I missed that you were a different poster than the one I responded to.
> I didn’t say you you intend to sabotage quality education. I said you were against excellence. Turning a gifted school into a normal one will in practice be the end of academic acceleration.
But it isn't turning a gifted school into a normal one. The proposal still requires accelerated math background, high test scores, and recommendations from administrators. The teachers will remain strong. The proposal isn't a raw lottery among all FCPS students. The proposal isn't cutting funding for the astronomy lab. The option for the gifted won't vanish. The same population of people will be able to apply to TJ.
I am not "against excellence". I do value other things in different ratios, perhaps. If somebody told me that the average AP scores at TJ would go down by 0.2 points and the school would have a population of free-and-reduced-lunch kids that matched the general population of FCPS, I'd say that was a good trade. I may value "excellence" less than you (for some definition of excellence) but I don't oppose it.
I also believe that TJ's test focus (and AP focus) leads to a suboptimal pedagogy. Look at how 8th period has changed over the last several decades. Gone are the opportunities for wild experimentation and creativity outside of the norm. I believe that students are being forced into boxes at TJ and that eliminating the test will make it more clear that TJ can better serve its students with a wider set of opportunities for its kids.
I know a fair number of alumni who wouldn't encourage their kids to attend TJ because the "excellence" it provides is so limited in scope. Students can feasibly be exposed to better curricula in IB and to wider ranges of human experiences at accelerated programs within base schools. I don't know if I fully agree, but the fact that very smart, successful, and educate people can look at TJ and say "I do not agree that this is a pinnacle of excellence" should make us all step back and understand that we don't agree on what excellence means.
You did also use the phrase "support destroying..." when describing me and my beliefs. I think that "sabotage" is a reasonable match to that.
IB is at best very little better than AP. If you’re not teaching actual college level material like Bard College at Simon’s Rock[1] a limited amount will be lost by allowing administrators more leeway to discriminate against Asians.
I apologize for my overwrought language. I pattern matched your opposition to the current regime to the Ed school orthodoxy or the San Franciscan attempt to actually end Lowell.
The school is stunningly AP centric. When I attended, total number of AP courses taken was the primary measure distinguishing students. There were entire core classes that were not offered as non-AP courses. It is a major metric in what makes the school so highly rated in magazines.
The school does teach advanced classes, but the best stuff isn't in the test-driven structure. I'm married to a college professor and friends with many of them. The idea that APs are equivalent to college courses is largely bunk.
> a limited amount will be lost by allowing administrators more leeway to discriminate against Asians.
How precisely is a random lottery that requires certain education history and grades to enter discriminating against asians? Asian students still disproportionately make up lottery-eligible students.
Don’t forget the administrator letters. Or that the random lottery’s purpose is to move from admissions by moving from highest score down until the classes are filled to fulfills minimum requirements. That latter is to reduce the proportion and number of Asians. It’s phrased as a student body more reflective of the district’s student population but the effect, which is both foreseen and desired is to reduce the number of Asians.