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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Nope. Very similar mission; both 5-star schools. The demographics are the big difference between them.

Banneker has higher PARCC scores and is majority-minority with only 2% white students. It offers both AP and IB classes.

SWW offers a ton of AP classes and is 47% white.

[Anonymous]

How can a student who can’t pass their MS Math assessment do the work at Walls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You are indeed way off base. Banneker is not STEM or Math focused at all. Neither is Walls although I think Walls has more AP Science offerings compared with Banneker. For a STEM kid, Wilson is better than either Banneker or Walls as it has Computer Science and Engineering, as well as, advanced Math and Physics. McKinley Tech might be an option but really no better than Wilson. I don’t think McKinley Tech offers Physics C. I think it has Calculus BC but hardly any kids take it.

[Anonymous]

How about they focus on bring those middle school kids up to grade level before it is too late for them to apply to high school??

[Anonymous]

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

+100. Either you fail the kids or make the curriculum easier. We all know which one DCPS will do. It’s really a joke. It’s not like you are expecting the kids to be superstars on PARCC to apply to Walls last year with PARCC. The requirement was easy, grade level people. Grade level.

[Anonymous]

Do any of you know anything about test validation? The PARCC was not created for the purpose of determining admissions to selective high schools. Why is DC using a completely invalidated exam for this purpose? Not to mention that the trend in higher ed is to get rid of using standardized exams in the admissions process. How can it be that supposedly educated DC parents are not aware of the problems with using standardized tests in this way? Not to mention that the rest of the country got rid of PARCC. Why are you all clinging to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you know anything about test validation? The PARCC was not created for the purpose of determining admissions to selective high schools. Why is DC using a completely invalidated exam for this purpose? Not to mention that the trend in higher ed is to get rid of using standardized exams in the admissions process. How can it be that supposedly educated DC parents are not aware of the problems with using standardized tests in this way? Not to mention that the rest of the country got rid of PARCC. Why are you all clinging to it?

Fair enough. But it isn’t as if the Walls test has been validated either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100. Either you fail the kids or make the curriculum easier. We all know which one DCPS will do. It’s really a joke. It’s not like you are expecting the kids to be superstars on PARCC to apply to Walls last year with PARCC. The requirement was easy, grade level people. Grade level.

My kid is bored at Walls. Wishes they’d stayed at BASIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Banneker = MIT and SWW = Harvard! LMAO. How many students did they send to Harvard or MIT in the past 5 yrs? My guess is zero... prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you know anything about test validation? The PARCC was not created for the purpose of determining admissions to selective high schools. Why is DC using a completely invalidated exam for this purpose? Not to mention that the trend in higher ed is to get rid of using standardized exams in the admissions process. How can it be that supposedly educated DC parents are not aware of the problems with using standardized tests in this way? Not to mention that the rest of the country got rid of PARCC. Why are you all clinging to it?

It has not been used as an admissions test, it has been a threshold requirement to show proficiency before they will look at other application materials. Is it also invalid for showing grade level proficient? Please unpack what you said for those of us that are unfamiliar. Also, as I understand it some colleges and universities are moving away from reliance on standardized tests but not the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you know anything about test validation? The PARCC was not created for the purpose of determining admissions to selective high schools. Why is DC using a completely invalidated exam for this purpose? Not to mention that the trend in higher ed is to get rid of using standardized exams in the admissions process. How can it be that supposedly educated DC parents are not aware of the problems with using standardized tests in this way? Not to mention that the rest of the country got rid of PARCC. Why are you all clinging to it?

It has not been used as an admissions test, it has been a threshold requirement to show proficiency before they will look at other application materials. Is it also invalid for showing grade level proficient? Please unpack what you said for those of us that are unfamiliar. Also, as I understand it some colleges and universities are moving away from reliance on standardized tests but not the majority.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand why the city is making this such a big deal. Banneker is 98% AA and SWW is 60% AA. Why are they acting like white kids are taking over the magnet schools

People need to read carefully and understand the “new” definition of diversity. It’s no longer racial. It is now about socio-economic diversity. We need higher numbers of “at-risk” students represented in all the schools. Read the article again and you’ll see how often race and socio-economic status gets conflated and confused.

This is because various lawsuits against forcing racial diversity have been won. In order to comply with law and the constitution, diversity efforts can no longer be focused on race, but must be focused on socio-economic status instead.

I always really want to hear more from middle and upper class black families about policies like those being proposed in this article. Why is the focus always on white families “taking over”?

While there are obviously some exceptions, socio-economic diversity — especially in the DC area — is really about racial diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Nope. Very similar mission; both 5-star schools. The demographics are the big difference between them.

Banneker has higher PARCC scores and is majority-minority with only 2% white students. It offers both AP and IB classes.

SWW offers a ton of AP classes and is 47% white.

Come on, Banneker's average SAT scores are only a tad higher than the national average, and they haven't produced a single National Merit scholarship semifinalist in a decade. The segregated program serving mainly low SES students is certainly not on a par with Walls academically. The latter school mostly attracts mostly UMC students. Walls always has at least one semifinalist and in 2014 they produced a bumper crop: five. No point in pretending that "demographics" vs. "academics" are the big difference between the two schools. PC nonsense.

[Anonymous]

White population in DC has been increasing over the past decade, so it shouldn't be a surprise that % of white students at some schools has been increasing. Not sure what the problem is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Nope. Very similar mission; both 5-star schools. The demographics are the big difference between them.

Banneker has higher PARCC scores and is majority-minority with only 2% white students. It offers both AP and IB classes.

SWW offers a ton of AP classes and is 47% white.

Come on, Banneker's average SAT scores are only a tad higher than the national average, and they haven't produced a single National Merit scholarship semifinalist in a decade. The segregated program serving mainly low SES students is certainly not on a par with Walls academically. The latter school mostly attracts mostly UMC students. Walls always has at least one semifinalist and in 2014 they produced a bumper crop: five. No point in pretending that "demographics" vs. "academics" are the big difference between the two schools. PC nonsense.

Do you realize that demographics = socio-economic AND racial factors, which you note that Banneker isn't on par because it is mainly low-SES students. In fact, only 25% of Banneker students are at-risk (vs SWW's 10%). However Banneker is 75% AA, 17% Latino, 2% white, and 3% Asian (Walls: 29% AA, 12% Latino, 47% white and 7% Asian). The racial factor IS significant, especially when you are discussing average SAT scores.

The national average is 1060. Banneker's is 1109; SWW is 1272.

So, both schools are about 150-200 points higher than average if you compare Banneker's average to AA or Latino (national AA average is 960 and Latino is 946).
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/10/29/sat-scores-are-gaps-remain-significant-among-racial-and-ethnic-groups