Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

We call it equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

So by definition, the TJ reform or the entire liberal policy is racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

So by definition, the TJ reform or the entire liberal policy is racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

So by definition, the TJ reform or the entire liberal policy is racist.

The whole liberal racism storm completely caught me unawares. Sweet words used for self interest. Unbelievable hypocrisy. And they say republicans is the party of racists!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

So by definition, the TJ reform or the entire liberal policy is racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Race and affluence. Yes, no one is denying that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

So again, the TJ reform was racially motivated. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

I wouldn't argue that they had specific numbers in mind. But as long as the lived experience of different racial groups in America remains as disparate as it is, it's already been established that there is educational value in having students from different backgrounds in the classroom, and yes, that includes race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

So basically you agreed that FCPS had a predetermined racial composition in mind before carrying out the reform? We're on the same page then because we all agree FCPS' TJ reform was based on race.

Anonymous wrote:

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's see, lots to unpack here...

1) Plenty of C4TJ folks denied that the previous process had to be fixed. They wanted instead to substitute "fixing the pipeline" - a decades-long process that they had no real intention of investing in - for any substantial admissions-process adjustments. Don't misrepresent the core argument of the folks making the most noise - you lose credibility when you do that.

2) Reducing the number of Asians was never a primary goal of the process. The goal was to create a TJ student body that more accurately reflected the demographic of the catchment area. Those two goals get conflated constantly because the percentage of Asian students was (and still is) so massive at the school. It's not possible to solve issues of representation without reducing the numbers and percentages of groups that are overrepresented. This is logically obvious to all parties involved but the politically expedient move is to misrepresent the goal as "anti-Asian" in much the same way as dumbass conservatives see corporate DEI initiatives as "anti-white".

3) The "community discord" that you speak of took the form of Coalition 4 TJ organizing insanely tone-deaf events both inside and outside the TJ community and seeking media attention to boost their own political profiles and fortunes. They didn't have to behave like their treatment was similar to that of Black folks under Jim Crow or Muslims after 9/11 or even the Japanese during internment. They didn't have to occupy the TJ PTSA - which has absolutely NO affiliation with Admissions - and create a horrific nightmare for several months before their leader resigned in disgrace. But they chose to sow community discord by doing exactly all of those things, and the students suffered as a consequence.

4) Of course other avenues are available to approach a more equitable distribution of opportunity. FCPS and the School Board chose this one, and as a result applications soared by over 20% after they'd declined for years, and students at every middle school in the County now understand that TJ is a possibility that they can aspire to. The fact that interest in TJ rose to that level in and of itself is proof of concept.

5) No one called anyone by any names. Learn what "crocodile tears" means.

Yes, it was the main goal. Don't deny it. Even blind people can see it.

No.... it wasn't the main goal. It was an ancillary reality of achieving the ACTUAL goal.

Stop lying. Even Brabrand and SB members admitted this in Town Hall meetings.

Check your facts. The stated goal was always to create a population at TJ that better reflected the demographic of the catchment and of FCPS. Cite an example where any of those individuals directly stated that a goal was fewer Asian students for its own sake.

Isn't it the same as reducing Asian population? Why are you always answering your own questions?

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you.

Nobody has time to read your braindead spin. Just saying...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's see, lots to unpack here...

1) Plenty of C4TJ folks denied that the previous process had to be fixed. They wanted instead to substitute "fixing the pipeline" - a decades-long process that they had no real intention of investing in - for any substantial admissions-process adjustments. Don't misrepresent the core argument of the folks making the most noise - you lose credibility when you do that.

2) Reducing the number of Asians was never a primary goal of the process. The goal was to create a TJ student body that more accurately reflected the demographic of the catchment area. Those two goals get conflated constantly because the percentage of Asian students was (and still is) so massive at the school. It's not possible to solve issues of representation without reducing the numbers and percentages of groups that are overrepresented. This is logically obvious to all parties involved but the politically expedient move is to misrepresent the goal as "anti-Asian" in much the same way as dumbass conservatives see corporate DEI initiatives as "anti-white".

3) The "community discord" that you speak of took the form of Coalition 4 TJ organizing insanely tone-deaf events both inside and outside the TJ community and seeking media attention to boost their own political profiles and fortunes. They didn't have to behave like their treatment was similar to that of Black folks under Jim Crow or Muslims after 9/11 or even the Japanese during internment. They didn't have to occupy the TJ PTSA - which has absolutely NO affiliation with Admissions - and create a horrific nightmare for several months before their leader resigned in disgrace. But they chose to sow community discord by doing exactly all of those things, and the students suffered as a consequence.

4) Of course other avenues are available to approach a more equitable distribution of opportunity. FCPS and the School Board chose this one, and as a result applications soared by over 20% after they'd declined for years, and students at every middle school in the County now understand that TJ is a possibility that they can aspire to. The fact that interest in TJ rose to that level in and of itself is proof of concept.

5) No one called anyone by any names. Learn what "crocodile tears" means.

Yes, it was the main goal. Don't deny it. Even blind people can see it.

No.... it wasn't the main goal. It was an ancillary reality of achieving the ACTUAL goal.

Stop lying. Even Brabrand and SB members admitted this in Town Hall meetings.

Check your facts. The stated goal was always to create a population at TJ that better reflected the demographic of the catchment and of FCPS. Cite an example where any of those individuals directly stated that a goal was fewer Asian students for its own sake.

Isn't it the same as reducing Asian population? Why are you always answering your own questions?

Let's do a thought experiment.

Prior to the recent admissions changes, year over year the demographic at TJ was basically:

73% Asian, 19% white, 5% multiracial (which usually means Asian and white), 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

Let's pretend that the School Board implemented a policy that resulted in a demographic of:

54% Asian, 39% white, 5% multiracial, 2% Hispanic, 1% Black.

There is absolutely no chance that FCPS - or anyone in the pro-reform column - would have considered those changes successful. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What actually happened was that FCPS implemented a policy that resulted in:

54% Asian, 22% white, 5% multiracial, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black.

If you read the above data and conjecture, and your conclusions remain:

1) TJ reform is solely about reducing the Asian population, OR
2) TJ reform is about increasing the white population;

... then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you. Your delusions are baked in and you might as well put on your red hat or your puffy vest.

The fact that it affects you doesn't mean it's about you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one feels wronged? Who are you kidding? Asian families have been complaining, and suing, about geographic quotas and diversity issues for a while now. Anything that is done to increase another groups access is seen as an attack on the Asian population which is over represented in every educational environment, by a large percentage over represented.

This started a long time ago at Universities and there has been complaints, law suits, and other attempts to reverse policies at Universities because attempts at diversifying the Universities population has led to a decline in Asian and White attendees.

There is no timeline or way to shift who attends TJ that would not lead to the Asian community being upset. In the minds of many of the change at TJ is bad crowd, anything short of a test and giving kids extra credit for starting Algebra in 5th or 6th grade is racist. The system that placed heavy reliance on a test and acceleration in school, which benefits families and cultures what are willing to treat anything that they grind their way ahead in, led student population that does not reflect FCPS in any way, not in terms of socio economics, race, ethnicity, or any demographic measure you could come up with. It is easy to argue "The test because it is based on merit!" while ignoring the prep classes. Or "But they are advanced in math" ignoring the money spent in supplementation programs (AoPS, RSM, prep school classes) that allowed their kids into more advanced classes at a far younger age. Or "But they did all these math competitions/STEM activities" ignoring the fact not everyone can afford the competition math route or pay for robotics.

My kid does RSM and math competitions. He loves it. Both are pricey and require a time commitment and a travel commitment. Many families cannot afford the money for these activities or have the easy transportation to the locations for these activities or have the time to be able to take their ES kid to these activities. I get that which is why I don't have a problem with setting the standards for TJ based on what every kid has access to at their school. Even with that, there are fewer Black and Hispanic kids in AAP, which is the track for taking Algebra in MS. This means that are at a disadvantage in order to be able to meet the more basic requirements. But at least they are all accessible at FCPS schools and not something that people who have the money/knowledge/time have a decided step up on.

If DS wants to go to TJ and does not get accepted, he will be fine at his HS. He enjoys his math class and math competitions. Just like there are kids who play sports all the way through MS and are cut from the HS team, there are kids who put in the work to apply to TJ and they are not admitted. It is a part of life. If they really enjoyed the STEM, math, sports on the way, then they have all the positives of having enjoyed that activity even if they don't attend TJ or make the team.

You keep bringing your kid into this. Best wishes to you and your kid. But your microcosm does not define the community. If you cannot empathize with others' situation and their pain because you believe your logic outweighs others' logic then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Let everyone take-off their gloves and have a fistfight. The Dems scored first - and then may be the Governor will score or the Courts will rule against them. And the cycle will repeat. And we will be a broken community. Whatever.

DP. You're crying crocodile tears because the "pain" that you speak of is having a slightly reduced chance of attending a free selective public high school that you have dominated for a decade. When you compare that to the pain that some of these other communities experience on a daily basis, you shouldn't be shocked that you are called out for being tone-deaf.

YOU are making TJ a bigger deal than it is or should be.

You exemplify the attitude that has brought us to this juncture. It is always about me and never about the "others". Nobody is denying that the previous process had to be fixed. Somewhere along the way the "testing is broken" became an issue of "reduce the number of dominating Asians". Equity at the cost of community discord is not worth it especially when other avenues are available to get to an equitable outcome. If Nelson Mandela could do it in far larger scale, we can all look beyond our noses.

And it starts by not calling others names.

Let's see, lots to unpack here...

1) Plenty of C4TJ folks denied that the previous process had to be fixed. They wanted instead to substitute "fixing the pipeline" - a decades-long process that they had no real intention of investing in - for any substantial admissions-process adjustments. Don't misrepresent the core argument of the folks making the most noise - you lose credibility when you do that.

2) Reducing the number of Asians was never a primary goal of the process. The goal was to create a TJ student body that more accurately reflected the demographic of the catchment area. Those two goals get conflated constantly because the percentage of Asian students was (and still is) so massive at the school. It's not possible to solve issues of representation without reducing the numbers and percentages of groups that are overrepresented. This is logically obvious to all parties involved but the politically expedient move is to misrepresent the goal as "anti-Asian" in much the same way as dumbass conservatives see corporate DEI initiatives as "anti-white".

3) The "community discord" that you speak of took the form of Coalition 4 TJ organizing insanely tone-deaf events both inside and outside the TJ community and seeking media attention to boost their own political profiles and fortunes. They didn't have to behave like their treatment was similar to that of Black folks under Jim Crow or Muslims after 9/11 or even the Japanese during internment. They didn't have to occupy the TJ PTSA - which has absolutely NO affiliation with Admissions - and create a horrific nightmare for several months before their leader resigned in disgrace. But they chose to sow community discord by doing exactly all of those things, and the students suffered as a consequence.

4) Of course other avenues are available to approach a more equitable distribution of opportunity. FCPS and the School Board chose this one, and as a result applications soared by over 20% after they'd declined for years, and students at every middle school in the County now understand that TJ is a possibility that they can aspire to. The fact that interest in TJ rose to that level in and of itself is proof of concept.

5) No one called anyone by any names. Learn what "crocodile tears" means.