Banneker high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that a neurodiverse student will not do well in an interview? My kid was asked to discuss a book she read recently. That doesn’t seem like a nefarious question to me. If a kid doesn’t like to read, the school might not be a good place for them.

I’m going to assume you are asking this in good faith. Kids on the spectrum present themselves in a distinctive, non-typical way that can invite rejection regardless of their academic ability. Of course many kids w autism read - likely read more than many NT kids. That’s not what this is about.

Can you please be more specific? What exactly what a kid on the autism spectrum say or do that would be about a book they read that would “invite rejection”?

Have you ever met a kid on the spectrum? They may reply very bluntly (“I don’t like reading”) or may naively report their most recent scifi book instead of something more impressive. Or they may have a very different take on a book. But the point isn’t really what they would say, it’s that they have visbly apparent social communication “deficits.” They may also stim or have odd intonation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interview panel doesn’t have access to IEP/504 info or PARCC scores.

Does the interview panel make the decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interview panel doesn’t have access to IEP/504 info or PARCC scores.

Does the interview panel make the decision?

So what? As others have explained, the process can still exclude those with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

would you think Banneker is so “wonderful” that it had no academic standards and watered down the curriculum? there’s a reason you chose Banneker instead of your IB HS. Btw I am the parent posting above about discrimination against IEPs. I am still in favor of academic standards and advanced curriculum. IEPs help kids access the curriculum, they don’t change the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

My high achieving “BIPOC” child has a 4.0 from Deal. This isn’t an issue for her—stop trying to generalize. By the time she graduated from Deal, our entire family was exhausted by the watered down curriculum and the disruptive behavioral problems. I’m happy that Walls wasn’t accessible to more of my daughter’s classmates from Deal (and similarly situated DCPS students). It would destroy Walls’ academic environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

My high achieving “BIPOC” child has a 4.0 from Deal. This isn’t an issue for her—stop trying to generalize. By the time she graduated from Deal, our entire family was exhausted by the watered down curriculum and the disruptive behavioral problems. I’m happy that Walls wasn’t accessible to more of my daughter’s classmates from Deal (and similarly situated DCPS students). It would destroy Walls’ academic environment.

^^exactly. it’s classic “nice white parents” to flee your neighborhood school for an application HS and then try to get pious-points by arguing that application schools are racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

My high achieving “BIPOC” child has a 4.0 from Deal. This isn’t an issue for her—stop trying to generalize. By the time she graduated from Deal, our entire family was exhausted by the watered down curriculum and the disruptive behavioral problems. I’m happy that Walls wasn’t accessible to more of my daughter’s classmates from Deal (and similarly situated DCPS students). It would destroy Walls’ academic environment.

^^exactly. it’s classic “nice white parents” to flee your neighborhood school for an application HS and then try to get pious-points by arguing that application schools are racist.

You’re right. I should have said this is true for many members of protected classes (because this is also about disability discrimination). Thanks for calling it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I went down the rabbit hole on the PARCC data for this one, and I don’t think the schools are discriminating in interviews. It’s just that there are very, very few proficient high students in DC with IEPs: 108 who scored 4+ on the ELA PARCC in 9th and 10th grade, combined. And even fewer who score 5—just 12, in 9th and 10th combined.

Banneker and Walls, together, enroll about 1/3 of students who score 5s, and about half the students at those schools score 5s. In other words, rule of thumb, enrollment at the two schools combined equals the number of students who score 5, divided by 3, times 2. So if there are 12 IEP students who scored 5s, proportional enrollment at Banneker and Walls would be 8 students. The actual number is 7 (evenly distributed). I just don’t see any evidence of discrimination. Especially since Banneker and Walls are both humanities focused and disproportionately girls, whereas proficient IEP students have got to be disproportionately autistic boys. Also, no change at Walls between 9th (admitted by interview) and 10th (admitted by exam).

I understand why the parents of proficient and advanced IEP students are concerned about discrimination, and I don’t think the schools should discriminate. Good news, the numbers seem to say that they don’t.

Are you looking at just DCPS Data? Or charter data too?
About 40% of kids are in charters and lots of them are looking for application high schools. That includes kids with IEP‘s.

I think it is important to also point out that the system of using a GPA or PARCC cut for admission decisions is, to some, inherently discriminatory. This is true for BIPOC and students with disabilities. This is also why many colleges are getting rid of the SAT. This isn't to say that the intent is discriminatory. Rather, that not all students have the same opportunity for a high-quality education through 8th grade and using achievement measures like GPA, SAT, PARCC, etc. assumes each applicant have experienced the same support and opportunity. I think we can all agree that is likely the case in DCPS middle schools.

So, while the enrollment data may suggest that there is not any direct statistical discrimination, it exists. It is institutional racism. If we want to have an anti-racist system (not just non-discriminatory) we need to examine these practices a bit closer than just looking at the end products (like enrollment data). (Not to say the earlier analysis isn't wonderful, but it is only one part of the picture).

https://sites.ed.gov/whblackeducation/files/2016/11/Disrupting-Implicit-Bias-FINAL.pdf

To the OP, Banneker is wonderful. Our student has wonderful teachers, awesome opportunities, great friends, and is really having a great experience.

Good luck!

PP here, to clarify, my student is not "my child" and therefore I didn't have any control over the HS selection but I am very aware of how wonderful the experience has been for them. (Just because it seems to have impacted the reading of my earlier statements.)

Of course, there are disagreements on all of my earlier points. I don't think this forum is great for expressing the nuance necessary to continue. However, I really do hope this issue gets in to the political dialog...I think some of our newly(ish) elected leaders like CM Henderson and Lewis George very much care about examining these issues to improve access for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard from Banneker to interview yet?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard from Banneker to interview yet?

Anyone?

Yes. Check your junk folders if you haven’t already but I think the invites are going in waves

[Anonymous]

Parent of a senior here: The DP Coordinator is horrible: won't respond, doesn't fill things out on time or correctly, and is not helpful to the students. Has canceled TOK many times. You're kind of on your own with the IB stuff.