Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

Anonymous wrote:Waitlisted #10 at Latin Cooper. Reviewed the historical waitlist data foe the past 5 years and it looks like every child waitlisted at #10 was offered a seat. What are our chances at getting in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

Wtf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty far down the waitlist at Walls (>160). My kid will be pretty bummed - guessing it’s unlikely *that* many kids decide to go to their in-bound, another charter or private. Good life lesson to process disappointment I suppose, and our default option isn’t bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh man - older kid got into Hyde-Addison, younger sibling is wait-listed for PK3 there. As of now, both of them could also attend the immersion charter elementary where older kid has been attending for a few years.

Commute is - I won't get into the particulars, but both of them are roughly the same distance from our home, and for various reasons represent about the same level of convenience/inconvenience.

Hyde-Addison is...on paper, at least...light years ahead of our current charter in almost every respect - academics and test scores, physical facilities, supplemental activities, resources, surrounding neighborhood, an actual feeder pattern (even if it's not our ideal) - but two: the language instruction...which we do care about...and the community - leadership, staff, parents, kids. I mean, I'm sure they have great people at H-A too! But we don't know them, and we DO know and love the community at our charter.

Oh man...I could see this dilemma coming. I know we're lucky to have it! But that doesn't make it less agonizing.

(And even though younger sibling is pretty high on the waitlist, there's obviously no guarantee. so we could be in a situation where we've pulled older kid from the charter but are still sending younger kid - which would be only slightly inconvenient for us, but probably very awkward...)

One thing is that once you enroll your older kid, your younger kid should jump to the top of the waitlist. This is still not certain, but the odds are better.

As someone who has moved schools -- you will connect with your new community, too. Don't make school choices based on community.

OP here: Thank you! I needed to hear that...
I will say that we really do believe in this charter - it's unique, and we love it, and we want it to succeed! It's just - not where Hyde-Addison is, on any metric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do find the "ineligible" designations at Banneker a bit strange -- these are all kids who had interviews at Banneker, right? So that would indicate that they did a second screening post interviews based on composite score and the lottery only ran for everyone above a specific score threshold (with others deemed ineligible and thus not actually placed in the lottery for Banneker).

If that's what is happening, it would be useful to know at some point what the score threshold is and what scores kids got. This is a tough process and more transparency would be better, especially for families who may have very weak IB options and be contemplating moves or private as an alternative.

Also has anyone been deemed ineligible for Walls yet? Odd for that designation to be appearing for one school but not the other. McKinley's waitlist is likely small enough that they didn't have to do a cutoff, but I would presume that Walls and Banneker would have similar applicant numbers and similar cut offs for the lottery pool.

It means they didn’t do as well in their interview and on-site essay. They don’t accept everyone that interviews (same as Walls), it’s part of the screening.

Two cuts would be news. I’m surprised they don’t rank into the hundreds.

Anonymous wrote:We’re DCI bound, but here are my child’s results for 5th grade:

- Stokes Spanish: less than 5
- DCB: between 5 and 10
- MV 8th: between 5 and 10
[all the above with a DCI sibling preference]
- Latin Cooper: ~ 80
- Latin 2d ~ 100
- BASIS: Matched

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

Not true at all. They get almost as many applications as Walls. My kid got interviews at both, but a bunch of her friends didn’t even get interviews at Banneker, only at Walls (and most of those got into Walls or waitlisted). Banneker is definitely competitive.

I find it hard to believe that "most" of her friends got into Walls and didn't even get interviews at Banneker. There's no "most" anywhere when it comes to Walls.

Anonymous wrote:Waitlisted #10 at Latin Cooper. Reviewed the historical waitlist data foe the past 5 years and it looks like every child waitlisted at #10 was offered a seat. What are our chances at getting in?

Anonymous wrote:
Also has anyone been deemed ineligible for Walls yet? Odd for that designation to be appearing for one school but not the other. McKinley's waitlist is likely small enough that they didn't have to do a cutoff, but I would presume that Walls and Banneker would have similar applicant numbers and similar cut offs for the lottery pool.