Anonymous wrote:

I understand that 1.5% rule seems counter-intuitive based on attending school. I think the purpose is to capture "under the radar" gifted 8th grade students in a very low-performing MS (and probably low-performing ES), with parents who have no idea what AAP/TJ is and likely have zero involvement with school matters, but whose counselors now have reason to believe they realistically stand a chance at TJ. The amount of students that would be in this situation is rather small, hence the 1.5%.

This argument would only make sense when the non AAP center has a high FARMS rate and the AAP center is much wealthier. That often is not the case. Just as an example, most of the AAP kids zoned to Thoreau would attend the AAP center at Luther Jackson. The gen ed population of Thoreau is generally wealthier than the LJ gen ed population. By letting Thoreau zoned kids compete for the Luther Jackson TJ spots, it's just making it easier for wealthier not particularly gifted gen ed kids from Thoreau to get in and nearly impossible for poorer gen ed kids from LJ to get in.

I'm also skeptical that there are enough stealth gifted kids who somehow didn't test highly enough on CogAT or NNAT to get into AAP, didn't stand out enough for a teacher to refer them to AAP in any of their ES years, and wouldn't stand out enough in a system that largely rewards GPA and an essay to be picked on their own merits, and thus need a special pool of non-AAP kids from their non-AAP MS to stand out enough to be picked for TJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

DP. One reason Asians are outraged and feel targeted is the decision to award the top 1.5% spots based on attending school rather than zoned school. Most AAP eligible Asians will send their kids to the center for the stronger education. Or, they already chose to live in-bounds to a center school for the stronger academics and higher ratings. Taking the top 1.5% of the kids at a non-AAP middle school means that you're choosing among kids who deferred AAP for middle school or didn't qualify in the first place. That's going to ensure that few of those kids are Asian.

If eventually all MS have AAP and no one leaves for the center, the problem will fix itself.

I understand that 1.5% rule seems counter-intuitive based on attending school. I think the purpose is to capture "under the radar" gifted 8th grade students in a very low-performing MS (and probably low-performing ES), with parents who have no idea what AAP/TJ is and likely have zero involvement with school matters, but whose counselors now have reason to believe they realistically stand a chance at TJ. The amount of students that would be in this situation is rather small, hence the 1.5%.

Realistically, even from the low performing schools, the chances of actually catching the under the radar gifted students is still low as top 1.5% (~ 8-10 kids for each school?) of those students who get into TJ could already from academic focused families anyway. In terms of numbers, sure there is an increase in the diversity, but I wouldn't necessarily translate that to giftedness. It is probably easier to identify true talent using aptitude tests than GPA, which is affected by teacher bias, longer term commitment to academics etc. The question is what happens is an actually gifted minority student from an under performing school, choose to go a larger center school, but still couldn't get selected because of unweighted GPA and increased competition from highly motivated students with plenty of family support. Personally, I would give more weightage based on family income levels and/or living situation than the attending school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

DP. One reason Asians are outraged and feel targeted is the decision to award the top 1.5% spots based on attending school rather than zoned school. Most AAP eligible Asians will send their kids to the center for the stronger education. Or, they already chose to live in-bounds to a center school for the stronger academics and higher ratings. Taking the top 1.5% of the kids at a non-AAP middle school means that you're choosing among kids who deferred AAP for middle school or didn't qualify in the first place. That's going to ensure that few of those kids are Asian.

If eventually all MS have AAP and no one leaves for the center, the problem will fix itself.

I understand that 1.5% rule seems counter-intuitive based on attending school. I think the purpose is to capture "under the radar" gifted 8th grade students in a very low-performing MS (and probably low-performing ES), with parents who have no idea what AAP/TJ is and likely have zero involvement with school matters, but whose counselors now have reason to believe they realistically stand a chance at TJ. The amount of students that would be in this situation is rather small, hence the 1.5%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

DP. One reason Asians are outraged and feel targeted is the decision to award the top 1.5% spots based on attending school rather than zoned school. Most AAP eligible Asians will send their kids to the center for the stronger education. Or, they already chose to live in-bounds to a center school for the stronger academics and higher ratings. Taking the top 1.5% of the kids at a non-AAP middle school means that you're choosing among kids who deferred AAP for middle school or didn't qualify in the first place. That's going to ensure that few of those kids are Asian.

If eventually all MS have AAP and no one leaves for the center, the problem will fix itself.

This has been one of my chief complaints with TJ reform as well. The other is, since GPA is not weighted, there is no advantage to kids who took harder/honors courses and did well. Increased diversity is fine, but these two items are clearly done to remove the advantage the kids coming from academic oriented families have. This particularly affects asians and others to a lesser extent. But, I do not think it is fair to discriminate against smarter or hardworking students this way.

I would have preferred a common test that removes the teacher bias in grades, but I am not particularly upset about since it reduces (not eliminate) extensive prepping. However, its sad that so much of the grade depends on the teacher. For example, my kid barely managed to get A- in english in 7th as teacher practically didn't teach anything and favored kids who entertained the unrelated BS she used to talk during the class. However, the same kid is got almost perfect scores in every other 7th grade course and also 8th grade courses including english.

In the long run, I don't think TJ matters as much as we think. Its a lot easier to stand out in base school and get into better colleges as a result. The major we choose and to a lesser extent the college we get the 'final' degree (BS, MS etc) actually matters in career and not the HS we once attended. This is not to deny that TJ will offer better exposure/course options, but if the kid is motivated, this can easily be compensated. So, there is no need to get obsessed over TJ at this time. At least this is what we told our kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Why would skin color really matter, though? Are you suggesting that an upper middle class kid with educated parents who has a grandparent from Spain, and thus is Hispanic, provides any real diversity over an upper middle class white kid? Are you suggesting that a South Asian child of a parent on a STEM based work visa, a child of Vietnamese refugees who moved to America in the late 1970s, and a Chinese kid internationally adopted by a white family all can be lumped in the Asian category and thus provide no diversity relative to each other?

Rather than checking a box on race, wouldn't it be better to have the kid answer an essay about whatever unique perspective they would bring the school?

1) Ask a Black person whether or not skin color matters and ask a white person if they would ever volunteer to be treated like a black person.

2) This is essentially the purpose of the Student Portrait Sheet. So, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

There are a few problems with focusing on socioeconomic status. This year and last year, the FARMS thing was self reported and technically everyone qualified, so TJ isn't necessarily getting many true FARMS kids. Lower middle class kids who are just barely above the FARMS threshold are treated exactly the same as the wealthy kids, even though they have vastly different opportunities/privileges. Even the highest FARMS schools have some fraction of wealthy, privileged kids who will snag many of the TJ spots for those schools. Even the lowest FARMS schools have some FARMS kids or not-quite-FARMS lower income kids. Many lower middle class Asian families prioritize education enough that they'll find a way to be in a good school, even if they're sacrificing many extras to do so. Now, those kids have almost no shot at TJ.

It's a very flawed system. If FCPS really wants to find underprivileged kids, they should look at parental education levels and not specific school, self reported FARMS status, or race.

I actually agree with you that this would be a stronger metric, but there isn't a way to do that. And besides, you'd just get parents under-reporting their education level to game the system anyway.

The new TJ admissions model works to create better representation because Northern Virginia is so deeply segregated into ethnic enclaves. If the upshot of this new policy is that population centers like those in Herndon, Ashburn, Chantilly, and Brambleton actually desegregate themselves, and end up raising the academic profile of some of the underrepresented middle schools, that's sort of a win-win. And as an added benefit, those students will spend a significant amount of time among kids from different backgrounds while they're in middle school, which will leave them better able to navigate a rapidly diversifying college and professional climate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have more respect for the TJAAG group types if they acknowledged that the changes Brabrand has foisted on TJ in a rushed manner are going to exacerbate the existing overcrowding at high schools like Chantilly, Oakton, and McLean.

They talk about equity all the time, but they wear their own brand of elitism on their sleeves. TJ is the only school that matters to them. If other schools now end up packing kids into hallways like sardines, that's fine with them, and doesn't merit any acknowledgment, as long as there are some more Black and Hispanic kids at TJ that FCPS's PR department can photograph and slap on their web page.

Overcrowding is a significant issue, but to address the overcrowding across all those pyramids affected would require a large-scale, county-wide adjustment of boundaries. Schools like Lewis and Mt Vernon are so under-enrolled that they could fit about 800+ new students to bring them to full capacity. So the question is... does the same group that doesn't want Oakton to be packed also want to go through a boundary change that could potentially take their kids to Fairfax HS or Falls Church HS?

THIS - and the answer is hell no, we won't go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

DP. One reason Asians are outraged and feel targeted is the decision to award the top 1.5% spots based on attending school rather than zoned school. Most AAP eligible Asians will send their kids to the center for the stronger education. Or, they already chose to live in-bounds to a center school for the stronger academics and higher ratings. Taking the top 1.5% of the kids at a non-AAP middle school means that you're choosing among kids who deferred AAP for middle school or didn't qualify in the first place. That's going to ensure that few of those kids are Asian.

If eventually all MS have AAP and no one leaves for the center, the problem will fix itself.

That's the whole point of the TJ reform.

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

DP. One reason Asians are outraged and feel targeted is the decision to award the top 1.5% spots based on attending school rather than zoned school. Most AAP eligible Asians will send their kids to the center for the stronger education. Or, they already chose to live in-bounds to a center school for the stronger academics and higher ratings. Taking the top 1.5% of the kids at a non-AAP middle school means that you're choosing among kids who deferred AAP for middle school or didn't qualify in the first place. That's going to ensure that few of those kids are Asian.

If eventually all MS have AAP and no one leaves for the center, the problem will fix itself.

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

There are a few problems with focusing on socioeconomic status. This year and last year, the FARMS thing was self reported and technically everyone qualified, so TJ isn't necessarily getting many true FARMS kids. Lower middle class kids who are just barely above the FARMS threshold are treated exactly the same as the wealthy kids, even though they have vastly different opportunities/privileges. Even the highest FARMS schools have some fraction of wealthy, privileged kids who will snag many of the TJ spots for those schools. Even the lowest FARMS schools have some FARMS kids or not-quite-FARMS lower income kids. Many lower middle class Asian families prioritize education enough that they'll find a way to be in a good school, even if they're sacrificing many extras to do so. Now, those kids have almost no shot at TJ.

It's a very flawed system. If FCPS really wants to find underprivileged kids, they should look at parental education levels and not specific school, self reported FARMS status, or race.

Anonymous wrote:I'd have more respect for the TJAAG group types if they acknowledged that the changes Brabrand has foisted on TJ in a rushed manner are going to exacerbate the existing overcrowding at high schools like Chantilly, Oakton, and McLean.

They talk about equity all the time, but they wear their own brand of elitism on their sleeves. TJ is the only school that matters to them. If other schools now end up packing kids into hallways like sardines, that's fine with them, and doesn't merit any acknowledgment, as long as there are some more Black and Hispanic kids at TJ that FCPS's PR department can photograph and slap on their web page.

Overcrowding is a significant issue, but to address the overcrowding across all those pyramids affected would require a large-scale, county-wide adjustment of boundaries. Schools like Lewis and Mt Vernon are so under-enrolled that they could fit about 800+ new students to bring them to full capacity. So the question is... does the same group that doesn't want Oakton to be packed also want to go through a boundary change that could potentially take their kids to Fairfax HS or Falls Church HS?

I'd have more respect for the TJAAG group types if they acknowledged that the changes Brabrand has foisted on TJ in a rushed manner are going to exacerbate the existing overcrowding at high schools like Chantilly, Oakton, and McLean.

They talk about equity all the time, but they wear their own brand of elitism on their sleeves. TJ is the only school that matters to them. If other schools now end up packing kids into hallways like sardines, that's fine with them, and doesn't merit any acknowledgment, as long as there are some more Black and Hispanic kids at TJ that FCPS's PR department can photograph and slap on their web page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Why would skin color really matter, though? Are you suggesting that an upper middle class kid with educated parents who has a grandparent from Spain, and thus is Hispanic, provides any real diversity over an upper middle class white kid? Are you suggesting that a South Asian child of a parent on a STEM based work visa, a child of Vietnamese refugees who moved to America in the late 1970s, and a Chinese kid internationally adopted by a white family all can be lumped in the Asian category and thus provide no diversity relative to each other?

Rather than checking a box on race, wouldn't it be better to have the kid answer an essay about whatever unique perspective they would bring the school?

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

Lie, lie, lie and more lies. Do you even know how bad you look?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Why would skin color really matter, though? Are you suggesting that an upper middle class kid with educated parents who has a grandparent from Spain, and thus is Hispanic, provides any real diversity over an upper middle class white kid? Are you suggesting that a South Asian child of a parent on a STEM based work visa, a child of Vietnamese refugees who moved to America in the late 1970s, and a Chinese kid internationally adopted by a white family all can be lumped in the Asian category and thus provide no diversity relative to each other?

Rather than checking a box on race, wouldn't it be better to have the kid answer an essay about whatever unique perspective they would bring the school?

Everyone focuses on race and the effect on Asians, but this really isn't about race as much as it is about socioeconomic status which are, admittedly, intertwined. If there are poor Asian kids attending Sandburg MS, then they will benefit from the policy change. It's the wealthy families in Chantilly and Great Falls pyramids that stand to lose spots, which is why there is so much vocal outrage.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Why would skin color really matter, though? Are you suggesting that an upper middle class kid with educated parents who has a grandparent from Spain, and thus is Hispanic, provides any real diversity over an upper middle class white kid? Are you suggesting that a South Asian child of a parent on a STEM based work visa, a child of Vietnamese refugees who moved to America in the late 1970s, and a Chinese kid internationally adopted by a white family all can be lumped in the Asian category and thus provide no diversity relative to each other?

Rather than checking a box on race, wouldn't it be better to have the kid answer an essay about whatever unique perspective they would bring the school?