Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

No one said that multiracial = poor. But the fact remains that single biggest "edge" you an give your kid under the new admissions system is to move to a school that has historically been under-represented at TJ. By sheer coincidence that has nothing to do with American history or government policies, those happen to be areas that are racially and economically diverse.

You're backtracking. This is what you said:

"Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services."

What the hell do you mean by "actual multiracial families"? There is a right and a wrong way to be multiracial?

And you don't mean "economically diverse", what you really mean is poor.

Np. You know she was implying black, Hispanic, and poor. Why are you being obtuse. You aren’t all these things are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

Source? I don’t think they look at ESL services.

Whether a child receives ESL services is a function of whether these services are available. They can't possibly penalize a child for what the school may not have. The fact is that FCPS has a public rule that a child is classified as ESOL when there are any other languages spoken in the household by any member of that household.

Your child would get ELL services if they qualified. Not all do because like you point out anyone can claim to be ESL on a form.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

No one said that multiracial = poor. But the fact remains that single biggest "edge" you an give your kid under the new admissions system is to move to a school that has historically been under-represented at TJ. By sheer coincidence that has nothing to do with American history or government policies, those happen to be areas that are racially and economically diverse.

You're backtracking. This is what you said:

"Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services."

What the hell do you mean by "actual multiracial families"? There is a right and a wrong way to be multiracial?

And you don't mean "economically diverse", what you really mean is poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

What does that have to do with considering race?

Unspoken "experience factors" are what's being discussed, not race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

No one said that multiracial = poor. But the fact remains that single biggest "edge" you an give your kid under the new admissions system is to move to a school that has historically been under-represented at TJ. By sheer coincidence that has nothing to do with American history or government policies, those happen to be areas that are racially and economically diverse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

Source? I don’t think they look at ESL services.

Whether a child receives ESL services is a function of whether these services are available. They can't possibly penalize a child for what the school may not have. The fact is that FCPS has a public rule that a child is classified as ESOL when there are any other languages spoken in the household by any member of that household.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

What does that have to do with considering race?

Increasing URMs isn’t an attack on Asian Americans.

Anonymous wrote:Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

LOL right. Not much of a secret when FARMS went up from 2% to 25% - you think it's an accident?

Race was not considered. Middle school and unknown experience factors were. I hope FCPS keeps those factors secret.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

Source? I don’t think they look at ESL services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

LOL no thank you. I don't know where you get off thinking that multiracial=poor. What exactly do you mean by "actual" multiracial families? You aren't multiracial unless you're poor? Also, why do you call it "economically diverse" when you clearly mean "poor"?

Also, it's not true that race is not considered. I mean what was that whole to-do about reducing the number of Asians?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.

They will look at whether a child received ESL services, not at self-identification. As for identifying as multiracial, have at it. Race is not one of the factors being considered. Now, one thing you could do is move into an economically diverse neighborhood and hope for the best. That's probably the most effective way to increase your child's chances of being accepted. Of course, then you would have to be in a school community with actual multiracial families, and put your kids in a classroom with students who receive ELL services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

Working to enhance the chances of your kids gaining admission to a school that offers unique opportunities is unethical?

You are such a hateful bunch. Communism failed, and so too will your delusional attempts at social engineering.

So we're calling prep social engineering now? Sure, I guess that fits if it's a way to game admissions.

The "prep" lady is lying again. Repeat after me "FCPS did not set out to fix a 'prep' problem for TJ". FCPS went out to address a racial makeup problem of TJ. It had nothing to do with "prep". Do you work for FCPS to post this red herring everyday?

The only major gaming-admission scandal backed up by evidence is committed largely by white people. Rick Singer is white. His hired SAT test taker is white. His clients are mostly white. No one believes your slander to TJ students and their families other than racists.

Well in a sense, when FCPS decided it will value membership in the FARMS category for the purposes of TJ admission, the silent assumption is that the family cannot afford prep classes. So, by favoring FARMS kids, they are favoring those who are assumed to have had no prep.

It would be really interesting to contrast TJ with Stuyvesant, a NYC magnet school that is something like 80% Asian and attracts similar wrath from the equity advocates. Stuyvesant's saving grace is that while it is majority Asian, these Asians happen to be 50% below poverty level. But watch this space, there will soon be another reason why a poor Asian kid is privileged compared to a poor Black kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they ever defined what "experience" means?

I have a first grader starting in FCPS this fall, and we've checked ESL and "multiracial" on her paperwork just because we could. Our older child was listed as white and a native English speaker simply because we didn't think it'd matter.

This is what will happen more and more.

People respond to incentives and “just because we could”. This is why CRT falls apart incredibly quickly.

If you can pick what gender you are, why can’t you pick what race you are? Or if you are ESL? It’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it, but people will always respond to incentives and policy makers are short sighted to think they can slice and dice without people changing how they classify their children.

policy makers took into account unethical practices by families gaming admission, but didn't realize just how low they will sink?

It's not really unethical as much as it is a response to external stimuli. We are a trilingual household. FCPS says (in a completely ridiculous move) that a child is ESL if ANYONE in the household speaks a language other than English. Ergo, I break no rules in ticking an ESL box for my child, and now that there are potential benefits attached to this class, I'll make sure it's ticked.

Same with the multiracial class - my DH is brown as could be and therefore DD is obviously multiracial. I mean you aren't dealing with a family of two Finns here.