Banneker SAT averages: 494 Math; 502 Reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:42, you're the typical parent who is a broke-ass with a bad cas if bragging disease. Quarrantine.

Not 17:42 but it is a reasonable response to those who argue the reason that Banneker's SATs are so mediocre is an absence of money for test prep. It reflects an absence of some skill set on a widespread basis at the school. That counters the idea that Banneker is somehow the challenging educational mecca that DC needs to keep advanced kids if only some families would get over their racism. I am sure it is a fine school and that its graduates go on to lead very successful lives. In my view, that should be expected of all schools and should not be considered something special that is only available to 100 students per class.

[Anonymous]

SAT prep is what makes the difference. SAT is not about picking the obvious answer (you get the question wrong, in fact if you do) but about knowing how to take the test. My scores rose 200 points after test prep. Not every kid has that opportunity. For higher income families, test prep is a given.

[Anonymous]

I took the PSAT twice and the SAT twice. Ended up with 780/710 verbal/math scores which were definitely helpful applying to college. However my husband went to an urban public high school and got scores in the 500s. He is smart as shit and went to an Ivy League school.
However I am not going to pretend that these scores coming out of Banneker aren't disappointing. I am one of those east of the park parents who would consider it for HS regardless of diversity issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, kids don't score low on the SAT because they can't afford expensive prep coures in this day and age. Not when the Internet and Amazon.com are brimming with free or dirt cheap test prep. They do so because their parents don't value education like kids who score high, and/or don't have the time and energy to help them get into reading and math as much as is necessary to score high.

If Banneker's admissions process was indeed "rigorous", as has been claimed on this and other threads, their average SAT scores would be in the 600s. Period. It's simply not a tough test. My 7th grader just scored in the high 500s on all three sections to participate in a Johns Hopkins CTY camp this summer and he's no genius. He did the test prep himself on-line for $0, mostly at our local public library.

Do you have a very low IQ? My son is at Banneker. We are definitely in the higher socio economic status of families there. Most of the kids are low income. That's ok with us. The instruction is very good, but a teacher can only work with what is brought to him. If you think having a private tutor is the same as studying from a book, you need some serious help. We also considered private school and spent $2200 on test prep for the SSAT. Do you really think we got the same instruction that we would have gotten out of the Kaplan test prep SSAT book? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, kids don't score low on the SAT because they can't afford expensive prep coures in this day and age. Not when the Internet and Amazon.com are brimming with free or dirt cheap test prep. They do so because their parents don't value education like kids who score high, and/or don't have the time and energy to help them get into reading and math as much as is necessary to score high.

If Banneker's admissions process was indeed "rigorous", as has been claimed on this and other threads, their average SAT scores would be in the 600s. Period. It's simply not a tough test. My 7th grader just scored in the high 500s on all three sections to participate in a Johns Hopkins CTY camp this summer and he's no genius. He did the test prep himself on-line for $0, mostly at our local public library.

Do you have a very low IQ? My son is at Banneker. We are definitely in the higher socio economic status of families there. Most of the kids are low income. That's ok with us. The instruction is very good, but a teacher can only work with what is brought to him. If you think having a private tutor is the same as studying from a book, you need some serious help. We also considered private school and spent $2200 on test prep for the SSAT. Do you really think we got the same instruction that we would have gotten out of the Kaplan test prep SSAT book? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, kids don't score low on the SAT because they can't afford expensive prep coures in this day and age. Not when the Internet and Amazon.com are brimming with free or dirt cheap test prep. They do so because their parents don't value education like kids who score high, and/or don't have the time and energy to help them get into reading and math as much as is necessary to score high.

If Banneker's admissions process was indeed "rigorous", as has been claimed on this and other threads, their average SAT scores would be in the 600s. Period. It's simply not a tough test. My 7th grader just scored in the high 500s on all three sections to participate in a Johns Hopkins CTY camp this summer and he's no genius. He did the test prep himself on-line for $0, mostly at our local public library.

Do you have a very low IQ? My son is at Banneker. We are definitely in the higher socio economic status of families there. Most of the kids are low income. That's ok with us. The instruction is very good, but a teacher can only work with what is brought to him. If you think having a private tutor is the same as studying from a book, you need some serious help. We also considered private school and spent $2200 on test prep for the SSAT. Do you really think we got the same instruction that we would have gotten out of the Kaplan test prep SSAT book? Really?

Not PP. it is good to hear the instruction is good, but when you defend it saying that the teachers can only work with the kids they gave that makes the point that the students are not well prepared. It is good there is a school addressing the needs of the students, but that isnot evidence of a competitive entrance high school worth sending someone's highly prepared and engaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAT prep is what makes the difference. SAT is not about picking the obvious answer (you get the question wrong, in fact if you do) but about knowing how to take the test. My scores rose 200 points after test prep. Not every kid has that opportunity. For higher income families, test prep is a given.

Nonsense. I got a National Merit Scholarship without any test prep whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the controversy here. Numerous studies have shown that African Americans, even controlling for economic status, score lower on standardized tests such as the SATs than do whites or even other minorities. The reasons are not clear, but it is a fact. So if you have a school that is populated mostly by African Americans, the SAT scores are going to be lower than a school with more diversity. If you accept the proposition that the SAT itself is biased, then it is easy to see how a school of mostly African American students, even ones who attend a school requiring an entrance exam, would have lower than average SAT scores. And if I can just add to anecdotal evidence of some of the pp's - I am an upper middle class African American woman, I had very average SAT and LSAT scores (even after taking a test prep class), but I went on to graduate in the top 10% of my college and law school classes. For whatever reason, those tests were horrible predictors of my academic success.

[Anonymous]

Some people don't test well point blank and the period. However, students can test well in their subject matter classes that they take everyday at school which is totally different from the SAT, which isn't learned in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

I would disagree that they are "totally different" - and in fact there should be some overlap.

For good performance on the SAT, you can't just rely on test prep - one also needs solid foundations in the basics and core curriculum - particularly, strong math skills, strong language skills - things that should have major overlap in other areas such as DC-CAS - it's no surprise that poor proficiency on DC-CAS and other assessments also is then an indicator later reflected in PSAT and SAT scores in many schools.

Think about it - if students are lacking strong reading and language skills, they will struggle in every subsequent subject matter course - History, Science and others will depend on strong reading comprehension skills. Science depends heavily on strong math skills. Each class needs to build on what was previously taught, yet we seem to be approaching it with cognitive dissonance, as though each is taught in a vacuum, watered down and filled with fluff in some misguided attempt to deal with unfulfilled learning prerequisites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the controversy here. Numerous studies have shown that African Americans, even controlling for economic status, score lower on standardized tests such as the SATs than do whites or even other minorities. The reasons are not clear, but it is a fact. So if you have a school that is populated mostly by African Americans, the SAT scores are going to be lower than a school with more diversity. If you accept the proposition that the SAT itself is biased, then it is easy to see how a school of mostly African American students, even ones who attend a school requiring an entrance exam, would have lower than average SAT scores. And if I can just add to anecdotal evidence of some of the pp's - I am an upper middle class African American woman, I had very average SAT and LSAT scores (even after taking a test prep class), but I went on to graduate in the top 10% of my college and law school classes. For whatever reason, those tests were horrible predictors of my academic success.

Did I write this? I also had VERY avg SAT and LSAT scores. I am an AA woman and went on to do very well in law school (top 10%) and scored really high on the bar. My son is at Banneker. He will do great there. The tools are there. I don't care if the school's SAT scores are lower, the kids are still going to very good schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, kids don't score low on the SAT because they can't afford expensive prep coures in this day and age. Not when the Internet and Amazon.com are brimming with free or dirt cheap test prep. They do so because their parents don't value education like kids who score high, and/or don't have the time and energy to help them get into reading and math as much as is necessary to score high.

If Banneker's admissions process was indeed "rigorous", as has been claimed on this and other threads, their average SAT scores would be in the 600s. Period. It's simply not a tough test. My 7th grader just scored in the high 500s on all three sections to participate in a Johns Hopkins CTY camp this summer and he's no genius. He did the test prep himself on-line for $0, mostly at our local public library.

Do you have a very low IQ? My son is at Banneker. We are definitely in the higher socio economic status of families there. Most of the kids are low income. That's ok with us. The instruction is very good, but a teacher can only work with what is brought to him. If you think having a private tutor is the same as studying from a book, you need some serious help. We also considered private school and spent $2200 on test prep for the SSAT. Do you really think we got the same instruction that we would have gotten out of the Kaplan test prep SSAT book? Really?

Not PP. it is good to hear the instruction is good, but when you defend it saying that the teachers can only work with the kids they gave that makes the point that the students are not well prepared. It is good there is a school addressing the needs of the students, but that isnot evidence of a competitive entrance high school worth sending someone's highly prepared and engaged kids.

But it is. The school takes kids from all over the city. We can assume that a kid coming from a Ward 8 school might have the same GPA as a kid coming from a Ward 3 school, but those educations will be very different. Therefore, Banneker teachers work with all students. The biggest difference is that the kids at Banneker think education is VERY important and they want to be there. The entire atmosphere is all about learning and success.

[Anonymous]

Well I am a black woman who scored extremely high on the SAT and LSAT -- high enough to get me an Ivy education and law degree. My siblings also scored very high on every standardized test they took. Are we freaks? No. We just have parents who are SERIOUS about education. Banneker's scores are very disappointing for DC's only test-in school. One explanation is that the privates skim the best students off the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I am a black woman who scored extremely high on the SAT and LSAT -- high enough to get me an Ivy education and law degree. My siblings also scored very high on every standardized test they took. Are we freaks? No. We just have parents who are SERIOUS about education. Banneker's scores are very disappointing for DC's only test-in school. One explanation is that the privates skim the best students off the top.

How would a private school manage to identify the students that really excel? I'd imagine it difficult to cut through the signal-to-noise ratio when standards in many schools are so low.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of cultural reasons why the SAT does not represent AA kids well, but I think one of the primary ones is that very often they receive by liberals too much of a focus on "multicultural lit" rather than other material that would be more rigorous. Fundamentally those in power and that create the exam still are based on European cultural and textual norms and it is a lot more difficult for kids not in this milieu to score well. Don't get me wrong, the same issue applies to poor white kids in Appalachia or Hispanic kids in the southwest. I know having gone to a primarily Hispanic school growing up we did far less rigorous literature than my peers in the burbs because it was not considered culturally important to my peers. Well meaning, but pointless if you ask me, if you want to participate with those in power, you have to know what they know.