Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

Not the PP but they definitely know the FARMS status of any current student.
I've read the data they published that showed a marked increase in low-income students. It was linked here in another thread even a day or two ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. Now you are playing messiah to the misguided folks who are clinging to straws. Here is a little secret - you don’t have a monopoly on intelligence on this board. Others are smart and legitimately exercising their intelligence.

Here is the issue

- FCPS claims the TJ reform increased the number of low- income students at TJ
- No basis has been cited for this claim
- FCPS has historically used FARMS data as a proxy for income
- In the absence of any clarification from FCPS, it is safe to assume that FCPS relied on FARMs data
- During the pandemic, the FARMS program offered eligibility to all students and was not truly representative of low-income
- in addition, the question on the TJ application was poorly worded so that any applicant of whatever income-strata could be eligible
- You have made a claim that FCPS has income data beyond FARMS. And done nothing to substantiate the claim. My income data is private - I would like to know if FCPS has access, LoL.

At best, the FCPS claim is suspect and at worst it is false. If you smell a conspiracy there, you smell a conspiracy everywhere.

All it takes is for FCPS to clarify the basis on which they claim this increase in socio- economic diversity (which is wonderful if true)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

What facts have you actually presented that are relevant to the conversation? The only thing you've cited is that FCPS asked a question. Everything beyond that assertion is complete speculation. And that is the ENTIRETY of what I'm saying here.

At no point do I claim to speak for FCPS. But you have presented a conspiracy theory with little-to-no evidence, and you have people believing you because they desperately want to believe you - and are betraying their lack of intellectual rigor in the process.

Prove your claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Get it that you are the second coming of Jesus. You know what you are talking about. You are endlessly thanked for the information that you put out by multiple people. And you are a TJ alum. We should all bow to you. You are the next Marvel superhero with the superpower of being the know-all of the anonymous internet forums.

Get off your pedestal. You have an opinion which is not substantiated by facts. I have an opinion and I have presented facts. You may not agree with my facts. That is on you. I am calling you out on your lack of facts. I am not claiming to be right because "I know, I just do" like you. You are a partisan with a partisan narrative. That is clear to everyone on this Board. "I know, I just do" will get you ovation in your echo chamber not here.

So back-off and let FCPS speak for themselves. And if you speak for FCPS, identify yourself. Till that time you are a troll - one with lots of free time on her hands. And that is not the profile of a typical TJ grad.

You are not a troll but part of a troll farm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

You're gonna wear out the binding on that thesaurus there, friendo. But I get responses all the time that confirm that I know what I'm talking about. No one on these pages identifies themselves.

But the information that I put out on a regular basis actually helps people. And they express appreciation for it every day on these threads. My guess is that you've helped no one and attacked hundreds.

And no, I'm not on the TJAAG payroll. Do they even have a payroll? But I am an alum, and that informs a lot of my knowledge and understanding. I've done the hard work that you haven't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

The definition of a pompous fool. You don’t identify yourself, indulge in ideological hyperbole devoid of any factual corroboration for your position and tell us that you know more than us. You are a troll - likely on the TJAAG payroll. The Russians will pay you better

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool

[b]The only advantage I have over you in terms of legitimacy is that I know what I'm talking about.

But that advantage is irrelevant to this conversation because I'm not asking for FCPS to respond to a wild-ass claim that I'm making that has no basis in fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

In the absence of any response from FCPS it has been established that the low-income claim is based on suspect FARMS data. It takes a few minutes for FCPS and their publicity department to issue a clarification. They have not. Because doing so will jeopardize their claim that “reform” has helped bring in more lower- income kids.

So the onus is on FCPS to issue a clarification. All we get is TJAAG stooges on this Forum parroting party points. But no data and no formal clarification.

FCPS has no responsibility to respond to a claim that has no basis in fact and has not been offered on any legitimate platform. Get someone with any credentials to report on it and maybe you'll get a response, but until then, you're a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

The people pushing the Curie story at least had evidence that they were pointing to - actual stories from real TJ students who were named in the report.

And you derive your legitimacy on an anonymous board because …

FCPS can speak for itself especially when enough people have requested the information. And they will have to disclose when the case is up for hearing.

You and your fellow TJAAG minions can rest. Or else identify yourself if you have any credibility. What a pompous fool