Free link.
Interesting. Quite different from their earlier ruling regarding college admissions. I would hate to think that it’s because selective public exam schools tend not to be used by the wealthy and politically well-connected (whose children are more often at elite private schools), but instead are the stepping stone for the highly motivated but less monied middle and lower class, and new immigrants.
This should probably be moved to the parents forum.
Interesting, I didnt realize TJ got rid of its standardized test.
It will improve the student body at the other FCPS, as TJ will no longer be able to attract the extremely gifted. Special admission consideration to TJ will be given to those poor, ESL, or special education students.
Improve by what measure and are you saying TJ’s student body will be degraded? If so by what measure?
Perhaps we think of “poor” kids (as you define them) differently. I grew up poor and would hate to think I diluted the quality of a schools student body by my presence.
TJ historically attracted very gifted STEM students from local public high schools, in part due to its perceived elite status. It is not geographically convenient for all of them, but the nature of the school as a hotbed for national level STEM excellence was attractive enough.
As admission is now based upon other factors, including status as disadvantaged/ESL/special needs/an essay about one’s role as a “21st century citizen”, the school will become more typical of the local public schools and less of demonstrated evidence of academic talent. Highly talented kids may very well stay at Langley or McLean high instead.
I do understand that some object to siphoning off highly talented students in a magnet program with public funds. You used the term degraded, not me. I think of it as more representative of the public school population.
So aren’t some poor kids gifted stem students who would benefit and contribute? Does the school become less elite because students of lesser financial means are given consideration and access?
You used the terms “elite” versus “representative”. Sorry if I interpreted that to mean degraded.
Economically disadvantaged (and all other)students were always eligible for admission historically if they scored high enough on the admission test. Now the test is gone, the factors are listed without relative weight, and entrance is “holistic”.
May very well result in a fine class, just not necessarily an academically elite class. May or may not, no way of predicting.
Sorry I misinterpreted this as a prediction.
Please pardon my confusion.
That is about as clear as I can make it. TJ may or may not remain a school with a disproportionate number of highly talented STEM students; for some students who sought that specific environment, that is no longer assured, and other options may be more appealing.
From the article…
“The revised process used a more holistic review of applicants by considering what admissions experts call “race-neutral” factors, such as what neighborhood a student lives in and their socioeconomic status.
The new process also removed a notoriously difficult admissions test and $100 application fee”
I would hope this approach wouldn’t scare away the “highly talented” kids.
It might not appeal to them either. Not everyone wants to be judged by their parents’ zip code.
Some students can demonstrate extraordinary aptitude on tests. At an academically selective school, that should matter.
But maybe FCPS system does not want academically selective public schools.
“But I am too talented to attend school with kids who can’t even afford a $100 application fee!”
As always, I am sure the fee was waived upon request. Funny, but it is never the impoverished but high performing immigrants who complain about school fees.
If fees were an issue, abolish them. Only fees.
Are there any other gross generalizations you would like to proclaim publicly?
Flags are already flying on this thread so I’ve set it in slow mode until tomorrow morning.
Posters are requested to review the forum rules, and a reminder that debate is not permitted. Make your point, move on, or take it to PM.
My understanding is that the earlier ruling banned race-conscious admission policies, but left open the possibility of admission decisions based on socioeconomic diversity factors other than race.
Since TJ’s AOs aren’t seeing the applicant’s race (or name), and there are no quotas or weighting for race as part of the admissions process, these decisions wouldn’t be considered to be race-conscious according to the university-level ruling, as far as my (admittedly not so sophisticated) understanding is concerned?
I agree that such big changes in TJ’s admissions policies might affect the academic mix of students entering the school. But that is a different question, in my mind. The Supreme Court wasn’t being asked to critique the effectiveness of TJ’s admissions policies in building an academically strong class of students.
Are we sure TJ is even supposed to be an “academically strong” group of students in the future, however that is defined? Is that even a goal anymore?
I am sure every high school in FCPS claims it has an academically strong student body. If you don’t define or quantify the term, they all do. Regardless of who or how they admit, they can claim that goal is always met.
I don’t think I am arguing with you. Big changes in admission practices certainly might have the effect of changing a school in many ways. I don’t know a whole lot about TJ, but the changes described in the news stories look pretty significant to me.
What I don’t understand is how this decision is “quite different” from the university-level Supreme Court ruling.
I think the real question is why there aren’t more schools of similar caliber. I think the students are there and they aren’t being serviced.