Thinking of sending my white child to Banneker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

largely agree with above, except Banneker is also a draw for non-dysfunctional ES programs like DC Prep and KIPP

I'd love to see a day where instead of grandstanding and discounting lower SATs by demographic we instead handicap higher scores which result from extensive and costly test prep and don't really reflect the test takers' given abilities.

PP - your suggestion reminded me of yesterday's New York Times story: "How NYC's Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students."

Spoiler alert - the percentage of minorities has dropped precipitously as test prep outfits increased. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/nyregion/nyc-public-schools-black-hispanic-students.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

But higher than the schools on comparable academic footing. No one is comparing Banneker academically to Dunbar or Eastern -- the comparison is to SWW and it compares favorably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

largely agree with above, except Banneker is also a draw for non-dysfunctional ES programs like DC Prep and KIPP

I'd love to see a day where instead of grandstanding and discounting lower SATs by demographic we instead handicap higher scores which result from extensive and costly test prep and don't really reflect the test takers' given abilities.

PP - your suggestion reminded me of yesterday's New York Times story: "How NYC's Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students."

Spoiler alert - the percentage of minorities has dropped precipitously as test prep outfits increased. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/nyregion/nyc-public-schools-black-hispanic-students.html

Test prep in DC seems more geared towards college admission, but NYC has had test prep for magnets as a cottage industry for decades. NYC test-in schools are ruthless -- it's only about the final score. The top schools skew heavily Asian. Even as the city has tried to reform there's been enormous political pressure to maintain the status quo. White privilege has has its limits, but the lack of AA and Latino students is genuinely alarming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

largely agree with above, except Banneker is also a draw for non-dysfunctional ES programs like DC Prep and KIPP

I'd love to see a day where instead of grandstanding and discounting lower SATs by demographic we instead handicap higher scores which result from extensive and costly test prep and don't really reflect the test takers' given abilities.

I think that's the intent of the College Board's new metric to some extent: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/05/explaining-the-college-boards-new-adversity-scores/589708/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

largely agree with above, except Banneker is also a draw for non-dysfunctional ES programs like DC Prep and KIPP

I'd love to see a day where instead of grandstanding and discounting lower SATs by demographic we instead handicap higher scores which result from extensive and costly test prep and don't really reflect the test takers' given abilities.

I think that's the intent of the College Board's new metric to some extent: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/05/explaining-the-college-boards-new-adversity-scores/589708/

Well intended but I do worry that it's missing the mark by focusing on address rather than individual circumstance. Can't wait to see how people figure out how to game this to their advantage like they do with school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

largely agree with above, except Banneker is also a draw for non-dysfunctional ES programs like DC Prep and KIPP

I'd love to see a day where instead of grandstanding and discounting lower SATs by demographic we instead handicap higher scores which result from extensive and costly test prep and don't really reflect the test takers' given abilities.

PP - your suggestion reminded me of yesterday's New York Times story: "How NYC's Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students."

Spoiler alert - the percentage of minorities has dropped precipitously as test prep outfits increased. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/nyregion/nyc-public-schools-black-hispanic-students.html

Test prep in DC seems more geared towards college admission, but NYC has had test prep for magnets as a cottage industry for decades. NYC test-in schools are ruthless -- it's only about the final score. The top schools skew heavily Asian. Even as the city has tried to reform there's been enormous political pressure to maintain the status quo. White privilege has has its limits, but the lack of AA and Latino students is genuinely alarming.

Yes. The article tracks data from 1976 to now. Back then, all the elite NYC schools had at least 25% black and Latino students. Now it is less than 19% in many cases. Of course not everyone can get help preparing for the test. A mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

But higher than the schools on comparable academic footing. No one is comparing Banneker academically to Dunbar or Eastern -- the comparison is to SWW and it compares favorably.

Favorably?

163 points behind on average is a huge gap.

SWW is to Banneker what Banneker is to Duke Ellington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

But higher than the schools on comparable academic footing. No one is comparing Banneker academically to Dunbar or Eastern -- the comparison is to SWW and it compares favorably.

Favorably?

163 points behind on average is a huge gap.

SWW is to Banneker what Banneker is to Duke Ellington.

Wait until College Board re-calibrates based on adversity scores. That gaps will close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

But higher than the schools on comparable academic footing. No one is comparing Banneker academically to Dunbar or Eastern -- the comparison is to SWW and it compares favorably.

Favorably?

163 points behind on average is a huge gap.

SWW is to Banneker what Banneker is to Duke Ellington.

Wait until College Board re-calibrates based on adversity scores. That gaps will close.

The College Board is NOT recalibrating anything. Adversity scores are to add context to the test score IF a college chooses to use them. They are separate and apart from the SAT results.

Many colleges are already trying to create this sort of database on their own or buy it from other vendors. College Board is standardizing it, and providing it as a service to make it more convenient, and of course to try and make themselves more indispensable to colleges.

It is a controversial initiative, but it benefits no one to misrepresent what is being done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The animosity toward Banneker is crazy.

It's been happening on DCUM long before this building stuff.

I don't get it at all. We complain all day about dysfunctional schools and DCPS failures. Banneker is a success story. If you don't want to send your kids -- don't.

But must you run down these students because their SAT scores are low or whatever the critique of the day is?

By and large, these are bright, hardworking kids who have persevered despite many attending poor performing ES and MSs. They should be celebrated and DCPS should be studying what happens there to try and replicate it.

Banneker’s doing well, and that’s great, but they have a *very* low percentage of at-risk kids compared to DCPS as a whole. If you look at most other “successful” DC schools, they are replicating that.

But higher than the schools on comparable academic footing. No one is comparing Banneker academically to Dunbar or Eastern -- the comparison is to SWW and it compares favorably.

Favorably?

163 points behind on average is a huge gap.

SWW is to Banneker what Banneker is to Duke Ellington.

Wait until College Board re-calibrates based on adversity scores. That gaps will close.

The College Board is NOT recalibrating anything. Adversity scores are to add context to the test score IF a college chooses to use them. They are separate and apart from the SAT results.

Many colleges are already trying to create this sort of database on their own or buy it from other vendors. College Board is standardizing it, and providing it as a service to make it more convenient, and of course to try and make themselves more indispensable to colleges.

It is a controversial initiative, but it benefits no one to misrepresent what is being done.

so you agree t's ok for colleges to use a weighted scoring for consideration for admissions decisions, which serves the real purpose of the SAT, rather than some pissing contest for parents to establish HS bragging rights?

[Anonymous]

I am not ok with 'weighted scoring.' The scores are the scores.

I am totally ok with the College Board providing aggregated data to colleges and universities that represents a student's ZIP code (to median income and education levels), whether a student's HS is Title 1 school, and how many students from a high school go on to a 4-year college.

If admissions offices don't have to run that publicly available data themselves, perhaps they will have more time to consider the other parts of an application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not ok with 'weighted scoring.' The scores are the scores.

I am totally ok with the College Board providing aggregated data to colleges and universities that represents a student's ZIP code (to median income and education levels), whether a student's HS is Title 1 school, and how many students from a high school go on to a 4-year college.

If admissions offices don't have to run that publicly available data themselves, perhaps they will have more time to consider the other parts of an application.

unlike DCUM where a 100-150 point scoring difference should just be accepted at face value. Got it.

[Anonymous]

My husband went to DCPS in the 90's. He was the only white kid in his school most of the time (with the exception of Deal) he went to school without walls and was one with like three white kids in his class when he graduated in '99.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the history of Banneker?

When so many schools, in DCPS or Baltimore or Memphis or ATL, are failing... Why is this one competitive? Is the neighborhood more wealthy? More rigorous academics?

Why is it historically an AA space? Leftover from segregation or?

why are you even posting here? you clearly have no knowledge of Banneker or DCPS.

I hate how these Banneker threads go. So much paranoia, of all types. Why are people so threatened by Banneker? It's weird.

Because they're experiencing the cognitive dissonance that they've always look down on schools full of minority children who live in poverty and yet this one is full of children who are brilliant and hard-working and in high achieving.

I've actually been inside of Banneker and volunteered there and I was really blown away by the grit and determination of the students. It was full of students who were smart, hardworking and very dedicated to serving in their community