I would expect it to be pretty common for TJ applicants to have had geometry. Our kids usually haven’t, because it’s not a thing our district offers, but a lot of the suburban schools do. We let (mandate) kids take Geometry and Alg 2 concurrently in 9th grade, but some schools really don’t like to do that for whatever reason. If you are in one of those systems, taking geometry in 8th grade is the path to advanced math in HS (especially if the HS doesn’t offer AB/BC in one year.)
Merit simply means being particularly good or worthy of praise, so the question is “praise for what?”, “good at what?”. What, EXACTLY, are you measuring? Intellectual ability, mathematical aptitude, prior achievement, willingness to work hard, etc., are all measurable, but they are not necessarily congruent.
So if you think the current criteria aren’t doing a good job at selecting the right students, why are you defending them so vigorously?
You don’t (or shouldn’t) want selectivity for the sake of being the most selective school; you want selectivity towards some goal. You want to select the people most likely to do X or Y or Z. It sounds, in your case, that you want the students most likely to push themselves and their compatriots to learn the most. So, what measures and scores will help you find those people?
I don’t agree that academic performance is necessarily the best gauge of ability. For example, some students excel academically because they have a knack for being able to tell what teacher wants to hear, until they reach the point at which rote memorization and regurgitation isn’t enough. Other students are too easily bored because they haven’t been challenged enough, and their grades reflect that boredom and lack of interest. Some people take tests well; some never learned the secrets to taking tests even when they know the material cold. There are other types and personalities and factors at play as well; are you willing to exclude everybody who doesn’t conform to a particular kind of student, regardless of their innate “merit”?
Perhaps I am reacting in part to remarks like this. When and where I went to school, the 8th graders in algebra 1 WERE the wizards, the brightest kids, the honors students; the average student was expected to take it in 9th grade, and not even the kids in the gifted program were given more than rudimentary exposure to algebra in 7th. Calc 1 was a course reserved for high school seniors, and no higher-level math was offered. (And I was part of a graduating class of more than 500; the notion that we were all idiots incapable of doing high level work is groundless.)
Should a student who came from a school or district where that was the norm even be able to apply to a highly-selective school such as TJHSST? Just because of their luck in where they attended school before, should they be written off as “not good enough” now, or should they have the opportunity to show what they’re made of?
The old* Saxon Math system used to not even have a separate geometry course; it was split up across algebra and precal. I liked not having to pause algebra to fit in geometry. But I don’t know that smearing it across three years is better or not than just having kids take two classes like you describe.
*They were purchased at some point by Big Textbook and things may have changed
There’s something to be said for needing the kids in a program to be at a certain skill level: it’s not about showing that they are made of the right stuff, but just there is a skill set you need. The Arts magnet has auditions, because they aren’t teaching beginning band. A talented kid who has never had Algebra* will be able to take the traditional math sequence and be well served. A kid who has had Algebra and Geometry needs a school with post-calc math program. So it’s not in injustice to send one to the specialty school and not the other.
- we accept kids without Alg, but they have to take it in the summer before 9th grade. With us. We also make kids with weaker Alg skills retake it in the same class.
First, your personal experience is (always) irrelevant and your point is moot because the feeder districts to TJ offer algebra starting in 7th grade. Second, Calc 1 and 2 are widely available at other schools. We’re talking about coursework years beyond that. Linear Algebra, Calc 3, DiffEQs, Complex Analysis, Concrete math. There just aren’t many kids ready for that in high school (I wasn’t, and I only took one of those in college), so the only way to offer it is to concentrate the kids who are.
Kids who aren’t ready for the super-advanced material aren’t written off – they have access to regular advanced material. “Not exactly wizards” != “idiots incapable of doing high level work”, but they are highly unlikely to be ready for this curriculum. That doesn’t mean there isn’t accelerated coursework available.
Now again, it’s certainly possible there aren’t even all that many kids taking these classes, in which case much of the above is irrelevant. I have been unable to find information on this.
You can’t, unless you figure out how to give any and all parents, different cultures, and different racial categories the same exact values.
That was kind of the point. The groups who value education over athletics or athletics over education is usually going to have an advantage over the other group who doesn’t value it as highly.
Where do Hispanic kids with non-English-speaking parents come in on your athletics-education spectrum? Anyway, you’re the one who implied we shouldn’t do anything with this high school because it’s too late by then, and we should instead start evening things up at birth. So, how?
Plus, the athletics/education dichotomy is pretty much bullshit anyway – lots of kids in my kids’ high school went to excellent colleges and played varsity and club sports.
Anyway, if you can’t even things up at birth, then maybe this is a small step towards equality of outcome, right?
So have I got this right? This school is mostly filled with minority students, they want to get rid of the admissions test and change to a lottery system, and the
main result will be to make the school whiter. And the social justice types support this? Seriously?
No, you don’t. The main result will be black and Hispanic students going from ~nil to a significant portion, much closer to their representation in the local population.
This makes such a difference. In the UK the first set of exams are compulsory and universal, the second set optional and selective, and it was like night and day. Just the fact that everyone in the class had chosen to be there and wanted to learn changed the atmosphere completely. And the teachers were able to pick up the pace, so the work finally became interesting and challenging.
Why are you trying to make the school represent the local population? Would you still support this if only white students were underrepresented?
The school should serve the local population, and especially those groups that are typically underserved by education and other institutions. Some folks are okay with a great school with virtually no black and Hispanic students, in an area with plenty of black and Hispanic people. I’m not.
You gonna answer my other question?
That answer is “probably not”. Not sure why it’s relevant. There’s a long, long history in the country and particularly this region of denying quality services to black and Hispanic people. There’s no such history for white people.
But there’s no racism against Asian people? Who proposed this change anyway? Were they white? I still think you’ve been had.
It’s a flawed solution to an even more flawed problem. This is better than the status quo, but still far from perfect. I’m for it because it’s improvement, but I’d support a solution that increased black/Hispanic enrollment without increasing white enrollment even more, most likely.
I grew up in a very white part of England. All the schools received the same funding from the local authority. None were selective. Yet there were still good schools and bad schools. Why do you think that was?
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Here in Virginia, “normal” for over a century has been black students get shit. We should be trying to correct this. This particular solution is flawed, but still better than nothing.
The bad schools served the council estates and rough areas. My point was, that the biggest factor in how good a school is, is the students themselves. There can be an advantage in gathering the very best pupils together, but if you send different students to the school, it won’t be the same school anymore and they won’t get the same benefit. Maybe that’s the point, you want everyone to get the same mediocre education and not help kids reach their full potential? Except rich parents can opt their kids out of that, so it’s the poor but bright ones who suffer.
No, I want black and Hispanic kids to have a fair shot at the best schools and the best opportunities. That’s not happening now. This is a slight step in the right direction.