Can’t they just open more AAP centres in Black and Hispanic heavy regions? Surely kids with Spanish as their mother tongue would ace AP Spanish by middle school so are on the advanced track due to an advantage unique to that community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really disheartening to AAP kids especially at feeder schools. You work really hard to stand out and when its time to start seeing first glimpse of positive outcomes, the rules are changed below their feet that nullify everything they are good at and stand out and loose out to others who did the bare minimum in whats essentially a lottery in flatted out selection criteria and not able to even qualify for significant booster criteria coming from other factors.

These kids have all sorts of resources available to them. They will be fine.

Go to the chat rooms. It is scary there. The students who worked hard will not be fine.

Neither are the 21 students who dropped out in 9th grade from TJ. For whatever reason, the enrollment is now 529 as of the end of March. They may also not be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.

+1

I didn’t realize that either.

Anonymous wrote:It is really disheartening to AAP kids especially at feeder schools. You work really hard to stand out and when its time to start seeing first glimpse of positive outcomes, the rules are changed below their feet that nullify everything they are good at and stand out and loose out to others who did the bare minimum in whats essentially a lottery in flatted out selection criteria and not able to even qualify for significant booster criteria coming from other factors.

These kids have all sorts of resources available to them. They will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Rich people are selfish, self serving opportunity hoggers ? I am shocked !

You mean poor people aren't selfish and opportunity hoggers?

What opportunities do you think poor people are hoarding?

People hoard whatever resources they do have. Calling people opportunity hoarders is like calling people food eaters. I can't believe they eat food. The nerve of them!!!!

Right. The point is that poor people DON’T have resources to hoard.

Some kids have ALL of the opportunities and some have very little.

Sure they do, poor people in the US have homes to live in, clothes to wear, TVs, cellphones, etc.

Troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.

You guys are cherry-picking your way through the data and ignoring the fact that the feeders schools have so traditionally been favored that families of higher achieving Asian students make herculian efforts to attend one of those schools, thus selecting themselves out of the other non-feeder schools. The heavy concentration of Asian students at these feeder schools indicate this. If what you propose was true, that Asians indeed actually stood to benefit from the new admission process, then the percentage of Asian applying and offered would not have gone down as a percentage. Instead, not only did they both drop, they dropped dramatically.

A few things to point out here:

1) "Traditionally been favored" is an excellent way of phrasing the prior situation. I appreciate your candor.

2) The percentage of Asians applying did drop, but that has far, far more to do with the fact that the percentages of other students went up substantially. The raw number of Asian students applying did rise.

3) If the argument is that Asian Americans were disadvantaged because of the reduction in spaces going to feeder schools, and that the new process benefits non-feeder schools, then the number of Asian Americans who were advantaged by the new process is greater than the number who were disadvantaged.

The point of all this is to say that while you can argue that SOME Asian Americans were disadvantaged, you certainly cannot claim that ALL or even MOST were disadvantaged. It's a much smaller subset that has common characteristics that go well beyond race - and therefore the new process is not motivated to target them based on their race even though its goal is to help others at least partly because of racial considerations.

Traditionally favored refers to Asian preference for certain schools due to the quality if education delivered, not that they favored Asians.

It is really disheartening to AAP kids especially at feeder schools. You work really hard to stand out and when its time to start seeing first glimpse of positive outcomes, the rules are changed below their feet that nullify everything they are good at and stand out and loose out to others who did the bare minimum in whats essentially a lottery in flatted out selection criteria and not able to even qualify for significant booster criteria coming from other factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

THIS.

All you tone-deaf advocates of reform and crusaders against discrimination, are you listening?

There is a bunch of children out there hurting because you cannot stop to listen. Shame on you

Maybe they can hang out with aggrieved white males who thing the world is stacked against them and commiserate

I think the better ones to commiserate is menopausal women with failure to launch kids who are venting their frustrations on young kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

This is not about screwing 'all' asians, the changes are about screwing 'specific' kids from 'specific' feeder schools with tailor made criteria or point system. The issue gets diluted when you apply this to all asians, which is a pretty broad term. How is fair to give equal weightage these three categories i.e, a single essay (30min), portrait sheet (30min) and the GPA spanning 9 courses and 1.25 years worth of study - first two items is just writing skills more than STEM. GPA is unweighted, so it is actually beneficial to take bare minimum course work than harder courses. There is no teacher input that can identify the talent or kids who clearly stand out from others. This gets even worse for these kids when you consider that they max out at 75% in the point system i.e, max they can score is 900 out of 1200 as 25% or 300 points are allocated to other experience factors. Imagine telling your kid even before the test, "no matter how hard your work, the max you can sore is 75% and pray the god that others won't score more than that!".

The new selection criteria has essentially turned into a lottery for these feeder schools where 200+ kids with similar looking GPA apply and only a random 20-40 kids get in and we have no clear way of knowing these are 20 smartest kids out 200+ who apply. The only thing that really differentiates them is writing skills, which is hardly STEM and accounts for 2/3 of what then can score. In any case, we may not see it right now, but in 2-3 years, TJ will be watered down and may just look like a Honors/AP class at any base high school.

To be honest, I had to tell the above to my kid who has high hopes for TJ. Things he absolutely loves and can potentially stand out such as math, engineering/design, programming, competitions, being known to teachers etc are NOT really visible to TJ and all his friends (and/or kids he know) at his feeder school have very similar GPA. He is not particularly good at expressing himself in writing which accounts for 600 out of 900 points that are 'available' to him. He doesn't qualify for 'other' 300 so max he can score is 900/1200. So yeah, its unfortunate, but I had to tell him to keep his expectations very low so he won't be disappointed later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

THIS.

All you tone-deaf advocates of reform and crusaders against discrimination, are you listening?

There is a bunch of children out there hurting because you cannot stop to listen. Shame on you

Maybe they can hang out with aggrieved white males who thing the world is stacked against them and commiserate

+1 Honestly sometimes I can't tell the difference between these woke democrats and MAGAs. They used the same rhetoric against immigrants - only this time it is against Asians - they are stealing resources. Just like the MAGAs never admit they are lazy and won't do the jobs the Hispanic immigrants do -- these 'reformers' never acknowledge the hard work the immigrant Asian children put in to get to the advanced standings in school and use racist stereotypes make excuses of their own failures.

I hope the D loses big in the mid term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

THIS.

All you tone-deaf advocates of reform and crusaders against discrimination, are you listening?

There is a bunch of children out there hurting because you cannot stop to listen. Shame on you

Maybe they can hang out with aggrieved white males who thing the world is stacked against them and commiserate

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

THIS.

All you tone-deaf advocates of reform and crusaders against discrimination, are you listening?

There is a bunch of children out there hurting because you cannot stop to listen. Shame on you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.

You guys are cherry-picking your way through the data and ignoring the fact that the feeders schools have so traditionally been favored that families of higher achieving Asian students make herculian efforts to attend one of those schools, thus selecting themselves out of the other non-feeder schools. The heavy concentration of Asian students at these feeder schools indicate this. If what you propose was true, that Asians indeed actually stood to benefit from the new admission process, then the percentage of Asian applying and offered would not have gone down as a percentage. Instead, not only did they both drop, they dropped dramatically.

A few things to point out here:

1) "Traditionally been favored" is an excellent way of phrasing the prior situation. I appreciate your candor.

2) The percentage of Asians applying did drop, but that has far, far more to do with the fact that the percentages of other students went up substantially. The raw number of Asian students applying did rise.

3) If the argument is that Asian Americans were disadvantaged because of the reduction in spaces going to feeder schools, and that the new process benefits non-feeder schools, then the number of Asian Americans who were advantaged by the new process is greater than the number who were disadvantaged.

The point of all this is to say that while you can argue that SOME Asian Americans were disadvantaged, you certainly cannot claim that ALL or even MOST were disadvantaged. It's a much smaller subset that has common characteristics that go well beyond race - and therefore the new process is not motivated to target them based on their race even though its goal is to help others at least partly because of racial considerations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.

You guys are cherry-picking your way through the data and ignoring the fact that the feeders schools have so traditionally been favored that families of higher achieving Asian students make herculian efforts to attend one of those schools, thus selecting themselves out of the other non-feeder schools. The heavy concentration of Asian students at these feeder schools indicate this. If what you propose was true, that Asians indeed actually stood to benefit from the new admission process, then the percentage of Asian applying and offered would not have gone down as a percentage. Instead, not only did they both drop, they dropped dramatically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.

+1000. I have to give the PLF credit. THey have squeezed a lot of juice out of a VERY small orange.