Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Being economically advantaged isn't protected by the constitution so NY could give bonus points to poor kids regardless of race and be allowed to do that. FCPS discriminated based on race where you have to show a very compelling reason for doing because race is protected by the constitution. Balancing race based on the boards preference was not a compelling reason.

In sum, NYC school board probably consulted with their in house lawyers while FCPS did not.

FCPS did not discriminate based on race. There are communications that were FOIA'd that, if you read them with a certain viewpoint, can suggest that there was motivation to open avenues for Black and Hispanic students to have a shot at admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Being economically advantaged isn't protected by the constitution so NY could give bonus points to poor kids regardless of race and be allowed to do that. FCPS discriminated based on race where you have to show a very compelling reason for doing because race is protected by the constitution. Balancing race based on the boards preference was not a compelling reason.

In sum, NYC school board probably consulted with their in house lawyers while FCPS did not.

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

You are not concerned as truth is hard to digest. NYC should be an example for FCPS. Child needs to focus on academics, not keep on playing outside with neighborhood kids, riding bikes, watching tv and playing various sports all the time. Lot of Sacrifice goes into good education. Why are poor disadvantaged kids of NYC able to take advantage and get in magnets but not the Blacks and Hispanics?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

You are not concerned as truth is hard to digest. NYC should be an example for FCPS. Child needs to focus on academics, not keep on playing outside with neighborhood kids, riding bikes, watching tv and playing various sports all the time. Lot of Sacrifice goes into good education. Why are poor disadvantaged kids of NYC able to take advantage and get in magnets but not the Blacks and Hispanics?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

I'm not super concerned about what is going on in NYC. They don't send any kids to TJ and the environment at TJ is what I care about.

Anonymous wrote:PP,
What is the difference between FCPS and NYC schools in this regard.
In NYC schools the majority of kids getting in to the magnets are economically disadvantaged. So if you follow your logic you would say that they have achieved what we want to to achieve in terms of socieoeconomic equity right. But wait- most of those poor kids are Asian so now we have to think of another reason why this is not equitable.
How does this work? Can someone give me a coherent argument as to how you can argue what they are arguing in NY and what they are arguing here at the same time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This issue is much more nuanced than simply low expectations for URMs. Imagine the great majority of Black and Hispanic kids in Fairfax County had similar (very high) socio-economic status equivalent to the average wealth of Langley, McLean, Chantilly families who are sending their kids to TJ. In that case, yes, giving URMs bonus points to get into TJ would be ridiculous.

However, the reality is that the majority of URMs are living in the lower-middle class or below poverty level. Why do you think all the "good" school districts have very few Hispanic and Black kids? Why do all the "bad" schools have so many Hispanic and Black kids? It always goes back to the inability to afford expensive housing, which leads to concentrated pockets of poverty in specific schools, which leads to bad outcomes in schools, which leads to what we have now.

BS.

The overwhelming success of Asian children of immigrants (who’s parents arrived here with nothing) blows your tired old Marxist/progressive argument clean out of the water.

Tired of your incessant scolding about “privilege.”

Anonymous wrote:If organizations funded by Fairfax county tax payers and the population must be proportionally represented, Asians must be:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- 70% of top 20 positions at TJ;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc. e

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No pay wall posts.

It’s $4/month! Pay a little for quality journalism instead of tabloidy online only sites.

I am boycotting all MSM that are mostly fake new propaganda arm of the establishment.

Anonymous wrote:If organizations funded by Fairfax county tax payers and the population must be proportionally represented, Asians must be:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- 70% of top 20 positions at TJ;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc. e

Anonymous wrote:FCPS did not mess up by allocating seats to underrepresented school. They messed up - and acted in a racist way, one might argue - when they removed the admission test. Test of aptitude. Why did they remove it? Because apparently they did not believe students of color were capable of passing it. Did they ask the affected communities if this was desirable?