Why don't white students go to Banneker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 14:20, the PP in all likelihood attended Banneker 20-30 years ago. I wonder if the makeup has changed since then; just curious. My understanding of Title 1 schools is that a large % of students attending are from low-income backgrounds. Again, makes me even more impressed about current test scores if true.

The Challenge Index has about 27% of Banneker graduates passing at least AP or IB test. There's not much about this statistic that impresses, in either absolute terms or compared to other local schools with high levels of low-income students (Columbia Heights in DC, Mount Vernon and Stuart in Fairfax, Kennedy and Wheaton in Montgomery, Wakefield in Arlington, or TC Williams in Alexandria). For the most part, Banneker only looks good in comparison with other schools in DCPS, and white parents have been avoiding those schools for decades.

I beg to differ. It is quite impressive considering 2/3 of the population is low income.

It absolutely is not impressive to most parents, when schools with similar or greater percentages of low-income students all over the region have better results and are not even styled as "magnet" schools. Which part of this do you not understand?

We understand perfectly well. What is your end game? If it's having a kid ready for college and getting into an amazing college with money, Banneker is it. If you want your kid to be like every other lilly white kid from DC, they'll all be lumped into that same pile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. Looking forward to the article, Aaron.

Banneker is like its neighbor, Howard University. Excellent school, but an odd choice for a white student.

Howard is not an excellent school, it panders to outdated stereotypes and delivers subpar instruction. Comparing Banneker to Howard is an insult to Banneker.

I am not a Howard grad, but I beg to differ. Howard grads go on to amazing and respected careers. Do all schools have issues, absolutely. Are there diamonds at every school, absolutely. I think the new President is really great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Banneker is harder for the boys than girls. I have a boy, and Banneker is on my radar for future consideration. To be honest, I've heard the same comment about Washington Latin. Thanks.

More on this please?

I'm not the person you quoted, but I have a boy at Banneker, 9th grader. It's been very hard on my son and I've seen several boys asked to leave already. If you don't keep a 2.0 GPA they will force you out (and that's a 2.0 on Banneker's alternative grading scale which is brutal).

I think some of it is just the typical adjustment to high school, but it's also t his particular school. I already know my younger kid will not be attending Banneker, there is no way he could keep up with the rigor. I wish I had thought about this more with my current son. I think that if he really pushes himself he can make it through, but I don't know if I want to subject him to this kind of pressure for the next 4 years. At Banneker they really pride themselves with preparing kids for the rigor of college. They say Banneker kids have no problems adjusting to college, because they push them so hard while they are at Banneker. They also say that for Banneker grads getting an A in college is a breeze, because at Banneker to get an A you need a 95%. I think it's a great school and a great program but it's not for every kid. There's a lot of pressure, enormous workload and not a lot of typical high school fun to balance it out. For example, there is no football team, therefore no homecoming.

That's why there are very few boys there. They start off with few boys and by the end of the year almost half are gone. I can't remember the exact numbers but for my son, he may be 1 of 3 or 4 boys in each of his classes. I think in a class or two he is the only boy.

I think it's maturity. Girls are more mature at 14. My son was asked to leave after 9th grade. He is doing great now, but he's in 11th grade. His maturity did not match his intelligence. I wish Banneker could figure this out. Boys and girls are really different.

PP here, I think you make a great point. If you don't mind sharing, where does your son attend now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. Looking forward to the article, Aaron.

Banneker is like its neighbor, Howard University. Excellent school, but an odd choice for a white student.

Howard is not an excellent school, it panders to outdated stereotypes and delivers subpar instruction. Comparing Banneker to Howard is an insult to Banneker.

I am not a Howard grad, but I beg to differ. Howard grads go on to amazing and respected careers. Do all schools have issues, absolutely. Are there diamonds at every school, absolutely. I think the new President is really great.

I would have to agree. My husband and best friend are Howard grads along with a few other people I know. They are all doing well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Banneker is harder for the boys than girls. I have a boy, and Banneker is on my radar for future consideration. To be honest, I've heard the same comment about Washington Latin. Thanks.

More on this please?

I'm not the person you quoted, but I have a boy at Banneker, 9th grader. It's been very hard on my son and I've seen several boys asked to leave already. If you don't keep a 2.0 GPA they will force you out (and that's a 2.0 on Banneker's alternative grading scale which is brutal).

I think some of it is just the typical adjustment to high school, but it's also t his particular school. I already know my younger kid will not be attending Banneker, there is no way he could keep up with the rigor. I wish I had thought about this more with my current son. I think that if he really pushes himself he can make it through, but I don't know if I want to subject him to this kind of pressure for the next 4 years. At Banneker they really pride themselves with preparing kids for the rigor of college. They say Banneker kids have no problems adjusting to college, because they push them so hard while they are at Banneker. They also say that for Banneker grads getting an A in college is a breeze, because at Banneker to get an A you need a 95%. I think it's a great school and a great program but it's not for every kid. There's a lot of pressure, enormous workload and not a lot of typical high school fun to balance it out. For example, there is no football team, therefore no homecoming.

That's why there are very few boys there. They start off with few boys and by the end of the year almost half are gone. I can't remember the exact numbers but for my son, he may be 1 of 3 or 4 boys in each of his classes. I think in a class or two he is the only boy.

I think it's maturity. Girls are more mature at 14. My son was asked to leave after 9th grade. He is doing great now, but he's in 11th grade. His maturity did not match his intelligence. I wish Banneker could figure this out. Boys and girls are really different.

PP here, I think you make a great point. If you don't mind sharing, where does your son attend now?

DeMatha. Love it. They really get boys and acknowledge and try to get the parents to understand that you don't see the glimmer of maturity until 11th grade. What do you know, my son went from Cs to As this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Banneker is harder for the boys than girls. I have a boy, and Banneker is on my radar for future consideration. To be honest, I've heard the same comment about Washington Latin. Thanks.

More on this please?

I'm not the person you quoted, but I have a boy at Banneker, 9th grader. It's been very hard on my son and I've seen several boys asked to leave already. If you don't keep a 2.0 GPA they will force you out (and that's a 2.0 on Banneker's alternative grading scale which is brutal).

I think some of it is just the typical adjustment to high school, but it's also t his particular school. I already know my younger kid will not be attending Banneker, there is no way he could keep up with the rigor. I wish I had thought about this more with my current son. I think that if he really pushes himself he can make it through, but I don't know if I want to subject him to this kind of pressure for the next 4 years. At Banneker they really pride themselves with preparing kids for the rigor of college. They say Banneker kids have no problems adjusting to college, because they push them so hard while they are at Banneker. They also say that for Banneker grads getting an A in college is a breeze, because at Banneker to get an A you need a 95%. I think it's a great school and a great program but it's not for every kid. There's a lot of pressure, enormous workload and not a lot of typical high school fun to balance it out. For example, there is no football team, therefore no homecoming.

That's why there are very few boys there. They start off with few boys and by the end of the year almost half are gone. I can't remember the exact numbers but for my son, he may be 1 of 3 or 4 boys in each of his classes. I think in a class or two he is the only boy.

I think it's maturity. Girls are more mature at 14. My son was asked to leave after 9th grade. He is doing great now, but he's in 11th grade. His maturity did not match his intelligence. I wish Banneker could figure this out. Boys and girls are really different.

PP here, I think you make a great point. If you don't mind sharing, where does your son attend now?

PP again. I've heard great things about this school.

DeMatha. Love it. They really get boys and acknowledge and try to get the parents to understand that you don't see the glimmer of maturity until 11th grade. What do you know, my son went from Cs to As this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 14:20, the PP in all likelihood attended Banneker 20-30 years ago. I wonder if the makeup has changed since then; just curious. My understanding of Title 1 schools is that a large % of students attending are from low-income backgrounds. Again, makes me even more impressed about current test scores if true.

The Challenge Index has about 27% of Banneker graduates passing at least AP or IB test. There's not much about this statistic that impresses, in either absolute terms or compared to other local schools with high levels of low-income students (Columbia Heights in DC, Mount Vernon and Stuart in Fairfax, Kennedy and Wheaton in Montgomery, Wakefield in Arlington, or TC Williams in Alexandria). For the most part, Banneker only looks good in comparison with other schools in DCPS, and white parents have been avoiding those schools for decades.

I beg to differ. It is quite impressive considering 2/3 of the population is low income.

It absolutely is not impressive to most parents, when schools with similar or greater percentages of low-income students all over the region have better results and are not even styled as "magnet" schools. Which part of this do you not understand?

We understand perfectly well. What is your end game? If it's having a kid ready for college and getting into an amazing college with money, Banneker is it. If you want your kid to be like every other lilly white kid from DC, they'll all be lumped into that same pile.

Oh, please, grow up. Same as no one in this thread has said Banneker students are all ghetto; don't assume (much less say) everyone who chooses not to go there is just "other lilly white kid."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Banneker is harder for the boys than girls. I have a boy, and Banneker is on my radar for future consideration. To be honest, I've heard the same comment about Washington Latin. Thanks.

More on this please?

I'm not the person you quoted, but I have a boy at Banneker, 9th grader. It's been very hard on my son and I've seen several boys asked to leave already. If you don't keep a 2.0 GPA they will force you out (and that's a 2.0 on Banneker's alternative grading scale which is brutal).

I think some of it is just the typical adjustment to high school, but it's also t his particular school. I already know my younger kid will not be attending Banneker, there is no way he could keep up with the rigor. I wish I had thought about this more with my current son. I think that if he really pushes himself he can make it through, but I don't know if I want to subject him to this kind of pressure for the next 4 years. At Banneker they really pride themselves with preparing kids for the rigor of college. They say Banneker kids have no problems adjusting to college, because they push them so hard while they are at Banneker. They also say that for Banneker grads getting an A in college is a breeze, because at Banneker to get an A you need a 95%. I think it's a great school and a great program but it's not for every kid. There's a lot of pressure, enormous workload and not a lot of typical high school fun to balance it out. For example, there is no football team, therefore no homecoming.

That's why there are very few boys there. They start off with few boys and by the end of the year almost half are gone. I can't remember the exact numbers but for my son, he may be 1 of 3 or 4 boys in each of his classes. I think in a class or two he is the only boy.

I think it's maturity. Girls are more mature at 14. My son was asked to leave after 9th grade. He is doing great now, but he's in 11th grade. His maturity did not match his intelligence. I wish Banneker could figure this out. Boys and girls are really different.

PP here, I think you make a great point. If you don't mind sharing, where does your son attend now?

DeMatha. Love it. They really get boys and acknowledge and try to get the parents to understand that you don't see the glimmer of maturity until 11th grade. What do you know, my son went from Cs to As this year.

DeMatha really gets boys because DeMatha has been an all boys school since its inception. The same could be said for Gonzaga. DeMatha really doesn't have a magic potion for boys' success other than being an all boys school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Banneker is harder for the boys than girls. I have a boy, and Banneker is on my radar for future consideration. To be honest, I've heard the same comment about Washington Latin. Thanks.

More on this please?

I'm not the person you quoted, but I have a boy at Banneker, 9th grader. It's been very hard on my son and I've seen several boys asked to leave already. If you don't keep a 2.0 GPA they will force you out (and that's a 2.0 on Banneker's alternative grading scale which is brutal).

I think some of it is just the typical adjustment to high school, but it's also t his particular school. I already know my younger kid will not be attending Banneker, there is no way he could keep up with the rigor. I wish I had thought about this more with my current son. I think that if he really pushes himself he can make it through, but I don't know if I want to subject him to this kind of pressure for the next 4 years. At Banneker they really pride themselves with preparing kids for the rigor of college. They say Banneker kids have no problems adjusting to college, because they push them so hard while they are at Banneker. They also say that for Banneker grads getting an A in college is a breeze, because at Banneker to get an A you need a 95%. I think it's a great school and a great program but it's not for every kid. There's a lot of pressure, enormous workload and not a lot of typical high school fun to balance it out. For example, there is no football team, therefore no homecoming.

That's why there are very few boys there. They start off with few boys and by the end of the year almost half are gone. I can't remember the exact numbers but for my son, he may be 1 of 3 or 4 boys in each of his classes. I think in a class or two he is the only boy.

I think it's maturity. Girls are more mature at 14. My son was asked to leave after 9th grade. He is doing great now, but he's in 11th grade. His maturity did not match his intelligence. I wish Banneker could figure this out. Boys and girls are really different.

PP here, I think you make a great point. If you don't mind sharing, where does your son attend now?

DeMatha. Love it. They really get boys and acknowledge and try to get the parents to understand that you don't see the glimmer of maturity until 11th grade. What do you know, my son went from Cs to As this year.

DeMatha really gets boys because DeMatha has been an all boys school since its inception. The same could be said for Gonzaga. DeMatha really doesn't have a magic potion for boys' success other than being an all boys school.

The logic here escapes me. Sounds like a classic case of "practice makes perfect," as opposed to a mix of cluelessness and indifference at Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

Sorry PP, I know that for you the truth hurts. Just because others have erroneously stated the "gate crashing accusation" does not make it true. It's just another malicious or intentional lie spread without a shred of facts or evidence. And if you are going to use the Cleveland poster to bolster your lies, you should at least attempt to be forthright and use her entire posts in their entirety. Your cherry picking what you want to read and breathe life into speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

Sorry PP, I know that for you the truth hurts. Just because others have erroneously stated the "gate crashing accusation" does not make it true. It's just another malicious or intentional lie spread without a shred of facts or evidence. And if you are going to use the Cleveland poster to bolster your lies, you should at least attempt to be forthright and use her entire posts in their entirety. Your cherry picking what you want to read and breathe life into speaks volumes.

I really don't think you are helping your cause by continuing to accuse PPs of "lies" and malicious intent. What truth are you talking about, based on what facts or evidence? And what is the lie here? That whites are concerned about not being welcome at an all-black school? They may be wrong worrying about that, but getting angry and hurling insults at them is not going to change those feelings, and your fervent denial of any basis for this widespread concern is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

Sorry PP, I know that for you the truth hurts. Just because others have erroneously stated the "gate crashing accusation" does not make it true. It's just another malicious or intentional lie spread without a shred of facts or evidence. And if you are going to use the Cleveland poster to bolster your lies, you should at least attempt to be forthright and use her entire posts in their entirety. Your cherry picking what you want to read and breathe life into speaks volumes.

I really don't think you are helping your cause by continuing to accuse PPs of "lies" and malicious intent. What truth are you talking about, based on what facts or evidence? And what is the lie here? That whites are concerned about not being welcome at an all-black school? They may be wrong worrying about that, but getting angry and hurling insults at them is not going to change those feelings, and your fervent denial of any basis for this widespread concern is preposterous.

So what, exactly, is the basis for the "widespread" concern about white children attending a majority AA school? Would you find it an equally valid for Black parents to feel the same way about their child attending a majority white school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

Sorry PP, I know that for you the truth hurts. Just because others have erroneously stated the "gate crashing accusation" does not make it true. It's just another malicious or intentional lie spread without a shred of facts or evidence. And if you are going to use the Cleveland poster to bolster your lies, you should at least attempt to be forthright and use her entire posts in their entirety. Your cherry picking what you want to read and breathe life into speaks volumes.

PP, I don't think you know what the word "lie" means. A lie is a statement that the person who makes it knows is false. In this case, the people you are talking to actually believe they have a reason to be concerned. Whether they are right or not is another question, but calling what they are saying a lie, even a "malicious" one, is, well, malicious. I happen to believe that there is no reason to worry about this issue at Banneker, but it is disingenuous to pretend that anybody who is concerned about this must be intentionally lying because there is never any anti-white sentiment among AA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say many qualified white students choose not to apply to Banneker because it's not a diverse school. At all. There's not much more to the issue than that, imo.

And once again we get to an issue raised in the TJ thread.

When white students are the majority of the school, minorities (blacks, latinos, Asians, etc) should just be quiet and 'put up with it'.

When a schools is 'too black' or 'too asian', whites take their ball and go home.

That's because white parents have plenty of other options. Minorities would do the same if they had ample options of high-performing schools where they are in the majority, but there aren't too many Bannkers. Nobody wants their kid to be part of a small minority. As long as minorities are actually in the minority, that's just how it's going to be. Why should I put my white kid in the position of being in a small minority when I could send them to a truly diverse school that is more representative of the reality of their daily lives?

Go for it. No one at Banneker is begging you to come. The kids do great. I have a white friend who's son is at McKinley. Similar statistics. MIT is trying to recruit him. Why? Because he has the hook of being smart and at an all black school. To me it was smart. In addition, he LOVES McKinley so everyone wins.

And there is another reason: the desire for segregation comes from both sides. Nobody wants to be a gate crasher if they don't have to.

I think you intentionally misstated PP statement. There is a vast difference between begging someone to come to your party versus excluding them. Banneker has an open invitation for all those interested to apply and come. Banneker does not recruit any students nor does the school exclude students based on race. All who can handle the load are welcome. So please stop spreading your vicious untruths also known as lies.

How about you stop with your angry reflexive reactions and accusations of malicious intent when clearly someone is just stating their feelings? PP isn't the first one to mention the "gate-crashing" theme - and the post they responded to certainly showed no welcoming attitude, but was quite aggressively worded. You don't need formal discrimination (nobody ever claimed that was the case) to worry about being viewed as a gate-crasher. And remember the PP who said she liked Cleveland because "all" the high-achievers were black? Even if she didn't really mean that she doesn't want ANY whites at her school, she made it clear that she would not want the school to become majority white. As long as sentiments like that are alive (on both sides), we will never truly achieve integration.

Sorry PP, I know that for you the truth hurts. Just because others have erroneously stated the "gate crashing accusation" does not make it true. It's just another malicious or intentional lie spread without a shred of facts or evidence. And if you are going to use the Cleveland poster to bolster your lies, you should at least attempt to be forthright and use her entire posts in their entirety. Your cherry picking what you want to read and breathe life into speaks volumes.

I really don't think you are helping your cause by continuing to accuse PPs of "lies" and malicious intent. What truth are you talking about, based on what facts or evidence? And what is the lie here? That whites are concerned about not being welcome at an all-black school? They may be wrong worrying about that, but getting angry and hurling insults at them is not going to change those feelings, and your fervent denial of any basis for this widespread concern is preposterous.

+1. I prefer to assume that the poster above doesn't represent the majority views at Banneker.