How things change in a decade!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

The schools have very different populations. The last time DCPS reported on it, 9/10 who got into both had preferenced Walls. But DCPS has not reported that data since the Rhee era.

[Anonymous]

How do you get “into both”? Do you mean getting into one then being called off the waitlist for another? That would be a very small number of kids, especially since Banneker doesn’t really use a waitlist.

More to the point, any “Rhee era” stats that may be out there are completely irrelevant to how people view these schools today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you get “into both”? Do you mean getting into one then being called off the waitlist for another? That would be a very small number of kids, especially since Banneker doesn’t really use a waitlist.

More to the point, any “Rhee era” stats that may be out there are completely irrelevant to how people view these schools today.

The system can tell how people ranked things and who was marked accepted at which school. So they have data that the families don't see.

[Anonymous]

Okay, but that’s different from getting “into both.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, but that’s different from getting “into both.”

I suppose, but it's still interesting. I think "get into" means pass the application process. Even if you don't actually match purely due to how you ranked the schools.

[Anonymous]

I simply doubt Rhee-era data is relevant any more. The number of people applying to Banneker basically doubled when the school relocated. Banneker is now essentially on top of the Shaw metro stop, and thus easier to access from nearly everywhere. The new facility also has much better athletic facilities, which matters a lot to some students.

Also, back in the Rhee era Banneker had a uniform; now they merely have a dress code. And while I’m sure there are kids who prefer Walls because they value the opportunity to wear ripped jeans, miniskirts, and tube tops to class, as the parent of a teenager I have to believe that number is smaller than the number who wanted to avoid the old polo-and-khakis uniform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No what I’m pointing out is that people say Walls has better test scores than Banneker. I’m saying you have to consider that in light of Banneker’s 3x higher, 69 percent Black population, a population that underperforms on tests independent of everything else. They are likely educating very well but test scores aren’t the best way to see that. That’s the whole point.

Eugenics has entered the discussion! Did you really just argue that black kids are worse at testing than white kids, all other factors being equal?

Lay off the performative concern. “Black” (note the quotes) students do test lower even when controlling for SES, etc. there are many reasons and they’re sociological not genetic. Signed, a black person who does test well.

No, they don't. Black kids in Westchester with two BigLaw partner parents don't test worse than white kids with MBA parents who are CFOs of S&P 100 companies.

I don't think "controlling" (note the quotes) means what you think it means. Signed, a white person who can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No what I’m pointing out is that people say Walls has better test scores than Banneker. I’m saying you have to consider that in light of Banneker’s 3x higher, 69 percent Black population, a population that underperforms on tests independent of everything else. They are likely educating very well but test scores aren’t the best way to see that. That’s the whole point.

Eugenics has entered the discussion! Did you really just argue that black kids are worse at testing than white kids, all other factors being equal?

So… descriptively this is just a statistical reality. Eugenics only enters in as a causal mechanism.

I, personally, believe that the disparity in test scores and achievement is a function of poverty and cultures that don’t really care about academic achievement. That is not a eugenics argument.

A eugenics argument would be that African Americans don’t get good test scores because they are genetically dumber. That argument is monstrous.

Nothing you said is wrong. It's just nonresponsive. Your point (with which I, and data, agree) is that there is correlation of test scores by race. Your point (which I agree with) is that the disparity is a function of poverty and other societal factors. But when someone straight up argues that black kids test worse than white kids when controlling for SES, etc, they aren't making the arguments you made.

Was this what they meant? Who knows. But it is what they wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

Yes. There are a lot of other statistical measurements that might be helpful. Like a range so you can see top scores, even a median might be helpful. Because if Banneker has 25 percent of big need students and SAT is very correlated with poverty, 1/4 bad scores would bring down an average pretty quickly.

The fact that Banneker hasn't had NMSFs in recent years, but that Walls always has a handful, makes me think that top scorers do prefer Walls.
Rel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

So the difference between the two appears to be steadily decreasing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

Yes. There are a lot of other statistical measurements that might be helpful. Like a range so you can see top scores, even a median might be helpful. Because if Banneker has 25 percent of big need students and SAT is very correlated with poverty, 1/4 bad scores would bring down an average pretty quickly.

The fact that Banneker hasn't had NMSFs in recent years, but that Walls always has a handful, makes me think that top scorers do prefer Walls.
Rel

The # of kids taking is pretty close and pretty consistent. 240-250ish. With that sample size a few high performing kids would not skew the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

Yes. There are a lot of other statistical measurements that might be helpful. Like a range so you can see top scores, even a median might be helpful. Because if Banneker has 25 percent of big need students and SAT is very correlated with poverty, 1/4 bad scores would bring down an average pretty quickly.

The fact that Banneker hasn't had NMSFs in recent years, but that Walls always has a handful, makes me think that top scorers do prefer Walls.
Rel

I think what the numbers and discussion tell me is that Walls has more very high scoring kids and Banneker has more very low scoring kids.

The top quarter of Walls does not exist at Banneker, and the bottom quarter at Banneker does not exist at Walls.

I bet there are many kids in the middle who could fit in at either school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I simply doubt Rhee-era data is relevant any more. The number of people applying to Banneker basically doubled when the school relocated. Banneker is now essentially on top of the Shaw metro stop, and thus easier to access from nearly everywhere. The new facility also has much better athletic facilities, which matters a lot to some students.

Also, back in the Rhee era Banneker had a uniform; now they merely have a dress code. And while I’m sure there are kids who prefer Walls because they value the opportunity to wear ripped jeans, miniskirts, and tube tops to class, as the parent of a teenager I have to believe that number is smaller than the number who wanted to avoid the old polo-and-khakis uniform.

Leaving out all the other comments and topics in this thread, in 2010 the enrollment at Banneker was mid 400s and now it is over 700, so both how many kids are going to the school and who they are has changed significantly. I don’t think it is really helpful at all so compare to the Rhee era

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such an entertaining discussion to read, as the parent of a high-scoring Banneker student.

If you have a smart kid looking for a demanding high school education, Banneker is an excellent choice.

If you are looking for a school full of affluent white kids, Banneker is not it. But you didn’t need SAT data to tell you that.

+1, knowing multiple kids at both Walls and Banneker (would be thrilled if my own child got a spot either place, Banneker is much closer to where we live) the idea that Banneker kids are somehow inferior is laughable to me. Banneker is slightly larger and, yes, has a larger at risk population. No idea where the PP is getting SAT scores but I would assume that would account for the difference in scores. They are not directly equivalent populations. But the kids I know both places are all incredibly accomplished.

The SAT difference is nearly 150 points. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a chasm. And you can find the average SAT scores lots of places, they’re publicly reported by the schools themselves. Just google.

More than 150. DC publishes the data. Walls vs Banneker.
23-24 it was 196 points
22-23 it was 221 points
21-22 it was 229 points

Yes. There are a lot of other statistical measurements that might be helpful. Like a range so you can see top scores, even a median might be helpful. Because if Banneker has 25 percent of big need students and SAT is very correlated with poverty, 1/4 bad scores would bring down an average pretty quickly.

The fact that Banneker hasn't had NMSFs in recent years, but that Walls always has a handful, makes me think that top scorers do prefer Walls.
Rel

I think what the numbers and discussion tell me is that Walls has more very high scoring kids and Banneker has more very low scoring kids.

The top quarter of Walls does not exist at Banneker, and the bottom quarter at Banneker does not exist at Walls.

I bet there are many kids in the middle who could fit in at either school.

Here are the scores. Banneker 1107 and Walls 1303.

https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/School%20Year%202023-2024%20SAT%20Scores_0.xlsx

First huge difference in the 2 schools, almost 200 points. For a selective school, Bannekers average is very low. If it’s 1107, then many kids are getting 1000, even below 1000.

Walls average is much better. You have bottom kids getting 1100 which is not great and mediocre. But at least you have kids at the top 1/4 getting 1400 plus which is not happening at Banneker at all. Maybe an outlier here or there but nothing of significant numbers.

Agree with PP above that the top kids are choosing Walls over Banneker.