2 ms·

A holistic review will be done of students whose applications demonstrate enhanced merit; 550 seats will then be offered to the highest-evaluated students. Stud

A holistic review will be done of students whose applications demonstrate enhanced merit; 550 seats will then be offered to the highest-evaluated students. Students will be evaluated on their grade point average (GPA); a student portrait sheet where they will be asked to demonstrate Portrait of a Graduate attributes and 21st century skills; a problem-solving essay; and experience factors, including students who are economically disadvantaged, English language learners, special education students, or students who are currently attending underrepresented middle schools. https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-admissions/tjhsst-freshman https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-high-scho... My interpretation is the test was removed, the test/application fee was removed, and essays and a portfolio were added. I can't find criteria for evaluating the essay or portfolio (or how much they contribute vs GPA), but those are parts of other standardized tests (SAT, etc), so it's not some crazy new idea. Either way, the policy was race-blind, at least in language. And in practice the prior policy was resulting in massively disproportionate representation from some groups at the expense of others. Maybe the new policy isn't ideal, but neither was the previous policy. Disallowing progress because it might hurt a group currently profiting off the status quo doesn't seem like an ideal solution either.

giantg2 5y ago
"... and experience factors, including students who are economically disadvantaged, English language learners, special education students, or students who are currently attending underrepresented middle schools." I would think this would be the more problematic part. It's not based on achievement/performance but based on status. It sounds as if they give preference points for people with low income, from underrepresented schools, etc. "Either way, the policy was race-blind, at least in language." That can be said about the old policy too, right? "Disallowing progress..." Here is the real meat of the debate. How do the parties define progress? Is it progress to add subjective measures that favor some groups? And should be we be striving for equality or equity? So, equity or equality, and why? What is the definition of progress and how do you measure that in the scope of education?
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Yes, the old policy was also race-blind in language, no question about that. But, it had decades of results that were extremely race-biased. Equality vs equity - I'd prefer we removed the sources of inequity. Do that and equality works itself out (in theory, anyways). The admissions fee removal seems like an easy win - paying for access to a public high school strikes me as extremely inequitable and I can't think of a good reason to require a fee here. The admissions test could be inequitable - the county decided it was, so removed it. The question, in my mind, is what replaces the test? GPA, essay, and portfolio seem reasonable. I'm not sure about language and income policies, but at the same time, fixing those sources of inequity are massively complex and outside the scope of the school board. I wish I could find the actual policy WRT language/income/school, implementation is key here. And the language used by people on both sides isn't helpful - too much emotion, not enough facts.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "I'd prefer we removed the sources of inequity. Do that and equality works itself out (in theory, anyways). ... I'm not sure about language and income policies, but at the same time, fixing those sources of inequity are massively complex and outside the scope of the school board." I agree that the main drivers of inequity in education are huge and mostly driven outside the schools. I think the schools need to act mostly on equal treatment and stay out of equity. We can remove things like admission fees (which I also think is wrong for public schools the charge) without adding equity focused subjective measures. After all, the simple fact of having advanced placement or high achievement courses is inequitable (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that). Why not start by removing the fees and standardized tests, then see how that works before implementing the more controversial subjective and class based changes? This sort of change would retain equality while reducing inequity. That's what I would like to see more of. "I wish I could find the actual policy WRT language/income/school, implementation is key here." I agree that we are lacking some details here. It seems the court ruled that the steps were illegal, and that the school doesn't even hide that the changes made were to adjust racial balance. That's pretty damning, but I would like to see the actual contents. “Emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking [Fairfax school] officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board’s admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans.”

giantg2 5y ago

"... and experience factors, including students who are economically disadvantaged, English language learners, special education students, or students who are currently attending underrepresented middle schools." I would think this would be the more problematic part. It's not based on achievement/performance but based on status. It sounds as if they give preference points for people with low income, from underrepresented schools, etc. "Either way, the policy was race-blind, at least in language." That can be said about the old policy too, right? "Disallowing progress..." Here is the real meat of the debate. How do the parties define progress? Is it progress to add subjective measures that favor some groups? And should be we be striving for equality or equity? So, equity or equality, and why? What is the definition of progress and how do you measure that in the scope of education?

alistairSH 5y ago
Yes, the old policy was also race-blind in language, no question about that. But, it had decades of results that were extremely race-biased. Equality vs equity - I'd prefer we removed the sources of inequity. Do that and equality works itself out (in theory, anyways). The admissions fee removal seems like an easy win - paying for access to a public high school strikes me as extremely inequitable and I can't think of a good reason to require a fee here. The admissions test could be inequitable - the county decided it was, so removed it. The question, in my mind, is what replaces the test? GPA, essay, and portfolio seem reasonable. I'm not sure about language and income policies, but at the same time, fixing those sources of inequity are massively complex and outside the scope of the school board. I wish I could find the actual policy WRT language/income/school, implementation is key here. And the language used by people on both sides isn't helpful - too much emotion, not enough facts.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "I'd prefer we removed the sources of inequity. Do that and equality works itself out (in theory, anyways). ... I'm not sure about language and income policies, but at the same time, fixing those sources of inequity are massively complex and outside the scope of the school board." I agree that the main drivers of inequity in education are huge and mostly driven outside the schools. I think the schools need to act mostly on equal treatment and stay out of equity. We can remove things like admission fees (which I also think is wrong for public schools the charge) without adding equity focused subjective measures. After all, the simple fact of having advanced placement or high achievement courses is inequitable (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that). Why not start by removing the fees and standardized tests, then see how that works before implementing the more controversial subjective and class based changes? This sort of change would retain equality while reducing inequity. That's what I would like to see more of. "I wish I could find the actual policy WRT language/income/school, implementation is key here." I agree that we are lacking some details here. It seems the court ruled that the steps were illegal, and that the school doesn't even hide that the changes made were to adjust racial balance. That's pretty damning, but I would like to see the actual contents. “Emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking [Fairfax school] officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board’s admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans.”