Middle and high school on Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

Right. And Banneker could look just like Walls in terms of SATs if they had the same profile, then people wouldn't have to stress out about Walls interviews as there could be two great schools to try for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

Right. And Banneker could look just like Walls in terms of SATs if they had the same profile, then people wouldn't have to stress out about Walls interviews as there could be two great schools to try for.

Banneker had better PARCC scores than Walls! So in that respect, it would result in a worse profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks you PP. People like you and friends we have at our school now make me hopeful that the Shaw/Arlington poster is the minority around here. PS, sorry for typos, I'm typing from phone and not proofreading. Xo

[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.

Not really. The neighborhood school is more important for younger children, but HS students are more independent and can get to school on their own. I'm pro- public neighborhood schools but would consider the best fit for HS as long as it's accessible (ie public transit or walking). I'd figure it out for MS too if it was an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I just recall from back when Brent was doing parent surveys there were far more people that valued a comprehensive neighborhood middle school that would really serve the entire student body rather than a test in school. A middle school that actually serves and challenges all the students is what most parents wanted. And they went with Washington Latin and BASIS because they actually seemed (at least at the time) to actually be closer to that model than Jefferson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

Right. And Banneker could look just like Walls in terms of SATs if they had the same profile, then people wouldn't have to stress out about Walls interviews as there could be two great schools to try for.

Banneker had better PARCC scores than Walls! So in that respect, it would result in a worse profile.

Banneker is an excellent school. As for HS PARCC scores, the experience at Wilson was a bit cautionary. Students largely prioritized other college preparatory work like AP exams above PARCC and the scores reflected it. Many advanced students blew off PARCC entirely. That's not a knock on Banneker (or Walls which also had high PARCC) but it could be a question of how much the school prioritized PARCC as a point of emphasis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. The neighborhood school is more important for younger children, but HS students are more independent and can get to school on their own. I'm pro- public neighborhood schools but would consider the best fit for HS as long as it's accessible (ie public transit or walking). I'd figure it out for MS too if it was an option.

It's not the distance that I was referring to-- its the concept of an elite school that is only accessible to a certain part of the population that can pass a particular test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. The neighborhood school is more important for younger children, but HS students are more independent and can get to school on their own. I'm pro- public neighborhood schools but would consider the best fit for HS as long as it's accessible (ie public transit or walking). I'd figure it out for MS too if it was an option.

It's not the distance that I was referring to-- its the concept of an elite school that is only accessible to a certain part of the population that can pass a particular test.

I wouldn't classify a test in school as "elite", so you have no interest in Walls either? This very thread is asking for test in middle schools. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 not totally against a test-in MS program, but this doesn't solve the problem. But there is plenty of evidence from across the country that unless well designed, gifted/test-in programs end up becoming disproportionately white. Also there are many advanced students who won't test in (like the PP who thinks her child working 2 grade levels ahead is so incredibly gifted as to be a shoe-in -- sorry, I think it takes more than that.) And we already know that there are charters that are challenging, such as BASIS and DC Prep, where you'd get the "nose to the grindstone" atmosphere you're looking for. But without improving/investing in neighborhood middle schools, there are going to be a lot of DC students who don't get that magic ticket to BASIS or the test-in program.

I'd like to see that evidence to support your claim "But there is plenty of evidence from across the country that unless well designed, gifted/test-in programs end up becoming disproportionately white."

I don't have data myself but from anecdotal things like class pictures and DCUM discussions of magnets around here, I'm expecting that it's more a case of some groups to be less represented than they are in the general population (probably AA and Latino ) and other groups filling that gap -- and Asian (South + East) probably has a higher slice of what's left versus white than they do in the general population. So I'm not ready to accept your claim at this point without more to back it up.

Looks to me like "well designed" and "disproportionately" in your statement are filled with innuendo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. The neighborhood school is more important for younger children, but HS students are more independent and can get to school on their own. I'm pro- public neighborhood schools but would consider the best fit for HS as long as it's accessible (ie public transit or walking). I'd figure it out for MS too if it was an option.

It's not the distance that I was referring to-- its the concept of an elite school that is only accessible to a certain part of the population that can pass a particular test.

I wouldn't classify a test in school as "elite", so you have no interest in Walls either? This very thread is asking for test in middle schools. Weird.

second that it's not elitist as long as it's based on merit. It should also include sufficient resources to mitigate social barriers to entry for economically disadvantaged and students of color. Call it affirmative action or whatever but I'd have not problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

Right. And Banneker could look just like Walls in terms of SATs if they had the same profile, then people wouldn't have to stress out about Walls interviews as there could be two great schools to try for.

Banneker had better PARCC scores than Walls! So in that respect, it would result in a worse profile.

Banneker is an excellent school. As for HS PARCC scores, the experience at Wilson was a bit cautionary. Students largely prioritized other college preparatory work like AP exams above PARCC and the scores reflected it. Many advanced students blew off PARCC entirely. That's not a knock on Banneker (or Walls which also had high PARCC) but it could be a question of how much the school prioritized PARCC as a point of emphasis.

Banneker and Walls students did what they were asked to for PARCC (eg take the test), and they also took AP and IB exams. The only ones who blew them off are a portion of Wilson students.

Perhaps Banneker and Walls kids did more prep for AP all year long (as they were supposed to) and weren't so concerned with a couple in-class review sessions.

The WIlson kids could have asked for after school or Saturday make up prep sessions where there were conflicts. Instead they caused all sorts of drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 not totally against a test-in MS program, but this doesn't solve the problem. But there is plenty of evidence from across the country that unless well designed, gifted/test-in programs end up becoming disproportionately white. Also there are many advanced students who won't test in (like the PP who thinks her child working 2 grade levels ahead is so incredibly gifted as to be a shoe-in -- sorry, I think it takes more than that.) And we already know that there are charters that are challenging, such as BASIS and DC Prep, where you'd get the "nose to the grindstone" atmosphere you're looking for. But without improving/investing in neighborhood middle schools, there are going to be a lot of DC students who don't get that magic ticket to BASIS or the test-in program.

I'd like to see that evidence to support your claim "But there is plenty of evidence from across the country that unless well designed, gifted/test-in programs end up becoming disproportionately white."

I don't have data myself but from anecdotal things like class pictures and DCUM discussions of magnets around here, I'm expecting that it's more a case of some groups to be less represented than they are in the general population (probably AA and Latino ) and other groups filling that gap -- and Asian (South + East) probably has a higher slice of what's left versus white than they do in the general population. So I'm not ready to accept your claim at this point without more to back it up.

Looks to me like "well designed" and "disproportionately" in your statement are filled with innuendo

It is WELL known that test-in and "gifted" programs discriminate. http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/tn/2016/01/19/study-finds-racial-discrimination-in-school-gifted-programs/

Some school districts have taken steps to remedy this. Nashville is mentioned in the link above, and Broward County has taken steps as well: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-broward-gifted-universal-test-20151015-story.html

[Anonymous]

"second that it's not elitist as long as it's based on merit. It should also include sufficient resources to mitigate social barriers to entry for economically disadvantaged and students of color. Call it affirmative action or whatever but I'd have not problem with that."

That is what Walls is and that is not what we are talking about when we talk about a test-in magnet. Entrance is based on the test, period.

I am a NP who is the first to go to 4-year college in a typical way (not GI bill) and was FARM as a child. Not elite. However, the fact that everyone had to take the test to get invited to the test-in magnet meant that I the same chance as everyone else. And some of my most competitive classmates were POC of many types and backgrounds. I strongly agree with the previous poster who thinks that it is hard for people who didn't go to test-in magnets to understand how they really can be a lifeline for kids from rougher/harder/poorer backgrounds.

Quit honestly, from the kids I know on the Hill, there would only be a small percentage represented at such a school. And that would be fine by me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walls?

Right. And Banneker could look just like Walls in terms of SATs if they had the same profile, then people wouldn't have to stress out about Walls interviews as there could be two great schools to try for.

Banneker had better PARCC scores than Walls! So in that respect, it would result in a worse profile.

Banneker is an excellent school. As for HS PARCC scores, the experience at Wilson was a bit cautionary. Students largely prioritized other college preparatory work like AP exams above PARCC and the scores reflected it. Many advanced students blew off PARCC entirely. That's not a knock on Banneker (or Walls which also had high PARCC) but it could be a question of how much the school prioritized PARCC as a point of emphasis.

Banneker and Walls students did what they were asked to for PARCC (eg take the test), and they also took AP and IB exams. The only ones who blew them off are a portion of Wilson students.

Perhaps Banneker and Walls kids did more prep for AP all year long (as they were supposed to) and weren't so concerned with a couple in-class review sessions.

The WIlson kids could have asked for after school or Saturday make up prep sessions where there were conflicts. Instead they caused all sorts of drama.

Smaller school and fewer scheduling conflicts. That's kind of my point. None of the students prioritize PARCC, so I'd be careful about ranking them academically based on the results (ie Banneker vs Walls)