Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no incentive in the previous process to disclose FARMS status. In fact, as has been pointed out, given the stigma associated with FARMS in some communities- it is very likely that FARMS was underreported in the past.

What I am saying that there is enough of “reasonable doubt” as to whether the new process resulted in more socio-economic diversity. If you want to make that claim then you have to make sure all your t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. That is simply not the case at this time.

It’s not a claim - it’s data.

And you still haven’t made any concrete claims or provided any evidence.

Unverified data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no incentive in the previous process to disclose FARMS status. In fact, as has been pointed out, given the stigma associated with FARMS in some communities- it is very likely that FARMS was underreported in the past.

What I am saying that there is enough of “reasonable doubt” as to whether the new process resulted in more socio-economic diversity. If you want to make that claim then you have to make sure all your t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. That is simply not the case at this time.

It’s not a claim - it’s data.

And you still haven’t made any concrete claims or provided any evidence.

Unverified data.

Anonymous wrote:There was no incentive in the previous process to disclose FARMS status. In fact, as has been pointed out, given the stigma associated with FARMS in some communities- it is very likely that FARMS was underreported in the past.

What I am saying that there is enough of “reasonable doubt” as to whether the new process resulted in more socio-economic diversity. If you want to make that claim then you have to make sure all your t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. That is simply not the case at this time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no incentive in the previous process to disclose FARMS status. In fact, as has been pointed out, given the stigma associated with FARMS in some communities- it is very likely that FARMS was underreported in the past.

What I am saying that there is enough of “reasonable doubt” as to whether the new process resulted in more socio-economic diversity. If you want to make that claim then you have to make sure all your t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. That is simply not the case at this time.

It’s not a claim - it’s data.

And you still haven’t made any concrete claims or provided any evidence.

Anonymous wrote:There was no incentive in the previous process to disclose FARMS status. In fact, as has been pointed out, given the stigma associated with FARMS in some communities- it is very likely that FARMS was underreported in the past.

What I am saying that there is enough of “reasonable doubt” as to whether the new process resulted in more socio-economic diversity. If you want to make that claim then you have to make sure all your t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. That is simply not the case at this time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

Word-salad nonsense.

Did not address the question of whether or not you are accusing Asians of malfeasance.

And additionally, FCPS compiles an incredible amount of demographic data on each of these students every year, as does every other school district - but they still ask the questions of the applicants. Shall we further litigate whether or not the students actually belong to the race that they indicated? Or whether or not they actually live at the addresses that they put on the application form?

FCPS publishes hard data, and your standard for backing up their data is higher than your standard for backing up your completely baseless assertion. If you took them to court over their claims for misrepresentation, the burden of proof would be on YOU to show that their data is corrupt. You're grasping at straws here, and it's an embarrassing look.

And if you don't want to be tied to the Coalition, then stop parroting their talking points like some stooge.

Hyberbole does not substitute for hard data. You obviously never learnt that.

All this “incredible” demographic data that you say that FCPS collects - can you point us to what they relied on to make their claim on more lower income kids being admitted? They have no access to anyone’s tax returns so I am really curious what their data-crunching algorithm is that yields the information that you claim has such high standards.

I may not have any affiliation with the Coalition but have great regard for them in exposing virtue-signaling hypocrites like you that care less about kids and more about ideology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

Word-salad nonsense.

Did not address the question of whether or not you are accusing Asians of malfeasance.

And additionally, FCPS compiles an incredible amount of demographic data on each of these students every year, as does every other school district - but they still ask the questions of the applicants. Shall we further litigate whether or not the students actually belong to the race that they indicated? Or whether or not they actually live at the addresses that they put on the application form?

FCPS publishes hard data, and your standard for backing up their data is higher than your standard for backing up your completely baseless assertion. If you took them to court over their claims for misrepresentation, the burden of proof would be on YOU to show that their data is corrupt. You're grasping at straws here, and it's an embarrassing look.

And if you don't want to be tied to the Coalition, then stop parroting their talking points like some stooge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

What I am saying that it could be zero, fifty or five hundred. Neither you not FCPS can make a determination of how many.

And if there is an increase from previous years then the credit should be given to the poorly worded question in the application and not to any reform process.

To claim that the reform yielded a better socio-economic class is a matter of faith or conjecture and cannot be established with objective metrics as presently collected by FCPS.

It is all PR and, as usual when it comes to FCPS's PR strategies, they over-reach.

If they really wanted to reduce the number of Asian kids and kids from the wealthy pyramids, they should have just done a lottery with seats set aside by middle school and trumpeted the greater geographic diversity. Basically make TJ the FCPS equivalent of HB Woodlawn but with slightly higher minimum critieria.

No one really knows what TJ stands for now, it's far too contentious, and its reputation and appeal are already declining due to the controversy, fights, and lack of a clear message as to what FCPS is actually hoping to achieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

What I am saying that it could be zero, fifty or five hundred. Neither you not FCPS can make a determination of how many.

And if there is an increase from previous years then the credit should be given to the poorly worded question in the application and not to any reform process.

To claim that the reform yielded a better socio-economic class is a matter of faith or conjecture and cannot be established with objective metrics as presently collected by FCPS.

It is all PR and, as usual when it comes to FCPS's PR strategies, they over-reach.

If they really wanted to reduce the number of Asian kids and kids from the wealthy pyramids, they should have just done a lottery with seats set aside by middle school and trumpeted the greater geographic diversity. Basically make TJ the FCPS equivalent of HB Woodlawn but with slightly higher minimum critieria.

No one really knows what TJ stands for now, it's far too contentious, and its reputation and appeal are already declining due to the controversy, fights, and lack of a clear message as to what FCPS is actually hoping to achieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

What I am saying that it could be zero, fifty or five hundred. Neither you not FCPS can make a determination of how many.

And if there is an increase from previous years then the credit should be given to the poorly worded question in the application and not to any reform process.

To claim that the reform yielded a better socio-economic class is a matter of faith or conjecture and cannot be established with objective metrics as presently collected by FCPS.

It is all PR and, as usual when it comes to FCPS's PR strategies, they over-reach.

If they really wanted to reduce the number of Asian kids and kids from the wealthy pyramids, they should have just done a lottery with seats set aside by middle school and trumpeted the greater geographic diversity. Basically make TJ the FCPS equivalent of HB Woodlawn but with slightly higher minimum critieria.

No one really knows what TJ stands for now, it's far too contentious, and its reputation and appeal are already declining due to the controversy, fights, and lack of a clear message as to what FCPS is actually hoping to achieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Your fixation with the Coalition is your problem. I have nothing to do with the Coalition. If you can get FCPS to clarify the basis of their claim that more lower-income kids were admitted then this discussion is moot. Historically, FCPS has relied on FARMS data as a proxy for lower-income kids. That is the basis for us to assume that the same was done here. And I am pointing out that FARMS data is corrupted because of the poorly worded question. Garbage-in, garbage out.

Whether anyone actually responded yes or not is moot. If the process is corrupt, any output coming out of the process is corrupt. Which really is the argument against this “reform”. The entire process is corrupt and therefore no credibility can be attached to the outcomes. Which by the way is a basic principle of law.

Anonymous wrote:The statement "anyone could have checked the box, therefore the data is illegitimate" is non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Things you don't know:

1) Whether or not anyone actually did this - the largest beneficiary of ED bonus points were Asians, so if you believe this happened, you're charging the Asian community with malfeasance

2) Whether or not the admissions office actually used a crude self-reporting mechanism to determine eligibility for bonus points

It appears to be a defining feature of the Coalition that they will insert a conspiracy theory wherever they can possibly come up with one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stuyvesant is 45% low-income.

53% of NYC public school kids are low-income.

I was responding to the moron who kept saying poor students can't gain admission. You keep changing the subject and I will keep reminding.

Before last year, they couldn't be admitted to TJ. You apparently need to be reminded of that.

I am not sure there has been any verification of family income at TJ as being below $47k to determine percentage of low income students.

They have farms data for every year.

As has been explained a few times on this discussion, FARMS data is totally corrupted by the way the question was posed by FCPS - even millionaire households could have legally opted-in to FARMS. Any determination of low-income kids doing better under the new process is absolute fiction.

Ok. We do know that before covid and before the change there were practically no low-income students at TJ. 0.6% admitted for class of 2024.

So even getting a handful more kids from the unrepresented MSs or English-learners would have doubled the previous #s.

Yes, amoral parents may have selected “free lunch” so we don’t know the exact #, but it surely is greater than 0.6%.

What is amoral is you making a conclusive statement based on unsubstantiated data.

The FARMS data is not reliable. People called in to FCPS to ask whether anyone could answer yes to that question and they were told that they could say yes given how it was worded. If the question asked was “were you eligible for free and reduced price meals last year?”. And given Covid, everyone was eligible, I would answer “yes, I was”. I would even argue that if I said no, I was misrepresenting under signature.

It was a massive $crew-up on the part of FCPS. And now to claim that we have more FARMS kids with the new process is totally disingenuous.

We know that there were basically 0 FARMS students at TJ in previous years.

Now you're saying that ... what? That that's a lie? Who is disingenuous?

What I am saying that it could be zero, fifty or five hundred. Neither you not FCPS can make a determination of how many.

And if there is an increase from previous years then the credit should be given to the poorly worded question in the application and not to any reform process.

To claim that the reform yielded a better socio-economic class is a matter of faith or conjecture and cannot be established with objective metrics as presently collected by FCPS.