Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

I think you believe you are the messiah based on the adulation you get in your echo chamber.

You cannot handle someone challenging you because you are used to getting your way. Too bad.

Simple question. Tell us on what basis has FCPS determined that the 2025 class is more so up-economically diverse. You don’t have an answer.

Instead you resort to name calling on an anonymous forum. You are just a piece of work. I just hope you are not one of our school board members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

I think you believe you are the messiah based on the adulation you get in your echo chamber.

You cannot handle someone challenging you because you are used to getting your way. Too bad.

Simple question. Tell us on what basis has FCPS determined that the 2025 class is more so up-economically diverse. You don’t have an answer.

Instead you resort to name calling on an anonymous forum. You are just a piece of work. I just hope you are not one of our school board members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

I love it when these trolls get roasted by people who actually know what they're talking about. it's incredibly satisfying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

Echo chamber participant #1. Keep it coming. Sounds of lambs bleating.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

I love it when these trolls get roasted by people who actually know what they're talking about. it's incredibly satisfying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

It certainly conveys your intent - no doubt about that. We can agree there.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion, and so the only strategy you are left with is to try to reassign the burden of proof using flowery language that you might have heard from somewhere but are misappropriating for effect.

And I'm calling you out on your bulls**t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

All of us are on an anonymous board and unless we identify ourselves we cannot claim expertise on any subject let alone education policy. I am merely pointing out that you cannot expect me to follow court etiquette in usage of terms in this forum. Reasonable doubt is an English phrase which perhaps has a technical meaning in court procedure. This is not a court and I believe the phrase conveys my intent in the context of this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

Are you claiming to be an expert of education policy? Because you did use a legal term to describe a situation inappropriately and incorrectly in order to advance your narrative and try to shift the burden of proof. I'm pointing out that you're doing it not only wrong, but clumsily and oafishly.

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.

They had FARMS data countywide pre-covid. 27% of the county isn't worried about the "stigma".

Covid threw off that process because technically all kids were eligible for free lunch and didn't need to fill out the FARMS paperwork. But for the TJ application parents were required to answer "are you receiving free/reduced meals". Do you think that 25% of the parents LIED on the application form?

Are you so certain that they did not lie?

I am not the one making the claim. You are. All I need to do is to demonstrate reasonable doubt with respect to your claim. Which I have done.

I am also saying that the 3.5 GPA requirement eliminates the low-income students as they cannot keep up the consistent performance throughout the year that forms basis of the GPA. Lower income kids often have to deal with parental unemployment, sibling care and other family issues that results in poor GPA. Many are very smart when they are able to test in a time of stability. In times of instability at home, poor grades are the norm.

Unless you have data that suggests that Fairfax county is an outlier, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They had FARMS data countywide pre-covid. 27% of the county isn't worried about the "stigma".

Covid threw off that process because technically all kids were eligible for free lunch and didn't need to fill out the FARMS paperwork. But for the TJ application parents were required to answer "are you receiving free/reduced meals". Do you think that 25% of the parents LIED on the application form?

Are you so certain that they did not lie?

I am not the one making the claim. You are. All I need to do is to demonstrate reasonable doubt with respect to your claim. Which I have done.

I am also saying that the 3.5 GPA requirement eliminates the low-income students as they cannot keep up the consistent performance throughout the year that forms basis of the GPA. Lower income kids often have to deal with parental unemployment, sibling care and other family issues that results in poor GPA. Many are very smart when they are able to test in a time of stability. In times of instability at home, poor grades are the norm.

Unless you have data that suggests that Fairfax county is an outlier, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

The first "claim" that is made in this argument is YOUR claim that the data are flawed.

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.

They had FARMS data countywide pre-covid. 27% of the county isn't worried about the "stigma".

Covid threw off that process because technically all kids were eligible for free lunch and didn't need to fill out the FARMS paperwork. But for the TJ application parents were required to answer "are you receiving free/reduced meals". Do you think that 25% of the parents LIED on the application form?

Are you so certain that they did not lie?

I am not the one making the claim. You are. All I need to do is to demonstrate reasonable doubt with respect to your claim. Which I have done.

I am also saying that the 3.5 GPA requirement eliminates the low-income students as they cannot keep up the consistent performance throughout the year that forms basis of the GPA. Lower income kids often have to deal with parental unemployment, sibling care and other family issues that results in poor GPA. Many are very smart when they are able to test in a time of stability. In times of instability at home, poor grades are the norm.

Unless you have data that suggests that Fairfax county is an outlier, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

I am not a lawyer and you are are not an expert of education policy, you pompous joker. So unless I am on a legal forum arguing against you, you can sit back, relax and work on your verbal skills. I am sure calling people names has not won you any acquittals

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.

“Reasonable doubt” is a standard used to acquit defendants in a criminal trial, you buffoon.

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.

They had FARMS data countywide pre-covid. 27% of the county isn't worried about the "stigma".

Covid threw off that process because technically all kids were eligible for free lunch and didn't need to fill out the FARMS paperwork. But for the TJ application parents were required to answer "are you receiving free/reduced meals". Do you think that 25% of the parents LIED on the application form?

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.