City Plan to Diversity and Fill Selective High Schools Not Controversial like NYC's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

But then Walls, Banneker get watered way down academically. Listen, the PARCC isn't a hard test. Every kid should get a 4. It's completely egregious that DCPS can't get any (or a single digit worth of) kids at some schools to this level. Admitting kids with a 3 or even 2 to a selective high school is just offensive and is letting DCPS feel good while they're systematically failing kids. It's letting them completely get away with murder.
This makes me irate.

ITA. At the same time, I think those 45 kids that passed the PARCC in Wards 7 and 8 should get automatic admission wherever they want. That's the true function of a GT/selective program.

[Anonymous]

They need to put the levels of focus and resources to improving middle schools equivalent to what they put into developing and expanding the quality early childhood programs they have rolled out throughout the city. The inability of the city’s middle schools to prepare students for rigorous high school is not news. Lowering the bar for high school admissions in isolation is not the answer.

I have a 9th grader at Walls. It is no walk in the park even for very strong students that did extremely well in middle school. Students that cannot score a proficient grade in ELA and math, not even advanced math, may be frustrated and not be well served at SWW without targeted support.

What about some sort of bridge program for motivated but academically struggling students to get academic support with a track the feeds into the application schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

But then Walls, Banneker get watered way down academically. Listen, the PARCC isn't a hard test. Every kid should get a 4. It's completely egregious that DCPS can't get any (or a single digit worth of) kids at some schools to this level. Admitting kids with a 3 or even 2 to a selective high school is just offensive and is letting DCPS feel good while they're systematically failing kids. It's letting them completely get away with murder.
This makes me irate.

ITA. At the same time, I think those 45 kids that passed the PARCC in Wards 7 and 8 should get automatic admission wherever they want. That's the true function of a GT/selective program.

I think this is a great compromise - increases diversity without watering down requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

But then Walls, Banneker get watered way down academically. Listen, the PARCC isn't a hard test. Every kid should get a 4. It's completely egregious that DCPS can't get any (or a single digit worth of) kids at some schools to this level. Admitting kids with a 3 or even 2 to a selective high school is just offensive and is letting DCPS feel good while they're systematically failing kids. It's letting them completely get away with murder.
This makes me irate.

ITA. At the same time, I think those 45 kids that passed the PARCC in Wards 7 and 8 should get automatic admission wherever they want. That's the true function of a GT/selective program.

I think this is a great compromise - increases diversity without watering down requirements.

This doesn't increase diversity. Presumably, those 45 kids from wards 7 and 8 definitely got a seat at a selective school BECAUSE there are more selective seats available than there are students who qualify to fill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

But then Walls, Banneker get watered way down academically. Listen, the PARCC isn't a hard test. Every kid should get a 4. It's completely egregious that DCPS can't get any (or a single digit worth of) kids at some schools to this level. Admitting kids with a 3 or even 2 to a selective high school is just offensive and is letting DCPS feel good while they're systematically failing kids. It's letting them completely get away with murder.
This makes me irate.

ITA. At the same time, I think those 45 kids that passed the PARCC in Wards 7 and 8 should get automatic admission wherever they want. That's the true function of a GT/selective program.

I think this is a great compromise - increases diversity without watering down requirements.

This doesn't increase diversity. Presumably, those 45 kids from wards 7 and 8 definitely got a seat at a selective school BECAUSE there are more selective seats available than there are students who qualify to fill them.

If they applied.

[Anonymous]

And most probably did not apply to selective schools, sadly. Given the logistic hurdles involved with going across town, and the fact that many are dealing with dysfunction or indifference around them, they likely stayed in their neighborhood schools and wasted their potential. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And most probably did not apply to selective schools, sadly. Given the logistic hurdles involved with going across town, and the fact that many are dealing with dysfunction or indifference around them, they likely stayed in their neighborhood schools and wasted their potential. Ask me how I know.

Or equally likely - some went to Banneker, some went to McKinley, some are in charters, some went to Walls and some stayed at their IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Ellington attracts white students -- a growing number each year but nothing like Walls.

If the other schools have to "lower their standards" so should Walls
. The test should go too.

Defining quality down - the old “good enough for DC” standard serves no one in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Ellington attracts white students -- a growing number each year but nothing like Walls.

If the other schools have to "lower their standards" so should Walls
. The test should go too.

Defining quality down - the old “good enough for DC” standard serves no one in the end.

I think the above was facetious. We need equal standards at all of these schools -- whatever those standards are. I would exempt Ellington, which clearly has a different mission.

[Anonymous]

Why should the standards be equal to apply to SWW, Banneker, McKinley Tech, and Phelps? Their missions/focus are quite different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should the standards be equal to apply to SWW, Banneker, McKinley Tech, and Phelps? Their missions/focus are quite different.

because to liberals everyone needs to be the same in the march to mediocrity otherwise racism/classism check your privilege or some other pc bs

we have to close the achievement gap remember

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Ellington attracts white students -- a growing number each year but nothing like Walls.

If the other schools have to "lower their standards" so should Walls
. The test should go too.

Defining quality down - the old “good enough for DC” standard serves no one in the end.

I think the above was facetious. We need equal standards at all of these schools -- whatever those standards are. I would exempt Ellington, which clearly has a different mission.

So it seems - to provide a free arts education for kids who live in PG County.

[Anonymous]

Another anecdote from Walls. My kid is a 9th grader there so this is our first year. She breezed through Deal doing minimal work. Got 5s on PARCC every year. Kid loves to read so I think that really helped build skills. Did not study even for 1 min for Walls test because didn’t think she wanted to go there. Found the test super easy. Ended up going there for various reasons. Likes it but is struggling with managing the work load. It is a very big step up from Deal 8th grade. I guess what I am trying to say is that pushing kids in to Walls who can’t even pass the test or get a 4 on the PARCC and who may not have a good attendance record is a recipe for disaster. Walls will have to lower its standards significantly. How does that help anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should the standards be equal to apply to SWW, Banneker, McKinley Tech, and Phelps? Their missions/focus are quite different.

How are SWW and Banneker’s missions different exactly? Both are rigorous college prep schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should the standards be equal to apply to SWW, Banneker, McKinley Tech, and Phelps? Their missions/focus are quite different.

How are SWW and Banneker’s missions different exactly? Both are rigorous college prep schools.

I always thought Banneker was more STEM/Math focused while SWW was more general. Sort of like the difference between MIT and Harvard. Both good schools but different.

That being said, I could be way off base though.