Middle and high school on Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Banneker's average SAT scores are slightly above the national average, in the low 500s. Banneker admins and parents routinely claim that the SAT is racist on these boards, favoring affluent white kids who can afford expensive test prep. Actually, kids can do all the free test prep they want on Khan Academy on-line (Khan has a contract with Educational Testing Services to provide free test prep for the new SAT, which was rolled out last year). Kids scoring in the low 500s just can't be reading much for pleasure, or doing well in algebra and geometry.

But still when comparing, you ought to compare Banneker's averages to nationwide AA averages or nationwide poverty averages and you will see Banneker scores quite higher than true peer comparisons. With so many smart Ivy grads in this board, I'm always surprised when people blindly assess Banneker against a non peer group. Isn't that the first thing they teach you when studying averages?

I think that every single person commenting on this thread would be incredibly disappointed if his/her child scored in the low 500s on the SAT. I know I would be. I also know that none of my peers in "advanced" classes in high school had such low scores.

Were your peers all black and majority in poverty? Imagine what a 40% white non poverty Banneker would look like.

[Anonymous]

Yea, OK, we can imagine all we want. Banneker doesn't look like that, and isn't going to look like like anytime soon. There are no Asians and a handful of whites in the study body. Very strange arrangement for elite, test-in program in highly diverse city in 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yea, OK, we can imagine all we want. Banneker doesn't look like that, and isn't going to look like like anytime soon. There are no Asians and a handful of whites in the study body. Very strange arrangement for elite, test-in program in highly diverse city in 2017.

I've heard they look at all the applications from prospective students named "Susan" and "Andrew" and just throw them out in favor of those from "Shaneequa" and "Andray".... NOT! White people and Asians aren't applying and going obviously. And I don't like it when people on this forum call others racist because of the decisions they are making for their kids, but you can't even begin to claim that Banneker's PARCC scores are awful therefore you can't consider sending your kid...

[Anonymous]

Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad you're happy with Washington Latin, but Boston Latin it isn't. I'm a difficult person to vilify for my snobbery, racism and elitism being brown, having been born in a housing project, and having attended an Ivy League school on a Pell Grant. But go for it if you it makes you feel better. If your kid was in a position to take advantage of excellent, unlimited free tutoring at city "exam school" test prep centers like Bostonian youth can, would they be worse off? If not, maybe think twice about championing a system actively shortchanging the city's best and brightest in the public school system. At a recent Washington Latin open house, I wasn't remotely impressed to learn that 6th graders reading at a 3rd grade level are shoved into the very same English classes as those reading at the high school level. Same for math and other subjects. My children are not instructional tools DC public schools can harness to raise standards for the poorly prepped and/or none too academic. Pass.

We have similar backgrounds and I am also unimpressed with Latin. My test in ultra academic high school saved my life. I'm happy to give you examples of real racism. Test-in magnet schools are not.

I just wish I could explain how it changed my life and that of my family as well. My sisters went to community college when they saw me go to my top school. They have careers now. God knows where they would be. If I was bored in my terrible inbounds school, I can't help but think I'd still be there.

Boston Latin pp here. I find that most of the DC parents and charter admins who are most staunchly anti test-in MS programs are whites who grew up in leafy suburbs. They aren't in favor of these programs because they don't have experience with them being lifesavers for poor minority students. They say, well, our program really doesn't have many students who are behind academically, so we don't need merit-based academic tracking. From where I sit, the experience of having been part of entire classes of nose-to the-grindstone, academically advanced students for six straight years (7th-12th grades) made all the difference in my life. It put me on a path to an Ivy League school, and a top law school. Several elementary school classmates I remember as being bright and motivated are in prison, for life, for murder. The main difference between us? They didn't spend evenings at the city exam school test prep center working with tutors in 6th grade like I did. It was too late for them - by that stage, they were already more interested in hanging out by the corner store, in watching TV, and in playing video games. DC could do much better by its brightest and most disciplined kids of all backgrounds.

I'm the PP who explained that my test in magnet changed the lives of my whole family.

I agree with you that it's usually white people claiming that they are racist.

The reality is that I don't think my family knew what the SAT was. I wouldn't even know if I wasn't around some high ses Asian and white kids who taught me the importance of test prep and guidance counsellors who helped me get application fee waivers and paid for Princeton review. I would never have graduated from my top 14 law school without my test in high school.

Just my two cents. But what do I know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

And why not? BTW, please don't say No Asians are at the school, because there are. They are just not there in high numbers. Last year, an Asian girl won a Gates scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

Good points. A few things to consider, IMO, Banneker is the best. It's certainly better than Wilson and Latin and whites have no problem sending their kids there. Then I'm reminded about a guy in the real estate forum her a few weeks ago. He and his wife recently moved from Shaw to Arlington and he was hating his new suburban life. He said he was trying to convince his wife that they should move back to D.C. and even if they didn't luck out in lottery tgarvit would be ok to send their kid to their IB for the early years. He said the peers wouldn't be that bad "before puberty, right?" At that moment, after I picked my mouth off the floor I made the Banneker connection. Comments like that truly make me want to cry. I feel so helpless raising a black son in this world. I thought raising him in DC was the best experience we can give him. We have black judges, professors, doctors that live on our street. But it really is two different worlds here.

[Anonymous]

PP. we are IB for Wilson and plan to go to Banneker if my son can in and we can play baseball elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

Those same sorts of families had no hesitation sending their kids to an unknown/startup charter (Basis) or a slightly more established charter that's only graduated a couple classes from high school (Latin).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

This intuitively seems right to me, but I'd love to see more analysis/study as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

Those same sorts of families had no hesitation sending their kids to an unknown/startup charter (Basis) or a slightly more established charter that's only graduated a couple classes from high school (Latin).

It was not engrained that they were "black" schools yet. People who wouldn't look at Jefferson wondered if Washington Global might be an option when it first opened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

I think a BIG part of the issue is that Brent and Maury are neighborhood schools. Banneker is not. It is an "elite, test in" school. I'm guessing that a high percentage of people are pro public neighborhood schools are at least a bit uncomfortable with elitist test in public schools. I'm not saying they are totally against them, just that it isn't as easy a sell. I doubt very many Brent and Maury parents attended a test-in elite public school-- but I bet most did attend their neighborhood elementary school. You go with what you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

Good points. A few things to consider, IMO, Banneker is the best. It's certainly better than Wilson and Latin and whites have no problem sending their kids there. Then I'm reminded about a guy in the real estate forum her a few weeks ago. He and his wife recently moved from Shaw to Arlington and he was hating his new suburban life. He said he was trying to convince his wife that they should move back to D.C. and even if they didn't luck out in lottery tgarvit would be ok to send their kid to their IB for the early years. He said the peers wouldn't be that bad "before puberty, right?" At that moment, after I picked my mouth off the floor I made the Banneker connection. Comments like that truly make me want to cry. I feel so helpless raising a black son in this world. I thought raising him in DC was the best experience we can give him. We have black judges, professors, doctors that live on our street. But it really is two different worlds here.

So sorry you have to deal with this. I am white with a DS and would totally consider Banneker and would be happy for my son to go to school with yours, but I'm actually not sure he'll be able to hack it! He doesn't seem to be on track to be the most studious fellow, although he is bright ... and that's the other part of this discussion -- a lot of privileged parents actually don't want "rigor" for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Asians and whites with strong students in 8th grade could elect to send their kids to Banneker for 9th. How about a even-handed, incisive academic study on why they don't?

OK, so the PARCC scores are wonderful. Why aren't white and Asians moved? I'd actually like to know. Simple racism can't explain the whole story.

I think racism is a part of it, but I think fear of the unknown is a really big part of it. And I also think parents want the 'best' for their kids and for many whites/Asians, Banneker isn't the 'best.'

Look at how Brent, Maury, etc started attracting non-black families. There was a very small group of white families that were 'brave' enough to look beyond the surface and see something that they thought could work for their kids. Once you had some non-black families that neighbors knew and trusted their assessment to some degree, those schools saw more and more families willing to give them a chance. A decade or so ago, when those very first families gave it a go, there were plenty of families that thought they were crazy and sacrificing their children. Gladwell's Tipping Point helps to explain why some Capitol Hill schools became attractive to non-black families faster than others.

I think there's far fewer families that are able to 'brave' in this way at the middle school and high school levels.

I think a BIG part of the issue is that Brent and Maury are neighborhood schools. Banneker is not. It is an "elite, test in" school. I'm guessing that a high percentage of people are pro public neighborhood schools are at least a bit uncomfortable with elitist test in public schools. I'm not saying they are totally against them, just that it isn't as easy a sell. I doubt very many Brent and Maury parents attended a test-in elite public school-- but I bet most did attend their neighborhood elementary school. You go with what you know.

Disagree. I think there's a huge overlap between Brent and Maury parents complaining about middle schools, and those who would want a test-in school. I mean, look at all the Hill parents who send their kids to charters, which is a concept that did not exist (or barely?) when they were kids.