Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster to mention Banneker first in this thread. I’m sorry it moved the conversation away from MacArthur.
My point was, the fact that BCC is at the end of first 500 on that rating (400 positions lower than Banneker though), it doesn’t convince me much that MacArthur is going to be worth than BCC.
My criteria for schools are how well are they teaching kids who don’t have privilege to be taught by tutors after school, how many kids actually finish high school, and if there is a decent amount of electives to make high school experience interesting. That is all I need for my kid.

Well my criteria is different. My kid is high performing (does well in school, scores top 10% and higher on standardized tests) and I need a school with a critical high performing peer group with a curriculum that challenges him.

I’m tired of filling in the gaps and supplementing to get him challenged.

BCC tracks much more than MacArthur and has higher performing peer group. I mean JR isn’t that great with the Deal kids and Hardy performs lower than Deal.

Can you please provide more info on how MacArthur “tracks”?

I’m the PP. I don’t have details and don’t think there will be much tracking in 9th and 10th except math. My assumption is it’s going to be like JR. Honors for all in 9th and 10th and then AP options in 11th and 12th although it’s AP for all with no academic criteria to take these classes.

That’s why the AP scores for JR is not good. Around 50% kids only score 1 or 2.

The academic group for MacArthur is going to be weaker than JR because Hardy is weaker than Deal. If there is going to be a good percentage of kids that are OOB in the 1st class, this might weaken the academics even more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster to mention Banneker first in this thread. I’m sorry it moved the conversation away from MacArthur.
My point was, the fact that BCC is at the end of first 500 on that rating (400 positions lower than Banneker though), it doesn’t convince me much that MacArthur is going to be worth than BCC.
My criteria for schools are how well are they teaching kids who don’t have privilege to be taught by tutors after school, how many kids actually finish high school, and if there is a decent amount of electives to make high school experience interesting. That is all I need for my kid.

Well my criteria is different. My kid is high performing (does well in school, scores top 10% and higher on standardized tests) and I need a school with a critical high performing peer group with a curriculum that challenges him.

I’m tired of filling in the gaps and supplementing to get him challenged.

BCC tracks much more than MacArthur and has higher performing peer group. I mean JR isn’t that great with the Deal kids and Hardy performs lower than Deal.

Can you please provide more info on how MacArthur “tracks”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster to mention Banneker first in this thread. I’m sorry it moved the conversation away from MacArthur.
My point was, the fact that BCC is at the end of first 500 on that rating (400 positions lower than Banneker though), it doesn’t convince me much that MacArthur is going to be worth than BCC.
My criteria for schools are how well are they teaching kids who don’t have privilege to be taught by tutors after school, how many kids actually finish high school, and if there is a decent amount of electives to make high school experience interesting. That is all I need for my kid.

Well my criteria is different. My kid is high performing (does well in school, scores top 10% and higher on standardized tests) and I need a school with a critical high performing peer group with a curriculum that challenges him.

I’m tired of filling in the gaps and supplementing to get him challenged.

BCC tracks much more than MacArthur and has higher performing peer group. I mean JR isn’t that great with the Deal kids and Hardy performs lower than Deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is black, you should prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for black students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for black students is more than 20 points higher at Banneker (52% to 29%).

But if your kid is white, you should also prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for white students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for white students is almost 20 points higher at Banneker (80% to 63%).

That’s the reason for what 9:19 is calling “skew” in the US News rankings. They’re weighting for demographics to capture the fact that although overall white kids do better than black kids at both schools, and there are more white kids at Walls, both groups do better at Banneker. Which seems like a relevant consideration, when ranking schools.

Weird post.

First, you are just looking at what percentage of kids are at grade level. Second, why would people only look at test scores based on race and choose a school just based on that factor. Do you think socioeconomic status doesn't matter? What about Hispanics, mixed race kids, etc.? Third, there are only a handful of white kids at Banneker. Banneker is only 4% white, while Walls is 51% white. Fourth, while there are a lot more black students at Walls than white students at Banneker, the numbers are still very different at the schools. Banneker is 70% black while Walls is 23% black. Fifth, this who exercise seems kind of racist.

Look at the PARCC proficiency numbers for both schools:

Walls

94.35 ELA
54.97 math

Banneker

91.46 ELA
55.43 math

In short, most of the kids at both schools are grade level but Walls is a bit stronger here. Yea, grade level!

And drill down and look at how many kids received 5s (above grade level):

Walls
61.84 ELA
--- math (numbers suppressed by DCPS)

Banneker
37.01 ELA
3.00 math

Based on this, Walls is way ahead of Banneker in terms of kids performing ELA above grade level and we don't have the data for math (but very few Banneker kids are above grade level in math).

And then, of course, you get the issue that the average SAT score at Walls is way above the average score at Banneker.

The bottom line is that the academics are better at Walls than Banneker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is black, you should prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for black students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for black students is more than 20 points higher at Banneker (52% to 29%).

But if your kid is white, you should also prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for white students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for white students is almost 20 points higher at Banneker (80% to 63%).

That’s the reason for what 9:19 is calling “skew” in the US News rankings. They’re weighting for demographics to capture the fact that although overall white kids do better than black kids at both schools, and there are more white kids at Walls, both groups do better at Banneker. Which seems like a relevant consideration, when ranking schools.

Weird post.

First, you are just looking at what percentage of kids are at grade level. Second, why would people only look at test scores based on race and choose a school just based on that factor. Do you think socioeconomic status doesn't matter? What about Hispanics, mixed race kids, etc.? Third, there are only a handful of white kids at Banneker. Banneker is only 4% white, while Walls is 51% white. Fourth, while there are a lot more black students at Walls than white students at Banneker, the numbers are still very different at the schools. Banneker is 70% black while Walls is 23% black. Fifth, this who exercise seems kind of racist.

Look at the PARCC proficiency numbers for both schools:

Walls

94.35 ELA
54.97 math

Banneker

91.46 ELA
55.43 math

In short, most of the kids at both schools are grade level but Walls is a bit stronger here. Yea, grade level!

And drill down and look at how many kids received 5s (above grade level):

Walls
61.84 ELA
--- math (numbers suppressed by DCPS)

Banneker
37.01 ELA
3.00 math

Based on this, Walls is way ahead of Banneker in terms of kids performing ELA above grade level and we don't have the data for math (but very few Banneker kids are above grade level in math).

And then, of course, you get the issue that the average SAT score at Walls is way above the average score at Banneker.

The bottom line is that the academics are better at Walls than Banneker.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster to mention Banneker first in this thread. I’m sorry it moved the conversation away from MacArthur.
My point was, the fact that BCC is at the end of first 500 on that rating (400 positions lower than Banneker though), it doesn’t convince me much that MacArthur is going to be worth than BCC.
My criteria for schools are how well are they teaching kids who don’t have privilege to be taught by tutors after school, how many kids actually finish high school, and if there is a decent amount of electives to make high school experience interesting. That is all I need for my kid.

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is black, you should prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for black students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for black students is more than 20 points higher at Banneker (52% to 29%).

But if your kid is white, you should also prefer Banneker: the ELA proficiency rate for white students at the two schools is tied, but the math proficiency rate for white students is almost 20 points higher at Banneker (80% to 63%).

That’s the reason for what 9:19 is calling “skew” in the US News rankings. They’re weighting for demographics to capture the fact that although overall white kids do better than black kids at both schools, and there are more white kids at Walls, both groups do better at Banneker. Which seems like a relevant consideration, when ranking schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the US New high school rankings, the two categories about underserved students sound really similar, and collectively skew in rankings in my opinion. I don't think I understand how they are different. The publication ranks Banneker higher than SWW, but SWW has a higher graduation rate, more kids taking and passing APs, more breadth to the average AP load, higher SAT/ACT scores. Not to mention (although this is subjective) better college placement.

Of course Walls has better SATs and college placement than Banneker - Banneker is nearly 1/3 at-risk while Walls is only 8%. Walls kids are, by large, wealthy/privileged/and college legacies. Compare the at risk performance of the two schools so you can compare like to like. Anyone comparing overall outcomes is just silly and has never taken a statistics course.

Anonymous wrote:Re the US New high school rankings, the two categories about underserved students sound really similar, and collectively skew in rankings in my opinion. I don't think I understand how they are different. The publication ranks Banneker higher than SWW, but SWW has a higher graduation rate, more kids taking and passing APs, more breadth to the average AP load, higher SAT/ACT scores. Not to mention (although this is subjective) better college placement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the US New high school rankings, the two categories about underserved students sound really similar, and collectively skew in rankings in my opinion. I don't think I understand how they are different. The publication ranks Banneker higher than SWW, but SWW has a higher graduation rate, more kids taking and passing APs, more breadth to the average AP load, higher SAT/ACT scores. Not to mention (although this is subjective) better college placement.

With the reasoning above (which I agree with), the fact that BCC squeezed into top 500 doesn’t matter much to me to trust that it’s oh so awesome comparing to JR.

What data do you look at when comparing schools?