Why don't white students go to Banneker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the white PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that an all-black high school could be intellectually rigorous and successful at preparing students for top colleges.

I think the black PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that Banneker is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as successful at preparing students for top colleges as other available options, especially for whites, Asians, Latinos and high SES blacks.

So be it.

Oh come on. Banneker is clearly doing something very right, given its college placement and AP results. Maybe it is not the same as TJ but that is not the question. The question is why don't any white parents, at all, even consider this very good school as compared to other good DC options like Walls and Wilson?

I don't understand the comparison to TJ. According to the latest stats, white people are shunning TJ, and the Asian population is increasingly dominant. So based on this thread, most of the whites who responded said that the school was not rigorous enough; the school was no TJ; and, the school reported too low SAT scores. Hmm, if that is truly the reason, why are whites also declining in enrollment at TJ?

Go find the SAT scores for TJ, compare them to Wilson and to Banneker, and you will see the answer.

No, that's not the answer to the question. White people are using SAT scores for their reasons to not send their children to Banneker. What is the reason for white people not sending their children to TJ, a largely Asian populated magnet school with great SAT scores?

You are a bit slow today, aren't you?

SAT scores at TJ are super high, showing it is a very competitive, race-blind, school. Many white students do try to get in; few do, because there's better qualified (often Asian) students.

SAT scores at Wilson are relatively high for a non-selective and super diverse school. Disclosure: my kids (Latino) will probably end up there.

SAT scores at Banneker at surprisingly low for a selective school. Why would whites (or other with better alternatives) send their kids there, unless for some reason they are looking for an all-black immersion experience?

Yes, slow. To be clear. Banneker is not all black. They have a high Latino population. They also have Asian students. Again, if a great college is your end game, Banneker is it. If you are caught up into SAT scores - I don't know, you have so much attitude - why in God's name would you send them to Wilson. Wilson is nothing to write home about. I am inbounds to Wilson and my kid is afraid to go there. And I'm black.

I won't tell you what to do with your kid, so please don't tell me what to do your mine, especially when you obviously are quite ill-informed. There are many more Latino (and Asian) at Wilson than at Banneker, and going to great colleges, AND learning how to live in the big world out there, instead of self-segregating themselves in a small and very artificial environment.

It is great that DCPS offers different choices, as we live in a very diverse city. I am in this thread because the title question intrigued me, and I wanted to learn more about the school. What I have discovered is multiple reasons why it makes no sense for my kids to even consider Banneker. I wish the school well.

I'm not the pp quoted, but regarding the bolded, What is artificial about the environment at Banneker? That's such an odd thing to say. I'm a current Banneker parent, btw.

I'm not any of these PPs, and I don't necessarily agree with PP you quoted in bold.

However, I think what PP is saying here is that an all-black environment, and frankly, an all-black-led and all-black-all-high-achieving environment, is not representative of broader society. Following high school graduation, or at the latest, following graduation from a historically black college, Banneker grads will need to navigate a world in which whites are the majority and blacks occupy few positions of power or influence. Similarly, graduates from an all girl school will encounter a male-dominated work environment in most fields. I think this was the point, that a school like Wilson is a more realistic introduction to the world out there. Again, I don't necessarily agree that such an "artificially controlled" environment is such a bad thing during formative years, but this was PP's point.

But why is this so different from what happens at other all-white high achieving environments? Why is it a bad thing it its all black, but not if its all white? (i.e(JKLM elementary schools in NW or TJ (asian) and Langley in VA or Churchill, Wooten in MD? I apologize if I am not articulating this very well, but I just don't understand why folks are arguing about Banneker and what it offers it AA population? White don't want to go there, that's clear, but why are whites putting the school down so much if it does a great good of educating its population?

I'm not the direct pp, but I am the pp poster that asked the question about what was meant by an artifical environment. I'd like to add one more point to what the pp above me said. Also, it's not like black students in predominately black schools live in a bubble and never see/interact with white people. Also, my Banneker student currently has 2 black teachers (one male/one female), 1 Latina female teacher, 3 white female teachers. And again, are all boys or all girls schools artificial? Do those children have problems navigating the "real" world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the white PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that an all-black high school could be intellectually rigorous and successful at preparing students for top colleges.

I think the black PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that Banneker is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as successful at preparing students for top colleges as other available options, especially for whites, Asians, Latinos and high SES blacks.

So be it.

Oh come on. Banneker is clearly doing something very right, given its college placement and AP results. Maybe it is not the same as TJ but that is not the question. The question is why don't any white parents, at all, even consider this very good school as compared to other good DC options like Walls and Wilson?

I don't understand the comparison to TJ. According to the latest stats, white people are shunning TJ, and the Asian population is increasingly dominant. So based on this thread, most of the whites who responded said that the school was not rigorous enough; the school was no TJ; and, the school reported too low SAT scores. Hmm, if that is truly the reason, why are whites also declining in enrollment at TJ?

Go find the SAT scores for TJ, compare them to Wilson and to Banneker, and you will see the answer.

No, that's not the answer to the question. White people are using SAT scores for their reasons to not send their children to Banneker. What is the reason for white people not sending their children to TJ, a largely Asian populated magnet school with great SAT scores?

You are a bit slow today, aren't you?

SAT scores at TJ are super high, showing it is a very competitive, race-blind, school. Many white students do try to get in; few do, because there's better qualified (often Asian) students.

SAT scores at Wilson are relatively high for a non-selective and super diverse school. Disclosure: my kids (Latino) will probably end up there.

SAT scores at Banneker at surprisingly low for a selective school. Why would whites (or other with better alternatives) send their kids there, unless for some reason they are looking for an all-black immersion experience?

Yes, slow. To be clear. Banneker is not all black. They have a high Latino population. They also have Asian students. Again, if a great college is your end game, Banneker is it. If you are caught up into SAT scores - I don't know, you have so much attitude - why in God's name would you send them to Wilson. Wilson is nothing to write home about. I am inbounds to Wilson and my kid is afraid to go there. And I'm black.

I won't tell you what to do with your kid, so please don't tell me what to do your mine, especially when you obviously are quite ill-informed. There are many more Latino (and Asian) at Wilson than at Banneker, and going to great colleges, AND learning how to live in the big world out there, instead of self-segregating themselves in a small and very artificial environment.

It is great that DCPS offers different choices, as we live in a very diverse city. I am in this thread because the title question intrigued me, and I wanted to learn more about the school. What I have discovered is multiple reasons why it makes no sense for my kids to even consider Banneker. I wish the school well.

I'm not the pp quoted, but regarding the bolded, What is artificial about the environment at Banneker? That's such an odd thing to say. I'm a current Banneker parent, btw.

I'm not any of these PPs, and I don't necessarily agree with PP you quoted in bold.

However, I think what PP is saying here is that an all-black environment, and frankly, an all-black-led and all-black-all-high-achieving environment, is not representative of broader society. Following high school graduation, or at the latest, following graduation from a historically black college, Banneker grads will need to navigate a world in which whites are the majority and blacks occupy few positions of power or influence. Similarly, graduates from an all girl school will encounter a male-dominated work environment in most fields. I think this was the point, that a school like Wilson is a more realistic introduction to the world out there. Again, I don't necessarily agree that such an "artificially controlled" environment is such a bad thing during formative years, but this was PP's point.

I understand that you're trying to explain what the previous pp was saying. As a white mom, I just wanted to reiterate why I did not want my kid to attend the humanities program at Wilson and why I preferred that she attend Ellington, Walls, or Banneker. When she went to the admitted student open house at Wilson for the humanities program, I was struck by how few AA kids were in that program. I realized that she would be in an environment where the elite students were more likely to be white and the non-elite students more likely to be AA. I really wanted her to go to a school where the AA students were also the elite students -- her peers. Why would I want her to be educated in an environment where it appeared (based on the student open house) that she would be fed (indirectly and not intentionally, of course) subtle but powerful messages about white and black achievement?

Don't know what the situation is today at these schools because this was a few years back. But all I can say is that I wanted my kid to be able to navigate in the outside world, too, especially one where whites will eventually make up less than 50% of the population. I wasn't confident that she would get that at Wilson based on what I saw there. I'm sure there are lots of good reasons for white students to go to Wilson and it works for a lot of people -- but for my kid, I was glad she ended up choosing Ellington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the white PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that an all-black high school could be intellectually rigorous and successful at preparing students for top colleges.

I think the black PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that Banneker is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as successful at preparing students for top colleges as other available options, especially for whites, Asians, Latinos and high SES blacks.

So be it.

Oh come on. Banneker is clearly doing something very right, given its college placement and AP results. Maybe it is not the same as TJ but that is not the question. The question is why don't any white parents, at all, even consider this very good school as compared to other good DC options like Walls and Wilson?

I don't understand the comparison to TJ. According to the latest stats, white people are shunning TJ, and the Asian population is increasingly dominant. So based on this thread, most of the whites who responded said that the school was not rigorous enough; the school was no TJ; and, the school reported too low SAT scores. Hmm, if that is truly the reason, why are whites also declining in enrollment at TJ?

Go find the SAT scores for TJ, compare them to Wilson and to Banneker, and you will see the answer.

No, that's not the answer to the question. White people are using SAT scores for their reasons to not send their children to Banneker. What is the reason for white people not sending their children to TJ, a largely Asian populated magnet school with great SAT scores?

You are a bit slow today, aren't you?

SAT scores at TJ are super high, showing it is a very competitive, race-blind, school. Many white students do try to get in; few do, because there's better qualified (often Asian) students.

SAT scores at Wilson are relatively high for a non-selective and super diverse school. Disclosure: my kids (Latino) will probably end up there.

SAT scores at Banneker at surprisingly low for a selective school. Why would whites (or other with better alternatives) send their kids there, unless for some reason they are looking for an all-black immersion experience?

Yes, slow. To be clear. Banneker is not all black. They have a high Latino population. They also have Asian students. Again, if a great college is your end game, Banneker is it. If you are caught up into SAT scores - I don't know, you have so much attitude - why in God's name would you send them to Wilson. Wilson is nothing to write home about. I am inbounds to Wilson and my kid is afraid to go there. And I'm black.

I won't tell you what to do with your kid, so please don't tell me what to do your mine, especially when you obviously are quite ill-informed. There are many more Latino (and Asian) at Wilson than at Banneker, and going to great colleges, AND learning how to live in the big world out there, instead of self-segregating themselves in a small and very artificial environment.

It is great that DCPS offers different choices, as we live in a very diverse city. I am in this thread because the title question intrigued me, and I wanted to learn more about the school. What I have discovered is multiple reasons why it makes no sense for my kids to even consider Banneker. I wish the school well.

I'm not the pp quoted, but regarding the bolded, What is artificial about the environment at Banneker? That's such an odd thing to say. I'm a current Banneker parent, btw.

I'm not any of these PPs, and I don't necessarily agree with PP you quoted in bold.

However, I think what PP is saying here is that an all-black environment, and frankly, an all-black-led and all-black-all-high-achieving environment, is not representative of broader society. Following high school graduation, or at the latest, following graduation from a historically black college, Banneker grads will need to navigate a world in which whites are the majority and blacks occupy few positions of power or influence. Similarly, graduates from an all girl school will encounter a male-dominated work environment in most fields. I think this was the point, that a school like Wilson is a more realistic introduction to the world out there. Again, I don't necessarily agree that such an "artificially controlled" environment is such a bad thing during formative years, but this was PP's point.

But why is this so different from what happens at other all-white high achieving environments? Why is it a bad thing it its all black, but not if its all white? (i.e(JKLM elementary schools in NW or TJ (asian) and Langley in VA or Churchill, Wooten in MD? I apologize if I am not articulating this very well, but I just don't understand why folks are arguing about Banneker and what it offers it AA population? White don't want to go there, that's clear, but why are whites putting the school down so much if it does a great good of educating its population?

You are responding to me. I did not say it was bad. In fact, I said that I did not agree with PP's assessment of it as being bad.

But to answer the question in your first sentence, it's different because white-male-dominance is (unfortunately) the national norm. Therefore a white-dominant school represents the real (American) world more than a black-dominated or female-dominated school. Don't shoot the messenger, as if this is news to anyone.

Further up thread I defended Banneker, FWIW.

I agree with this. It is important to remember the demographics of our country. If I remember correctly:
- White 65%
- Latino 15%
- Black 13%
- Then Asian and other

[Anonymous]

My father (black man) grew up in rural southern VA. No white people in his town, no white people in any of his schools. After high school he joined the military. He had a successful military career (obviously this is a very white male dominated field and also a bit hostile towards blacks when he joined in 1970), he fell in love and married a white woman (my mother). He had a full rich life, despite the fact that he had very few interactions with white folks prior to joining the military. And I don't even think the environment at Banneker is as exclusive as I described here. So my point, I don't think black people that attend "black schools" (at any level, even college) are going to have a hard time navigating the "real world" because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the white PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that an all-black high school could be intellectually rigorous and successful at preparing students for top colleges.

I think the black PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that Banneker is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as successful at preparing students for top colleges as other available options, especially for whites, Asians, Latinos and high SES blacks.

So be it.

Oh come on. Banneker is clearly doing something very right, given its college placement and AP results. Maybe it is not the same as TJ but that is not the question. The question is why don't any white parents, at all, even consider this very good school as compared to other good DC options like Walls and Wilson?

I don't understand the comparison to TJ. According to the latest stats, white people are shunning TJ, and the Asian population is increasingly dominant. So based on this thread, most of the whites who responded said that the school was not rigorous enough; the school was no TJ; and, the school reported too low SAT scores. Hmm, if that is truly the reason, why are whites also declining in enrollment at TJ?

Go find the SAT scores for TJ, compare them to Wilson and to Banneker, and you will see the answer.

No, that's not the answer to the question. White people are using SAT scores for their reasons to not send their children to Banneker. What is the reason for white people not sending their children to TJ, a largely Asian populated magnet school with great SAT scores?

You are a bit slow today, aren't you?

SAT scores at TJ are super high, showing it is a very competitive, race-blind, school. Many white students do try to get in; few do, because there's better qualified (often Asian) students.

SAT scores at Wilson are relatively high for a non-selective and super diverse school. Disclosure: my kids (Latino) will probably end up there.

SAT scores at Banneker at surprisingly low for a selective school. Why would whites (or other with better alternatives) send their kids there, unless for some reason they are looking for an all-black immersion experience?

Yes, slow. To be clear. Banneker is not all black. They have a high Latino population. They also have Asian students. Again, if a great college is your end game, Banneker is it. If you are caught up into SAT scores - I don't know, you have so much attitude - why in God's name would you send them to Wilson. Wilson is nothing to write home about. I am inbounds to Wilson and my kid is afraid to go there. And I'm black.

I won't tell you what to do with your kid, so please don't tell me what to do your mine, especially when you obviously are quite ill-informed. There are many more Latino (and Asian) at Wilson than at Banneker, and going to great colleges, AND learning how to live in the big world out there, instead of self-segregating themselves in a small and very artificial environment.

It is great that DCPS offers different choices, as we live in a very diverse city. I am in this thread because the title question intrigued me, and I wanted to learn more about the school. What I have discovered is multiple reasons why it makes no sense for my kids to even consider Banneker. I wish the school well.

I'm not the pp quoted, but regarding the bolded, What is artificial about the environment at Banneker? That's such an odd thing to say. I'm a current Banneker parent, btw.

I'm not any of these PPs, and I don't necessarily agree with PP you quoted in bold.

However, I think what PP is saying here is that an all-black environment, and frankly, an all-black-led and all-black-all-high-achieving environment, is not representative of broader society. Following high school graduation, or at the latest, following graduation from a historically black college, Banneker grads will need to navigate a world in which whites are the majority and blacks occupy few positions of power or influence. Similarly, graduates from an all girl school will encounter a male-dominated work environment in most fields. I think this was the point, that a school like Wilson is a more realistic introduction to the world out there. Again, I don't necessarily agree that such an "artificially controlled" environment is such a bad thing during formative years, but this was PP's point.

But why is this so different from what happens at other all-white high achieving environments? Why is it a bad thing it its all black, but not if its all white? (i.e(JKLM elementary schools in NW or TJ (asian) and Langley in VA or Churchill, Wooten in MD? I apologize if I am not articulating this very well, but I just don't understand why folks are arguing about Banneker and what it offers it AA population? White don't want to go there, that's clear, but why are whites putting the school down so much if it does a great good of educating its population?

You are responding to me. I did not say it was bad. In fact, I said that I did not agree with PP's assessment of it as being bad.

But to answer the question in your first sentence, it's different because white-male-dominance is (unfortunately) the national norm. Therefore a white-dominant school represents the real (American) world more than a black-dominated or female-dominated school. Don't shoot the messenger, as if this is news to anyone.

Further up thread I defended Banneker, FWIW.

I agree with this. It is important to remember the demographics of our country. If I remember correctly:
- White 65%
- Latino 15%
- Black 13%
- Then Asian and other

Remind me why this is relevant to the quality of Banneker again? Is the argument that a good school is one that perfectly reflects the nation's demographics, or that it is bad to go to a school that does not reflect the nation's demographics, or that it is bad to go to a school of all one race no matter what the race? Or that high achieving black kids better be used to being the minority from the get-go because that is what they will be facing their whole professional lives? It still seems to me that people think going to an all-white school is just normal, whereas an all-black school is abberational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the white PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that an all-black high school could be intellectually rigorous and successful at preparing students for top colleges.

I think the black PPs just honestly find it impossible to believe that Banneker is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as successful at preparing students for top colleges as other available options, especially for whites, Asians, Latinos and high SES blacks.

So be it.

Oh come on. Banneker is clearly doing something very right, given its college placement and AP results. Maybe it is not the same as TJ but that is not the question. The question is why don't any white parents, at all, even consider this very good school as compared to other good DC options like Walls and Wilson?

I don't understand the comparison to TJ. According to the latest stats, white people are shunning TJ, and the Asian population is increasingly dominant. So based on this thread, most of the whites who responded said that the school was not rigorous enough; the school was no TJ; and, the school reported too low SAT scores. Hmm, if that is truly the reason, why are whites also declining in enrollment at TJ?

Go find the SAT scores for TJ, compare them to Wilson and to Banneker, and you will see the answer.

No, that's not the answer to the question. White people are using SAT scores for their reasons to not send their children to Banneker. What is the reason for white people not sending their children to TJ, a largely Asian populated magnet school with great SAT scores?

You are a bit slow today, aren't you?

SAT scores at TJ are super high, showing it is a very competitive, race-blind, school. Many white students do try to get in; few do, because there's better qualified (often Asian) students.

SAT scores at Wilson are relatively high for a non-selective and super diverse school. Disclosure: my kids (Latino) will probably end up there.

SAT scores at Banneker at surprisingly low for a selective school. Why would whites (or other with better alternatives) send their kids there, unless for some reason they are looking for an all-black immersion experience?

Yes, slow. To be clear. Banneker is not all black. They have a high Latino population. They also have Asian students. Again, if a great college is your end game, Banneker is it. If you are caught up into SAT scores - I don't know, you have so much attitude - why in God's name would you send them to Wilson. Wilson is nothing to write home about. I am inbounds to Wilson and my kid is afraid to go there. And I'm black.

I won't tell you what to do with your kid, so please don't tell me what to do your mine, especially when you obviously are quite ill-informed. There are many more Latino (and Asian) at Wilson than at Banneker, and going to great colleges, AND learning how to live in the big world out there, instead of self-segregating themselves in a small and very artificial environment.

It is great that DCPS offers different choices, as we live in a very diverse city. I am in this thread because the title question intrigued me, and I wanted to learn more about the school. What I have discovered is multiple reasons why it makes no sense for my kids to even consider Banneker. I wish the school well.

I'm not the pp quoted, but regarding the bolded, What is artificial about the environment at Banneker? That's such an odd thing to say. I'm a current Banneker parent, btw.

I'm not any of these PPs, and I don't necessarily agree with PP you quoted in bold.

However, I think what PP is saying here is that an all-black environment, and frankly, an all-black-led and all-black-all-high-achieving environment, is not representative of broader society. Following high school graduation, or at the latest, following graduation from a historically black college, Banneker grads will need to navigate a world in which whites are the majority and blacks occupy few positions of power or influence. Similarly, graduates from an all girl school will encounter a male-dominated work environment in most fields. I think this was the point, that a school like Wilson is a more realistic introduction to the world out there. Again, I don't necessarily agree that such an "artificially controlled" environment is such a bad thing during formative years, but this was PP's point.

But why is this so different from what happens at other all-white high achieving environments? Why is it a bad thing it its all black, but not if its all white? (i.e(JKLM elementary schools in NW or TJ (asian) and Langley in VA or Churchill, Wooten in MD? I apologize if I am not articulating this very well, but I just don't understand why folks are arguing about Banneker and what it offers it AA population? White don't want to go there, that's clear, but why are whites putting the school down so much if it does a great good of educating its population?

You are responding to me. I did not say it was bad. In fact, I said that I did not agree with PP's assessment of it as being bad.

But to answer the question in your first sentence, it's different because white-male-dominance is (unfortunately) the national norm. Therefore a white-dominant school represents the real (American) world more than a black-dominated or female-dominated school. Don't shoot the messenger, as if this is news to anyone.

Further up thread I defended Banneker, FWIW.

I agree with this. It is important to remember the demographics of our country. If I remember correctly:
- White 65%
- Latino 15%
- Black 13%
- Then Asian and other

Remind me why this is relevant to the quality of Banneker again? Is the argument that a good school is one that perfectly reflects the nation's demographics, or that it is bad to go to a school that does not reflect the nation's demographics, or that it is bad to go to a school of all one race no matter what the race? Or that high achieving black kids better be used to being the minority from the get-go because that is what they will be facing their whole professional lives? It still seems to me that people think going to an all-white school is just normal, whereas an all-black school is abberational.

Because apparently Banneker students (and maybe all girl school students too) are incapable of stepping outside their front door or reading a newspaper or turning on the television and discovering the reality of the world around them.

[Anonymous]

I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

And to expand on this: It's very different from an HBCU, which have an actual historical mission to educate black students only. There, I can understand why white families would consider HBCUs automatic no-gos. Banneker is a selective high school with a good college prep record with almost 100% proficiency rates (which many white families claim to want more of in DC public schools) yet ... no white families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

because, at this time, virtually all white students graduating MS in DC are zoned for Wilson, and they can find everything that Banneker can offer that they value (presumably black role models, a place where studying is not seen as acting white, etc are not things that white families value) at Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

And to expand on this: It's very different from an HBCU, which have an actual historical mission to educate black students only. There, I can understand why white families would consider HBCUs automatic no-gos. Banneker is a selective high school with a good college prep record with almost 100% proficiency rates (which many white families claim to want more of in DC public schools) yet ... no white families.

A. It is not clear that any given white student is more likely to end up proficient or at a good college from Banneker than from Wilson.
B. Being selective is not a criterion by itself for most families. The appeal of TJHSST, for example is not that it is selective, but that it provides an environment that many (not all) families consider better than NoVa neighborhood schools, and that it provides academic offerings not available elsewhere. It is not clear that that holds for Banneker vs Wilson, at last for white families for whom the different attitudes toward academics among black students are likely not important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

And to expand on this: It's very different from an HBCU, which have an actual historical mission to educate black students only. There, I can understand why white families would consider HBCUs automatic no-gos. Banneker is a selective high school with a good college prep record with almost 100% proficiency rates (which many white families claim to want more of in DC public schools) yet ... no white families.

A. It is not clear that any given white student is more likely to end up proficient or at a good college from Banneker than from Wilson.
B. Being selective is not a criterion by itself for most families. The appeal of TJHSST, for example is not that it is selective, but that it provides an environment that many (not all) families consider better than NoVa neighborhood schools, and that it provides academic offerings not available elsewhere. It is not clear that that holds for Banneker vs Wilson, at last for white families for whom the different attitudes toward academics among black students are likely not important.

So now you're claiming that it's just a neutral choice between Wilson and Banneker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Why is it perfectly understandable that NO white families consider Banneker even a possibility? I don't find it understandable myself, nor to I find it "non-racist." I find it, frankly, racist.

because, at this time, virtually all white students graduating MS in DC are zoned for Wilson, and they can find everything that Banneker can offer that they value (presumably black role models, a place where studying is not seen as acting white, etc are not things that white families value) at Wilson.

Interesting theory but there are plenty of white kids applying to Walls, Latin, and now jockeying to get into DCI. Even Ellington has 8% white students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So now you're claiming that it's just a neutral choice between Wilson and Banneker?

It may be that there white families who do not want their kid to be the only white kid in a school, as there are black families with similar feelings. I do not consider either racist, and I also think that such feelings are not needed to explain the choices white families are making.

So I am not sure what your point is, other than a strong need to prove that white families in DC are racist. That may be true (I think in fact racism among DC whites is not all that common) but in any case, the lack of white students at Banneker does not prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is perfectly understandable why many black families think Banneker is a great opportunity for their kids, and choose it. I think it is perfectly understandable why most white families do not. I do not think either should be shamed for their perfectly reasonable, non-racist, choices.

What am I missing here?

Thank you. This thread is ridiculous, please DCPS leave a school that is working alone and if you don't want to go, fine but don't find ways to shame it. Those who go to Banneker are proud.