Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's POPULATION:
45.4% Black or African American
4.1% Asian
5.2% Hispanic White
0.3% Native American and Alaskan Native
42.5% White
4.4% Some Other Race, 0.1% Pacific Islander and 3.3% from two or more races

WALLS BREAKDOWN:
25% Black/African-American
7% Asian
13% Hispanic / Latino
<1% Native American / Alaska Native
50% White non-Hispanic
5% Multiracial

So Walls is actually quite diverse, people always use this word incorrectly. A 95% black school isn't diverse. The problem is we need to get more Black students into Walls. The problem is DC's Black population skews poor. That's what needs to be fixed. Those kids aren't going to elementary and middle schools that prepare them for success. They are lacking resources at home, at school, and in their communities. My guess is most poor Black kids are never told they can take the test and get into a good HS. Walls should start a program, but the problem is far too entrenched for it to be on the shoulders of one magnet public school in the city.

City population isn’t relevant. DCPS population is. According to the Post article, 15% of DCPS students are white; 60% are black.

PP here. Yes this is excellent and necessary information to determine how to fix the problem. That is what we need.

Walls and Banneker are widely known as the two best test-in DCPS high schools and they are roughly the same size. Banneker by reputation is akin to an HBCU and has nearly zero white students. So in effect all of the top white students only apply to Walls while top black students apply to both Walls and Banneker. As a result, Banneker has a higher than average share of black students (73%) while Walls has a higher than average white students (51%). That's largely an artifact of where students apply.

There are three other factors in play. First, Banneker just opened its amazing new state-of-the-art $130 million campus which is now larger and located in much more convenient location. This very likely increased the number of top black students applying to and attending Banneker over Walls this past year. Second, Walls pulls top white students from private middle schools as well. So looking just at the percentage of white students in DCPS understates the base of white students who apply to Walls. Third, the entire Walls leadership team including the principal is black, as is the mayor and school chancellor. It would seem very odd to me that they would have an interest in disadvantaging black students. More likely they are basing entry on which students they think can handle the rigor at Walls. I have a very smart student at Walls who has to work very hard to do well; the academics are no joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's POPULATION:
45.4% Black or African American
4.1% Asian
5.2% Hispanic White
0.3% Native American and Alaskan Native
42.5% White
4.4% Some Other Race, 0.1% Pacific Islander and 3.3% from two or more races

WALLS BREAKDOWN:
25% Black/African-American
7% Asian
13% Hispanic / Latino
<1% Native American / Alaska Native
50% White non-Hispanic
5% Multiracial

So Walls is actually quite diverse, people always use this word incorrectly. A 95% black school isn't diverse. The problem is we need to get more Black students into Walls. The problem is DC's Black population skews poor. That's what needs to be fixed. Those kids aren't going to elementary and middle schools that prepare them for success. They are lacking resources at home, at school, and in their communities. My guess is most poor Black kids are never told they can take the test and get into a good HS. Walls should start a program, but the problem is far too entrenched for it to be on the shoulders of one magnet public school in the city.

City population isn’t relevant. DCPS population is. According to the Post article, 15% of DCPS students are white; 60% are black.

PP here. Yes this is excellent and necessary information to determine how to fix the problem. That is what we need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Again - discrimination suggests that an admissions officer looked at the addresses of those 138 kids and tossed their application in the trash based on that. And solely on that. If the qualifications were reviewed and were rejected on that basis - then no, that isn not discrimination. Sorry.

This is giving big "I'm not a racist! I don't use the n-word!" vibes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Again - discrimination suggests that an admissions officer looked at the addresses of those 138 kids and tossed their application in the trash based on that. And solely on that. If the qualifications were reviewed and were rejected on that basis - then no, that isn not discrimination. Sorry.

^this is literally what anti-racist theory is trying to remedy. I wish I could say it better because it would be more helpful to your growth but the way you think about this is wrong.

/\ This is precisely why thoughtful people totally reject so-called "anti-racist" theory, which is in fact completely racist. Perhaps understanding this will be "more helpful to your growth"... SMH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Again - discrimination suggests that an admissions officer looked at the addresses of those 138 kids and tossed their application in the trash based on that. And solely on that. If the qualifications were reviewed and were rejected on that basis - then no, that isn not discrimination. Sorry.

^this is literally what anti-racist theory is trying to remedy. I wish I could say it better because it would be more helpful to your growth but the way you think about this is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a DCPS educator for 10+ years (gen Ed). Some of my most intelligent and successful students have had an IEP. It’s beyond ableist to think that students (or adults) who have/had an IEP can’t thrive in gen Ed settings.

And it is interesting that public data for Walls indicates that 0% of the student body has an IEP. If there are 600 students, there are at most 3 students with IEPs in the building.
As a parent of 2 children with IEPs, I am curious what the acceptance and attrition rate is at the school (as well as at Banneker)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

“The systemic racism at walls isn’t as bad bc also they had systemic racism earlier” we’re really doing this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

But... what's the evidence that anyone was discriminated against? I've seen none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Again - discrimination suggests that an admissions officer looked at the addresses of those 138 kids and tossed their application in the trash based on that. And solely on that. If the qualifications were reviewed and were rejected on that basis - then no, that isn not discrimination. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Again - discrimination suggests that an admissions officer looked at the addresses of those 138 kids and tossed their application in the trash based on that. And solely on that. If the qualifications were reviewed and were rejected on that basis - then no, that isn not discrimination. Sorry.

^this is literally what anti-racist theory is trying to remedy. I wish I could say it better because it would be more helpful to your growth but the way you think about this is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious how many students were accepted that live in ward 7 or 8 but didn't go to middle school there. Maybe part of the issue is that students from wards 7 or 8 who are academically inclined are looking for middle schools elsewhere. Is that really Walls' fault?

Huh? First it’s a high school. Second, they screen out kids with IEPs (which is illegal). They screen out kids in wards 7 and 8. What else is there to know?

What evidence do you have that kids in these Wards are screened out?

I don’t think it’s the group being discriminated against that needs to present more evidence.

You need to verify that discrimination occurred. How do you know that kids from Ward 7 and 8 applied? Maybe the “ward unknown” kids are largely from Ward 7 and 8 and previously sought better schooling at charters?

Without more information, it’s bs to insist that students from Ward 7 and 8 are discriminated against.

What is surely true is:

— Walls admissions is super subjective.

— Wards 7 and 8 need better schools and, especially, more social services from early childhood on, so more of the students are prepared for competitive schools.

Oh my god. Again, from the Post article: “According to the school system, 50 students attending the five neighborhood schools in Wards 7 and 8 applied to be part of the incoming freshmen at Walls. Overall, 138 students living in the two wards applied.” But “Just three eighth graders at middle schools in Wards 7 and 8 — Hart, Johnson, Kelly Miller, Kramer and Sousa middle schools — made the cut of 500 students and accepted interviews, according to city data.” And “Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8.”

You’re right — I was responding to PP and didn’t read the article. It still holds that it's not clear that discrimination is the problem as opposed to an the kids being underserved in earlier life.

“The systemic racism at walls isn’t as bad bc also they had systemic racism earlier” we’re really doing this