A US District Court Judge in Virginia has ordered TJ to cease using its new admissions system

Parents Forum
246

Regarding Geometry, some specific numbers are below for the year prior to COVID (and prior to admission changes). I say “geometry+” because a small minority of kids took higher level math in 8th grade, such as trigonometry or calculus.

All Students in District – 13% took geometry+
TJ Applicants – 52% took geometry+
Semi-finalists – 64% took geometry+
Offered Admission – 63% took geometry+

There seems to be a good deal of self-selection, such that only a small minority of kids in the district take geometry, and that small minority is far more likely to apply to TJ than others, such that the geometry kids made up the majority of applicants to TJ. This may primarily be an indirect correlation rather than a direct one. Kids who are interested and gifted in math are both much more likely to take accelerated math and more likely to apply to TJ. There was less of a correlation between taking geometry and being successful in the admission process. TJ applicants who took geometry were only slightly more likely to be admitted than TJ applicants who did not. Specific numbers for rate of TJ applicants among kids who took geometry are below:

Asian students who took geometry+ – 63% applied to TJ
White students who took geometry+ – 29% applied to TJ
URMS who took geometry+ – 39% applied to TJ (small sample size)

Admission to TJ required algebra I, and this requirement remained in place with the modified system. They’ve never required geometry, although there are a few questions on the math section that include basic geometry (area of circle or triangle), so students who take geometry may have an advantage. In previous years, TJ only required a minimum 50th percentile score on the math section to advance to semi-finalist. They did not require anything close to perfect scores, and certainly did not only offer admission to students with highest scores. However, most offered admission had high scores. In one year, admits averaged a 87th percentile score in math.

There has been lot of emphasis on the change to remove the test requirement, but this does not strike me as the unique part of the admission process or the main reasons that some parents objected to the changes. TJ removed the test requirement in the 2020-21 cycle during COVID. The overwhelming majority of selective college and high schools also didn’t require standardized testing during this cycle. It would strike me as more unusual if TJ did require testing during 2020-21 COVID, rather than if they did not. Some other, more unique changes in the admission criteria include:

  1. Remove $100 application fee
  2. Switch to spots allocated to top 1.5% of home middle school, rather than top of all applicants
  3. Remove LOR evaluation
  4. Remove ECs/awards evaluation (SIS)
  5. Add evaluation of 8 personal qualities (SPS)
  6. Add strong boost for “experience” factors including low SES or attending historically underrperesented middle school
  7. Require applicants to be in 3 honors classes, including both math and science
  8. Increase minimum GPA to 3.5 (average GPA of admits was well above this)
  9. Remove stat-based first round from applicant to semi-finalist (~half of applicants made it the semi-finalist stat cutoff in previous years)
  10. Significantly increase number of seats in admitted class
4 Likes
247

I was very disappointed at the crap math my D22 was taught in elementary school (e.g., she knew how to divide very large numbers using a formula she didn’t quite understand but couldn’t do basic arithmetic functions) and so we had to start again at home to prepare her for secondary school. In that regard, it is possible to catch up but it does require dedicated resources. Worthwhile investment in my book because without a strong foundational understanding of math, students are more likely to struggle later on.

248

Who does this for the applicant? The applicant? Parent? Guidance counselor? Any school staff member?

249

I have read the thread but am confused.

Wouldn’t the 1.5% from each middle school, to the extent that they did not already qualify for the school, displace the lowest scoring qualifiers as it stands now? And wouldn’t the top qualifiers, the contest winning lots of natural math talent kids, effectively be insluated from displacement?

Put differently, isn’t this about changing the demographics of the kids who were at the bottom of the admissions pile?

Is there a way that a kid who is a math prodigy and who could, without prep, ace the entrance exam now, be excluded?

2 Likes
250

That’s assuming that the demonstrated talent is equally spread among the middle schools. That’s often not the case, because involved parents already sought out housing in the best school districts they could afford.

In the Boston area for example, I could name the five middle schools where most of the state’s strong math students come from, and the list remains pretty constant year after year.

2 Likes
251

Thanks, @hebegebe - I see. So the placement is solely 1.5% of test takers in each school?

It’s not that they are auto admits (as 1.5%) as well as top test takers throughout the district?

Put differently, would every middle school would have at least 1.5% of the class admitted but some schools would have more because they had more high scorers?

I’m trying to understand who is getting in now who will be displaced under the new system.

252

I believe, under the new (now rejected) admission system, the 1.5% of each middle school weren’t selected based on test. The academic components of the selection criteria were based on core GPA and some “problem-solving” essay (not really sure what that is). 100 (out of 550) students were selected outside of these criteria. I’m not sure who they were. At least some of them appear to be students from outside the Fairfax school district (as noted by others, about 20% of TJ students traditionally came from other school districts).

2 Likes
253

I’m not sure whether your D attended schools in US or UK. Here in the US, the rigor in math curricula has been diluted repeatedly over the years. The idea behind the dilution is nearly the same as the one behind these admission changes: make math more “accessible” to more people. The most affected is probably geometry, which I think is the best indicator of a student’s math aptitude. Geometry was deemed not useful for everyday life. Many schools only teach a few basic applications of geometry (e.g. calculation of length, angle, etc.). That completely misses what makes geometry important in a student’s math education. Geometry is about rigorous reasoning, spatial imagination and virtualization, and the ability to correctly anticipate (a few steps away from the current step).

8 Likes
254

“Not strongest” is an understatement.

Back when CollegeBoard published the stats of its test applicants, the Education major wannabes (students would check off intended major when registering for the test), had the second lowest SAT math scores, second only to future Park & Rec majors.

And yes, we all know some outliers: NMSF’s who went into K-6 teaching.

4 Likes
255

You mentioned “lowest scorers” and "ace the “entrance exam.” A minority of the kids who aced the entrance exam were also rejected under the old system since the admission used to consider many criteria beyond scores. For example, in one of the recent past systems, the top 3 weighted criteria for admission (not semi-finalist) were 25% essays, 25% EC/award list (SIS), and 20% LORs. It wasn’t just about highest scores.

However, the currently used system had more drastic changes, so there would probably be more drastic changes in who is admitted. Kids who are most likely to suffer are applicants from Carson and Longfellow MSs*, who are not low SES or other “experience” boost hook, and whose high score was making up for other areas of the application such as a well below perfect core GPA. Some of the kids you describe may be in this group.

*Carson and Longfellow sometimes had as much as 40% of admitted class, even though there were 22 other MSs in the district. Students from these middle schools were tremendously more likely to apply than average, with ~10x more applicants than typical.

2 Likes
256

@DadOfJerseyGirl , any post of mine has been thought through and, where applicable, researched. It would be outside the spirit of CC to do otherwise. I don’t clog the feed with links and footnotes, but I’ll provide my sources if you really need them.

“Prepping for Thomas Jefferson High’s entrance exam can start in third grade.” (1)

  • Atif Qarni, Virginia Secretary of Education at the time of the TJ policy changes: “if you’re enhancing your performance by getting a lot of extra help – tutoring services and so forth – it changes the dynamic, right, it gives you a complete unfair advantage; not everybody has those opportunities. And that, coupled with the starting line is already different for folks from different economic backgrounds or different racial backgrounds, that really is hurting our education system.” (2)
  • “Qarni told The Associated Press in an interview that he’s developing plans to eliminate the admissions test in a process that would take socioeconomic status into account. While the changes would apply to all Governor’s Schools, the proposed changes have been most controversial at TJ and at the Maggie Walker Governor’s School in Richmond, where Black and Hispanic students also are underrepresented.” (3)
  • “McLaughlin, like other [Fairfax County] board members, still worries about Washington’s booming test-prep industry. Modeled on Korean “cram” schools, classes meet after school, on weekends, and throughout the summer. “They’ve become professionals at that process of getting into TJ,” says Josh Silverman, a private tutor in the area.” (1)

Asra Nomani, leader of the plaintiffs in the TJ lawsuit:

“Nomani was one of two witnesses invited by the Republican side to speak about the dangers of CRT and how changing admission requirements from being merit-based to being more racially balanced violates the guarantee of equality before the law.” (4)

I did.

The plaintiffs in this case are a subgroup of Asian Americans, not the general population of Asian Americans, as I have made more than clear. My comments are directed at them, and mischaracterizing my comments as barbs aimed at all Asian Americans because you disagree with the commentary is a dishonest tactic.

If you happen to read any of the links, I just picked up on another thing. In 2004, a proposal to alter the admissions process was considered, but parents argued that “subjective criteria could hurt Asian students who might not be as proficient in English. By September 2004, the proposal was dead.”

But there was no issue with English proficiency until 2011 when TJ finally hired a half-time person to help the “13 of its 1,764 students as having limited English proficiency, meaning that their English skills were still in need of improvement.” (5)

(1) Does the No. 1 High School in America Practice Discrimination? - Washingtonian

(2) Audio: VA Secretary of Education Atif Qarni Argues for Changes in Admissions to Governor’s Schools to Increase Diversity; Says “It will only make these schools better” | Blue Virginia

(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pta-clashes-with-education-secretary-on-admissions-changes/2020/09/10/b8e2e0f8-f378-11ea-8025-5d3489768ac8_story.html

(4) Parent Advocate Takes Stand Against CRT in House Judiciary Meeting

(5) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/as-thomas-jefferson-adds-help-for-poor-english-skills-some-va-parents-fume/2011/03/10/ABK7qVx_story.html

2 Likes
257

Applicants fill out a Student Portrait Sheet essay as part of the application, where according to the website, “they will be asked to demonstrate Portrait of a Graduate attributes and 21st century skills.” The SPS is evaluated by looking for evidence of 8 criteria – collaborator, communicator, critical thinker / creative, ethical / global citizen, resilient / goal oriented, innovator, leader, and problem solver. Admissions does not expect applicants to check every box. Instead it sounds like more a general evaluation of personal qualities.

258

Our district has a highly rated academic magnet. A few years ago the school changed admissions so that 80% of slots went to those who scored highest on the admissions rubric (CogAT, grades, state-wide standardized tests, essays, teacher recommendations). Then, 20% of slots are reserved for students meeting criteria mostly related to socioeconomics. The 20% still need to meet a threshold score for entry. The magnet program has been around for a long time and the school feels confident that students scoring at or above the baseline score can be successful. Students admitted through the 20% plan are offered some addition support (scaffolding in education speak) to ease the transition from less competitive middle schools. More recently the school has been able to expand to also offer more slots with the hope of serving all applicants who meet the baseline criteria and are interested in attending.

The school has still maintained extremely high test scores, ranking, etc.

3 Likes
259

It’s my understanding they allocated seats for each middle school equal to 1.5% of the total students, which works out to ~450/~550 seats. The remaining 100 seats are unallocated and given to top applicants from the overall pool, which can include out of district, private school, and home school kids; in addition to kids who do not make the 1.5% allocated seats from the home school. This unallocated total may increase if the allocated seats for certain middle schools are not filled.

The problem solving essay is described as, follows. The problem solving essay is not a new requirement, so there are probably some example questions online. It’s my understanding, the scoring depends on how the applicant describes their approach, as much as it does getting the correct answer.

“The essay is designed to allow applicants to demonstrate their problem solving skills by describing their approach to solving a multi-variable math or science question”

260

In 12 year olds? I have a big problem with “personality” type assessments when deciding access to educational resources. They reinforce the biases of the evaluator. Such subjective evaluations are the reason why many URM and low SES students don’t get put forward for programs that require teacher nomination because the teachers, blinded by their biases, don’t see these qualities in kids from non-traditional educational cohorts.

4 Likes
261

The SPS was newly added, so it couldn’t have been the reason why URM and low SES students were underrepresented in the past.

1 Like
262

That is how it should be, rather than keeping the school or program too small compared to the number of students who will benefit from it. When it is too small, the zero-sum competitive scarcity mindset takes over with all of the associated ugliness.

263

That’s great, but has the district ever published the data on how the 20% actually do? I’m sure they have a high graduation rate, but how many end up in the top decile of the magnet? Top quartile? Top half? After ‘scaffolding’, how many thrive?

264

Seems like @ultimom 's school is now open admission to those who meet the baseline qualifications, so the 20% is no longer applicable.

In any case it is not so relevant how the additional students who would not have been admitted when the school was smaller did in rank within the school (focus on rank is the zero sum competitive mindset again). What is actually relevant is whether they did better than if they were in other schools, meaning did they make use of opportunities not available in the other schools?

2 Likes
265

CA Prop 16, WA Ref 88, and most recently, recalling those 3 school board members in SF. I see a losing trend in very liberal states. WA Ref 88 should be a textbook case study on how to make a group of people really, really mad and how these folks kicked “them” to the curb in a few months.

With the SCOTUS taking a peek, often a reflection of current trends in society, I wonder if this trend will continue.