Banneker SAT averages: 494 Math; 502 Reading

[Anonymous]

Or, according to Banneker's website, 10 points lower than the national averages (510 Math; 496 Reading). And this is the DCPS answer to Bronx Sci? I'm really shocked to see scores so low. I mean, I didn't expect to see "Sidwell scores," but maybe BCC? (And perhaps even more shocking -- those completely pedestrian SAT scores apparently equate to sky-high DC-CAS passage rates: 98% Math; 94% Reading.)

Are Wilson's scores better? Or Walls'? I couldn't find either school's average SAT scores on its website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or, according to Banneker's website, 10 points lower than the national averages (510 Math; 496 Reading). And this is the DCPS answer to Bronx Sci? I'm really shocked to see scores so low. I mean, I didn't expect to see "Sidwell scores," but maybe BCC? (And perhaps even more shocking -- those completely pedestrian SAT scores apparently equate to sky-high DC-CAS passage rates: 98% Math; 94% Reading.)

Are Wilson's scores better? Or Walls'? I couldn't find either school's average SAT scores on its website.

I'm assuming some kids at Wilson do much better than that, because they get accepted into the top schools. but I imagine the average gets pulled down by other kids there.

My guess is that at Banneker there isn't that much variance in the scores.

I'm not shocked by Banneker's good DC-CAS scores - proficient simply means at grade level.

[Anonymous]

WHO SCORES HIGHEST?

Here are average SAT scores in various categories for the high school class of 2010.
By score and group:

1721: Students reporting family incomes
of more than $200,000 a year

1714: Students who had taken AP
or honors courses in natural sciences

1636: Asians

1580: Whites

1558: Students who took core curriculum

1546: Students who previously took PSAT/NMSQT (a pre-SAT)

1523: Boys

1510: Students reporting family incomes
of $60,000 to $80,000 a year

1509: National average

1496: Girls

1444: American Indian
or Alaskan natives

1407: Students who did not take
core curriculum

1400: Students who did not take
PSAT/NMSQT

1369: Mexican and Mexican Americans

1363: Latinos (excluding Mexicans,
Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans)

1349: Puerto Ricans

1329: Students reporting family incomes
of less than $20,000 a year

1277: African Americans

Source: SAT 2010

[Anonymous]

2010 AVG. SCORES BY SUBJECT

Top score is 800 in each SAT section:

Critical reading (all unchanged from 2009):
• Average score: 501
• Females: 498
• Males: 503

Math:
• Average score: 516 (+1 from 2009)
• Females: 500(+1 from 2009)
• Males: 534 (unchanged from 2009)

Writing:
• Average score: 492 (-1 from 2009)
• Females: 498 (-1 from 2009)
• Males: 486 (unchanged from 2009)

[Anonymous]

thought they were higher...

[Anonymous]

Study after study has shown that the best thing the SAT demonstrates is income of the parents.

[Anonymous]

Study after study has shown that the best thing the SAT demonstrates is income of the parents.

[Anonymous]

Those avgs are sad like any mediocre, below avg high school. I went to Stuy (where SES is middle to below middle for most) and am not familiar with DCPS or Banneker but does Banneker have an entrance exam like TJ? I would guess not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those avgs are sad like any mediocre, below avg high school. I went to Stuy (where SES is middle to below middle for most) and am not familiar with DCPS or Banneker but does Banneker have an entrance exam like TJ? I would guess not.

Banneker does have an entrance exam, and rigorous entrance process. It is by far the op school in the DCPS system, and while Wilson or walls might have a higher SAT average, I would attribute that to the fact that (especially now) both of those schools tend to serve a higher-income demographic, not because they are any better then Banneker, just that their kids are more likely to have the money and time to take extensive SAT prep classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Study after study has shown that the best thing the SAT demonstrates is income of the parents.

Or, put a different way ... study after study shows that as a group, children of high-income parents tend to be more successful in school, are more likely to attend college, and are more likely to obtain higher-paying jobs. Those studies don't invalidate the SAT scores, they just point to the many difficulties low-income families face.

[Anonymous]

Having had a SAT of only a 1000, I still managed to get a bachelor and master's degree from high quality schools. I even hold down a well paying job. Not having a super high SAT is not an indicator of stupidity. What you are seeing at Banneker are fewer parents that can pay for Kaplan and all the test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having had a SAT of only a 1000, I still managed to get a bachelor and master's degree from high quality schools. I even hold down a well paying job. Not having a super high SAT is not an indicator of stupidity. What you are seeing at Banneker are fewer parents that can pay for Kaplan and all the test prep.

The SAT was "recentered" in 1995. A 1000 before then is the equivalent of an 1100 today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Study after study has shown that the best thing the SAT demonstrates is income of the parents.

And post after post. But this isn't a random sample, it's a test-selected population, which should swamp the SES factor (as it seems to at Stuyvesant and all other similar schools except Banneker).

[Anonymous]

May I ask the OP, what is your point? To another poster, how dare you compare Wilson to Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:May I ask the OP, what is your point? To another poster, how dare you compare Wilson to Banneker.

Not the PP - but why not? Two high schools in the same system - what other schools in DC should Bannaker be compared to?