Anonymous wrote:Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Well, that's depressing.

Anonymous wrote:Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Ellington attracts white students -- a growing number each year but nothing like Walls.

If the other schools have to "lower their standards" so should Walls. The test should go too.

Walls (which is the only selective school in the city that attracts white students) Is being allowed to keep its test and other application procedures. It is all the other selective schools that are being lowered. None of these attract any white students so previous poster is correct the standards are being lowered just fill empty seats not in any real effort to diversify.

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

But then Walls, Banneker get watered way down academically. Listen, the PARCC isn't a hard test. Every kid should get a 4. It's completely egregious that DCPS can't get any (or a single digit worth of) kids at some schools to this level. Admitting kids with a 3 or even 2 to a selective high school is just offensive and is letting DCPS feel good while they're systematically failing kids. It's letting them completely get away with murder.
This makes me irate.

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

I'd rather see a version of the Chicago system. Basically a certain percentage of seats are reserved for students from low-SES cachements and there are admissions tests for each school. You can apply to more than one, and rank your choices (similar to DC's common lottery).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will they address the complete absence in a few of these schools of students with special needs?

good question!! signed, parent of a 2nd HFA grader considering dropping the IEP because I don't want him to be labeled, given the apparent hostility to IEPs at Walls & Banneker.

Lots of time. If the backwards attitude doesn't change, you could drop the IEP in MS when it is hopefully less needed.

Two thoughts about htis as the parent of a HS student with special needs.

Six years ago when I first went to a SWW open house, the principal said 'we don't really do accommodations; everyone has to do the same work," [illegal and obnoxious]. I later asked the school about having my son keyboard the exam and was told that wasn't an option (rather than fight it, which I could have, we took it as a signal and didn't feel like taking that on). That language is no longer used by anyone at the school, but fairly or unfairly the perception of being hostile to students with disabilities remains.

That said, there ARE students at SWW with disabilities. There are many who have 504s which are not tracked or reported publicly like IEPs, and their disabilities require accommodations but not specialized instruction. And to the PP, there are HFA students without IEPs there, presumably because they no longer need them to be successful in school.

I'd rather see separate cut scores on the exams by ward of residence or by middle school. Then at least there is a standard, and there's an incentive for high-scoring kids to attend lower-performing middle schools because they know they'll get a better shot at selective high schools.

If Walls and Banneker et al. reserved a portion of their seats for students who were in the top 10% (or 25%, or whatever) at their middle schools and had no major disciplinary problems but missed the PARCC and entry exam threshold, that seems a lot fairer to me.

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”?

DCPS, the Council and the City Auditor all frame it in terms of race AND economic diversity (see below quote from the Post) and both are glaring problems at SWW. As for non-at-risk black families they are the dominant cohort at Banneker and Ellington.

"Since the 2014-2015 academic year, the 600-student campus [SWW] has enrolled an average of 16 additional white students each year and enrolled 16 fewer black students, according to city data. That has resulted in a 37 percent increase of white students during that time, and a 35 percent decrease in black students."

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

Politics, pure and simple, with a heaping scoop of social justice political correctness.

What I don't get especially, is why disregard middle school attendance records? I can see the argument that kids with lesser academic preparation opportunties might get a little more leeway on their scores, but attendance more than anything (barring some medical excuse) is a barometer of a student's commitment to show ups, be diligent and learn. Why waste magnet or selective admissions on the chronically truant?

While I support this effort, something just kind of sits wrong with me. Yes, those 45 kids in Ward 7 and 8 MS who passed the PARCC should absolutely get priority for whatever HS will serve them best. But putting all the load of remedying disparities in education (which begin in Preschool) on selective high schools just seems wrong, and another way to yell at guilt-susceptible white people instead of actually solving the problem. As others have observed, the real issue is why Wart 7 and 8 kids are leaving MS without even proficiency on the PARCC. Sending more kids to Walls is not going to solve that issue.

Wait, why are they dropping attendance requirements? I would think that the ability to at least attend school regularly should be a minimum requirement for selective admissions ...

Anonymous wrote:How will they address the complete absence in a few of these schools of students with special needs?

good question!! signed, parent of a 2nd HFA grader considering dropping the IEP because I don't want him to be labeled, given the apparent hostility to IEPs at Walls & Banneker.

How will they address the complete absence in a few of these schools of students with special needs?

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”?

Anonymous wrote:Why exactly did DCPS just open Bard and Coolidge Early College when kids don’t have the foundation to even get into Phelps or McKinley Tech

Maybe because Phelps or McKinley didn't meet students' needs?

Bard has a history of working in other cities, even among students who didn't necessarily score the equivalent of 4 or 5 on PARCC. Providing students with challenge and a clear payoff for hard work, such as an associates degree, can help them succeed. No other application school provides, save for Walls but that is only open to a tiny number of its students.