NEXT SB MEETING to *ensure* diversity targets were met or TJ would lose Governor’s School status. That’s why the half assed changes were rammed through with no stakeholder input. Turns out she and Brabrand were told that they needed an *aspirational policy* to *address* diversity (not ensure diversity) by the *end of the year*.

She’s up to her neck in this. [/quote]

Following orders from the EdSec is not on the same planet as “advocating”. But nice try.[/quote]

Because reading is fundamental.  Re-read. Try again.

SecEd did *not* instruct her and Brabrand to implement a whole new admissions scheme on two weeks notice that granted diversity targets. They LIED TO INFLUENCE ADMISSIONS.

Read the dang lawsuit documents. [/quote]

DP, but each of Atif Qarni, Scott Brabrand, and Ann Bonitatibus had an incentive to spin what happened at that meeting after-the-fact to make themselves look better, especially after it became clear what a mess the process to craft a new admissions policy was turning out to be.

Specifically, at that point it was in Qarni's interest to suggest VDOE had only wanted an "aspirational policy" and in the interests of Brabrand and Bonitatibus to claim that VDOE was breathing down their necks. [/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