Take that up with the OP, who is claiming that this change is racist against Asians.
At what age or grade levels do they start AP programs? I’ve seen them start in middle schools.
And neither do you. It’s on you to show this is an issue if you want to use it as an argument.
But don’t bother because it doesn’t matter. Wrt admissions at least – it always matters when students receive a mismatched education. This school is for students who are ready for the most advanced math curriculum. The moderately advanced one-in-four students (nationally; it’s probably higher here) who take algebra 1 in 8th grade have access to moderately advanced (e.g. two years of calculus) content at other schools.
A student who is a full year or more behind, whether due to ability or neglect, is unlikely to be ready. Just like the musician who could have been better with better instruction is unlikely to be ready for the conservatory.
For the class of 2022 (thank you, @damuriajashi), 30% of the kids offered spots were going to show up ready for precalculus. Those kids are highly likely to run out of math classes in a regular school. It is highly unlikely that the ones in Algebra I will.
How is that relevant?
I have no idea what you are arguing. I was simply stating that at, ANY POINT, you pick, other than birth, you are not accounting for all the potential failures if they can really even be viewed as failures.
So yes, if you are hoping for equality of outcomes to match across the spectrum of all cultures,then you are chasing your tail as they won’t match. Then you end up with proposals like this one to try and force outcomes to match because it matches your worldview.
Maybe its your worldview that is wrong?
Are cultures different?
Do some cultures value education over other cultures? If the answer to that is yes (and it is) then you will have those cultures succeed where others fall shorter. It should not be yours or anyone else’s job to ensure equality of outcome is reached.
At any rate, the method your school uses sounds a lot more reasonable.
I’m arguing that this change is a tiny improvement in equality of opportunity (sorry for my mistake saying “outcomes” earlier, but you’ll see that I’ve been consistently arguing for equality of opportunity). You say that you have to start at birth, but offer no suggestions there. It seems like you’re just throwing up your hands and saying it’s impossible to make improvements to inequality of opportunity. I disagree.
I’m not going to argue about which cultures value education over others, because that always leads to some fairly racist statements. Please note, I’m not saying you’re racist, or that your post was racist. It’s just that the cultural argument seems to bring out the racism pretty quickly.
So, will this lottery system improve, however slightly, the equality of opportunity across racial and social groups? I think it will.
I wish some of the people who believe racism is behind everything would explain why they think Asian kids are doing better than white kids in school. Or has there already been a thread on that?
Why does this matter? Are you saying that fairfax has to make sure every school district in the whole country meets its standards before it can apply it’s standards to itself? That seems like a tall order.
By any reasonable definition. Regardless of your definition, a random lottery will result in ~50% of the admitted students being below average (within the pool of students eligible for the lottery) on whatever scale you use.
Current system: a process that chooses the 1000 highest scoring applicants (GPA and test scores) for consideration for one of 450 spots (based on grades in particular subjects, recommendations, essays, and diversity).
Proposed system:a process that creates a pool from which applicants are selected by lottery. 90% of current applicants are eligible for the pool.
It doesn’t matter. I can concoct dozens of different ways to select for academic merit, none are perfect but all are better than this. If you want simplicity, simply use a test like they do at stuyvesant, the application process is extremely simple and even parents that cannot speak english can apply. If you want to measure something more than performance on a single test on a single day, then give a battery of tests or add in state test results or GPA. The less complicated the process the better the admissions process should not be testing the parent’s ability to navigate the admissions process.
Yes it translates to better outcomes. What it mostly does is concentrates the best students in a single place where they can interact with one another. if you don’t see any value in that then places like tjhsst serve no useful purpose.
No, I am inviting you to conduct your social experiments without destroying a school that actually admits kids based on academic merit. If you decide that academic merit means winning a lottery then by all means start a school where admission is done by lottery and we can compare the results of the tjhsst students and your school and see where we have better results. I’m not going to argue with you about your opinion.
This proposal is not focused on income or wealth, if it were driven by wealth or income disparity, I would not be objecting to the change, also I don’t think the proposal would have political legs if it wasn’t directed at skin color (or if the burden would fall disproportionately on white kids (whites are the least likely to live in poverty and the most likely to be wealthy). This only has legs because white can feel better about themselves and assuage their white guilt entirely at the cost of asians while at the same time increasing white representation.
Better teachers absolutely make a difference. The county has sole discretion on which teachers work where. They can assign the “best” teachers to whichever school they want without destroying tjhsst.
And asians have proportionally higher concentrations of immigrants with a foreign language spoken at home. There are significantly more language support services for families that speak spanish than families that speak any particular asian language.
The share of Latinos in the U.S. who are immigrants declined to 33%
Today 59% of the U.S. Asian population was born in another country.
The cite doesn’t mention hispanic kids or asian kids at all.
This is not true. What it mostly does is concentrates “good enough” and interested/committed students in the same places so that specialized programs can be offered. These schools set expectations that are fundamentally unreasonable–but it works because you have a group of kids who are eager to try to meet those expectations. The programs you offer are vastly more important than the magical synergy of kids.
But it makes a great deal of difference whether the kids are able to keep up with the programs, no? If they can’t then either that kid will not benefit from attending the school, or the other kids will be held back like in normal schools.
Sure. And it’s true that having each other helps them handle the courses–not so much, IME, from competition, but from having other people going through the same thing creates a community. Just seeing others be successful sets expectations. By and large, our kids are far LESS competitive with each other than was my experience at a comprehensive.
Saying “it’s about grouping the kids so they have synergy” really misses the point. They can’t push each other if there is no program that challenges them, and honestly, they can push each other without being in the same program.
Which would be fine, IF, you didn’t have to reduce the standards to get a more “selective” grouping.
Sure.
But just to be clear: if everyone who scores over 90 on the test is amply qualified, you’re fine if some of the kids who get 92 get in and some of the ones who get a 99 do not? (totally made up numbers, of course).
A 4.0 vs a 3.0, no difference? At some point a line is made, that line is only NOW a problem because the right groupings of people didn’t qualify.
Are the standards there to ensure that all the children at this magnet school are able to fully participate in the offerings, or are the standards there to discover who “deserves” the benefits of the school?
I don’t really like the concept of school administrators worrying about who deserves and doesn’t deserve benefits, or having school time dedicated to identifying the deserving.
I mean, in principle.
Our assessment goes up to 110 points. Cutoff is 70. We often have a kid get in with a 72 from one zipcode when a kid in another zip code gets waitlisted with a 74. Does this strike you as unjust?
Administrators and Teachers both are probably highly aware of the differences in a 3.0 student vs a 4.0 student.
There are surely measurable differences in them.
But that doesn’t much matter, what matters to the people wanting to change the standards is strictly the groupings of people (ALA Outcome) by granting opportunity undeserved. (By the previous measure anyway)
There is a name for this in the world view of America, they call it the dumbing down of America or reaching for the lowest common denominator.
That lowest common denominator is in the case, lowering standards so that more of the right groups get in. It’s wrong. And more than wrong, it is hurting everyone.
I suppose it would depend on whom you are striving to get in your program, and by what academic merit system you use.
As has been stated, there are lots of schools, and lots of schools with “good” programs but the elite, the best of the best are selecting THE best.
The kids who don’t meet such strict requirements will likely go to the next school on the list. The problem only really rears it’s head when it is proven that the subjective measurements used to justify such things are either racist or harm other students.
This is one such case. Asian students are being selected against for being too good so that we can feel good about giving those seats to other groups.
That strikes me as wrong, like really wrong.
Cultures need to have meaning, and some cultures need adjustment. How to go about doing so is a mystery but I am not the one stating that harming a group for the other (not as deserving group based upon merit) simply because we must do SOMETHING is wrong.
We are the elite, generally grouped with TJ and similar schools. And I am telling you how we run admissions, per policy. Everyone with a 70 or above will do fine in our program. Does it seem unjust that the 74 gets bumped for a 72 because we want geographic diversity?