Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just agree that McKinley is a good choice for many students. Is it the best school in the city right now? I don't think anyone has said that. But our city needs good choices for High School. McKinley Tech is one of them.

In previous years, many white students would make a point to find their way into Jackson Reed or School Without Walls. Given the change in admission for SWW and the fact that it's much harder to find a spot in Jackson Reed than it was, things are changing. Another change is that many charter middle schools are decent and even good. More white students are looking for a place to attend high school and won't be attending SWW or Jackson Reed. If your kid has a spot in those schools, great! If they don't why can't you find a way to be glad that there are more spaces available in other schools around this city? Why does that feel like a threat to you? I'm glad that there are students going to good schools and getting 3s 4s and 5s from McKinley Tech. That means it is a good option for some students and has the foundation to be a good option for even more high achieving schools down the road. I just don't get why anyone would see this reality (and it is a reality, not a delusion) as a problem.

Because it is a mediocre school and DCPS can and should do better. If you want to cheer on a mediocre school that is supposedly our science application school, then yay for you I guess. I would like to see higher quality not just for my kids but for all kids in this city.

So… you’re mad about a DCPS school that does a great job of meeting students where they are and helping them learn STEM topics (and that students and teachers love ) because… it doesn’t match YOUR ideal of what a magnet school should be? You seem insane.

+1 The argument that the school should be ”higher quality” is completely tone deaf. First of all, McKinley is a title 1 school—overall, kids going there will have fewer resources than kids going to JR, or SWW, for example. Kids with a team of tutors and other paid for extracurriculars will almost always outperform a school with kids who do not have those things. That doesn’t mean what the school offers is subpar, or that the teaching is subpar. It means that the school is a real life mirror of one part of our world—there are smart and motivated kids who have not had the kinds of opportunities as some others, but they still want to go to a good school. McKinley accomplishes a lot with these kids, and very motivated kids can do incredibly well there. As many do. Arguing that the school should be better makes no sense in this context. How about let’s erase all systemic inequities, and then let’s see if schools seem so different? Or let’s not let rich parents in higher tax brackets raise hundreds of thousands for their schools while parents in lower tax brackets can barely raise a few hundred. If you really cared about better schools for all, you’d be working on those issues rather than mindlessly and ignorantly trashing a very good school with hard working teachers and kids. As others have pointed out—not all kids will thrive in an environment like SWW or Banneker. Many aren’t ready, and they’d probably be counseled out, if they even made it in the door. But maybe they can thrive at a good school with more leeway that is prepared to give them more support. (McKinley will take kids with a 3.0 average—not that all have a GPA as low as 3.0 coming in, but some will.) Not every kid is going to be a 4.0 student (shocker), but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a place for them. It’s like ya’ll want the Ivy leagues of H.S., and the schools for the failing kids, but heaven forbid there is an in between. If you don’t think the school is for your kid, great, don’t send them. No need to try to make a good school seem terrible. Ya’ll are like the Harvard grads who think all state colleges are trash by default.

Tbh, aren't Ivies, etc looking for kids like the ones who graduate from McKinley these days? Great kids who haven't had all the opportunities, but show that they have what it takes to succeed?

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

I’m looking for a school that sends a strong cohort of kids to the kind of colleges my kid can aspire to, because that means the school will adequately prepare him. It’s actually not … all that complicated!

So here’s the problem. Most of the state schools you’re probably looking at (UMCP, UVA, Michigan, Penn State, UC schools, etc.) are objectively terrible choices for poor and middle class students. They don’t provide much or any need-based financial aid, and they don’t provide enough merit aid to be within reach for a poorer family. These students are much better off going to either higher-ranked schools that give more need-based aid, or lower-ranked schools that give more merit-based aid. So when you say you want a high school that sends a “strong cohort” to those big-name state schools, you’re effectively saying you want a school full of UMC kids. If that’s what you really want, you should admit that to yourself and move to the richest suburb you can afford. If what you care about is the education, the fact that parents don’t have enough money to pay OOS rates for UVA or Michigan shouldn’t affect your decision.

Well I’d expect to see a handful of those top-tier admissions, particularly HBCUs. And if the kids are all aiming for UDC and Towson then yes, that is something to think about.

There are admissions to strong schools. I know lady years class included admissions to Cornell, Spellman, Penn State and UMD (both with admission to very competitive 4 year full ride specialty programs) and a bunch of other strong and mid-tier programs. It is definitely not the case where 80% are only admitted to UDC or Montgomery college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

I’m looking for a school that sends a strong cohort of kids to the kind of colleges my kid can aspire to, because that means the school will adequately prepare him. It’s actually not … all that complicated!

So here’s the problem. Most of the state schools you’re probably looking at (UMCP, UVA, Michigan, Penn State, UC schools, etc.) are objectively terrible choices for poor and middle class students. They don’t provide much or any need-based financial aid, and they don’t provide enough merit aid to be within reach for a poorer family. These students are much better off going to either higher-ranked schools that give more need-based aid, or lower-ranked schools that give more merit-based aid. So when you say you want a high school that sends a “strong cohort” to those big-name state schools, you’re effectively saying you want a school full of UMC kids. If that’s what you really want, you should admit that to yourself and move to the richest suburb you can afford. If what you care about is the education, the fact that parents don’t have enough money to pay OOS rates for UVA or Michigan shouldn’t affect your decision.

Well I’d expect to see a handful of those top-tier admissions, particularly HBCUs. And if the kids are all aiming for UDC and Towson then yes, that is something to think about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

I’m looking for a school that sends a strong cohort of kids to the kind of colleges my kid can aspire to, because that means the school will adequately prepare him. It’s actually not … all that complicated!

So here’s the problem. Most of the state schools you’re probably looking at (UMCP, UVA, Michigan, Penn State, UC schools, etc.) are objectively terrible choices for poor and middle class students. They don’t provide much or any need-based financial aid, and they don’t provide enough merit aid to be within reach for a poorer family. These students are much better off going to either higher-ranked schools that give more need-based aid, or lower-ranked schools that give more merit-based aid. So when you say you want a high school that sends a “strong cohort” to those big-name state schools, you’re effectively saying you want a school full of UMC kids. If that’s what you really want, you should admit that to yourself and move to the richest suburb you can afford. If what you care about is the education, the fact that parents don’t have enough money to pay OOS rates for UVA or Michigan shouldn’t affect your decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

I’m looking for a school that sends a strong cohort of kids to the kind of colleges my kid can aspire to, because that means the school will adequately prepare him. It’s actually not … all that complicated!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just agree that McKinley is a good choice for many students. Is it the best school in the city right now? I don't think anyone has said that. But our city needs good choices for High School. McKinley Tech is one of them.

In previous years, many white students would make a point to find their way into Jackson Reed or School Without Walls. Given the change in admission for SWW and the fact that it's much harder to find a spot in Jackson Reed than it was, things are changing. Another change is that many charter middle schools are decent and even good. More white students are looking for a place to attend high school and won't be attending SWW or Jackson Reed. If your kid has a spot in those schools, great! If they don't why can't you find a way to be glad that there are more spaces available in other schools around this city? Why does that feel like a threat to you? I'm glad that there are students going to good schools and getting 3s 4s and 5s from McKinley Tech. That means it is a good option for some students and has the foundation to be a good option for even more high achieving schools down the road. I just don't get why anyone would see this reality (and it is a reality, not a delusion) as a problem.

Because it is a mediocre school and DCPS can and should do better. If you want to cheer on a mediocre school that is supposedly our science application school, then yay for you I guess. I would like to see higher quality not just for my kids but for all kids in this city.

So… you’re mad about a DCPS school that does a great job of meeting students where they are and helping them learn STEM topics (and that students and teachers love ) because… it doesn’t match YOUR ideal of what a magnet school should be? You seem insane.

+1 The argument that the school should be ”higher quality” is completely tone deaf. First of all, McKinley is a title 1 school—overall, kids going there will have fewer resources than kids going to JR, or SWW, for example. Kids with a team of tutors and other paid for extracurriculars will almost always outperform a school with kids who do not have those things. That doesn’t mean what the school offers is subpar, or that the teaching is subpar. It means that the school is a real life mirror of one part of our world—there are smart and motivated kids who have not had the kinds of opportunities as some others, but they still want to go to a good school. McKinley accomplishes a lot with these kids, and very motivated kids can do incredibly well there. As many do. Arguing that the school should be better makes no sense in this context. How about let’s erase all systemic inequities, and then let’s see if schools seem so different? Or let’s not let rich parents in higher tax brackets raise hundreds of thousands for their schools while parents in lower tax brackets can barely raise a few hundred. If you really cared about better schools for all, you’d be working on those issues rather than mindlessly and ignorantly trashing a very good school with hard working teachers and kids. As others have pointed out—not all kids will thrive in an environment like SWW or Banneker. Many aren’t ready, and they’d probably be counseled out, if they even made it in the door. But maybe they can thrive at a good school with more leeway that is prepared to give them more support. (McKinley will take kids with a 3.0 average—not that all have a GPA as low as 3.0 coming in, but some will.) Not every kid is going to be a 4.0 student (shocker), but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a place for them. It’s like ya’ll want the Ivy leagues of H.S., and the schools for the failing kids, but heaven forbid there is an in between. If you don’t think the school is for your kid, great, don’t send them. No need to try to make a good school seem terrible. Ya’ll are like the Harvard grads who think all state colleges are trash by default.

Anonymous wrote:But you’re saying “you showed me a cohort of kids who look like they’re going to succeed! That’s not enough!”

So it sounds like you need a depth and breadth of success to consider a particular school good enough. Not just a successful cohort.

Anonymous wrote:Gawd what are you looking for? If you met Jackson Reed's best/most average/worst students would you change your views of the school? Just get a little perspective, people.

Anonymous wrote:The students on the panel last night shared some of their application experiences. The one who'd already committed was accepted to 10 schools and selected NC A&T. Another said he was accepted to 5 schools and is waiting on financial packages. A third said he hasn't heard back yet but applied to Cornell, Stanford, Georgia Tech, and UMD, among others.

Seconding the PP who was also at the open house. It was very impressive!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a DCPS HS teacher and no way would I send my kid to McKinley over Walls. Walls has a much higher performing student cohort

Which is great if you are part of that higher-performing student cohort. But what if you're not? If you come to Walls, take Algebra 1 as freshman, and don't score proficient, that puts you in like the bottom 10%. Does the school know what to do with you? Are you getting the opportunities that Walls is helpful for? At McKinley, that's three-quarters of the freshman class. No one is going to write you off, they will work with you, and you will have a peer group and classes being taught at an appropriate level.