SWW - when do notices go out about interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might I ask what middle schools your children are at? I wonder if there are quotas for the specific schools.

How would you figure that out by the few posters on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

I just wonder if, for example, a large number of Deal kids didn’t get asked for an interview because so many Deal kids applied. Something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have to laugh. This is quite a robust magnet school that DCPS is running. Academic record has completely ceased to be a factor in admissions. 🤔🤪

I just have to laugh at this post. Because a few parents on DCUM post their 4.0 kids didn’t get an interview the school has completely let go of academic records as a factor? Hyperbolic much? My 4.0 kid got an interview. As I’m sure many of 4.0 kids did.

Knowing stats would be helpful. How many applicants were there? How many had a 4.0? How many spots are there total? How many interview invites did they extend? Did all the kids being invited to interview rank school without walls as number one? I really think the recommendation letter process was not fair. This was a lot of extra unpaid work for the teachers, some of whom probably were not too happy, and it might've shown in their letters.

Correct. There were teachers asked to write one letter and teachers asked to write 50.
There were kids whose parents applied in the 11th hour (for a million reasons) and I can imagine that if they asked the teacher writing 50 recs, that might have not have been viewed favorably.

there were teachers who had to be reminded by parents (a process probably also not viewed favorably by the teacher who is already over burdened).

There were kids who were the first kid to ask a teacher (and probably were also not high scorers as recommenders always tend to leave room at the top for those who come later).

All sorts of room for error and bias, which is why recs don't typically count for everything in an admissions process like this. But in this case they did since 4.0s were turned down.

King of crazy. This was ultimately decided entirely by the recs!!

So much conjecture. First of all, you don’t know what the recs say about your kid. A kid might not have gotten an interview because their rec wasn’t as good as other kids, which is valid. The recs ask about all sorts of things, including social skills. Maybe a 4.0 kid isn’t mature, or kind, or whatever….they have to differentiate between the apps, and so the recs add to the big picture. Even if there were no recs, many 4.0 kids would not get interviews because they just can’t interview everyone. I think the system is crazy that everyone is vying for spots for what is really not even a particularly awesome school (we did apply, though), but even I can recognize that recs aren’t inherently an unfair part of the process.

Walls used to have an entrance exam. Do you think that would be fairer?

Actually, no. I’m not a fan of the entrance exam. Kids take loads of tests during middle school, all of which are factored into their grades, which make up their gpa. I know the arguments for the test, but I’ve never heard a good enough argument for it that outweighs the reasons against it.

Grades mean different things at different schools. There are middle schools in DC where virtually no one is at grade level in math. It's not like they don't give out As there. The point of standardized testing is that it lets you compare skills across different schools.

Walls had 9 kids last year who got 1s and 2s on the Algebra PARCC. Those are kids who are substantially below grade level. Those are slots that could have gone to kids who are far enough ahead that DCPS has no ability to meet their academic needs at their neighborhood high schools. That should be the point of these high schools - to provide academic opportunities for kids who can take advantage of them and who otherwise wouldn't have appropriate curricula available. Even if a teacher thinks they don't have great social skills, they still should get an appropriate education.

ALL kids should get an appropriate education. And if SWW thinks a kid who scored low on PARCC is a good choice, that’s their business. You don’t know the whole story. And it’s no one else’s business. SWW is a selective school—no one is entitled to a spot. Parents think their kid is, but no one is. Loads of capable kid’s won’t get in to SWW. And it’s not the only school they can apply to. There are “slots” elsewhere. If SWW was your kid/your first choice, that’s a bummer, but bummers don’t equate to unfair practices.

[Anonymous]

Any Hardy students get interviews? My child has a 3.9 and did not. Disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have to laugh. This is quite a robust magnet school that DCPS is running. Academic record has completely ceased to be a factor in admissions. 🤔🤪

I just have to laugh at this post. Because a few parents on DCUM post their 4.0 kids didn’t get an interview the school has completely let go of academic records as a factor? Hyperbolic much? My 4.0 kid got an interview. As I’m sure many of 4.0 kids did.

Knowing stats would be helpful. How many applicants were there? How many had a 4.0? How many spots are there total? How many interview invites did they extend? Did all the kids being invited to interview rank school without walls as number one? I really think the recommendation letter process was not fair. This was a lot of extra unpaid work for the teachers, some of whom probably were not too happy, and it might've shown in their letters.

Correct. There were teachers asked to write one letter and teachers asked to write 50.
There were kids whose parents applied in the 11th hour (for a million reasons) and I can imagine that if they asked the teacher writing 50 recs, that might have not have been viewed favorably.

there were teachers who had to be reminded by parents (a process probably also not viewed favorably by the teacher who is already over burdened).

There were kids who were the first kid to ask a teacher (and probably were also not high scorers as recommenders always tend to leave room at the top for those who come later).

All sorts of room for error and bias, which is why recs don't typically count for everything in an admissions process like this. But in this case they did since 4.0s were turned down.

King of crazy. This was ultimately decided entirely by the recs!!

So much conjecture. First of all, you don’t know what the recs say about your kid. A kid might not have gotten an interview because their rec wasn’t as good as other kids, which is valid. The recs ask about all sorts of things, including social skills. Maybe a 4.0 kid isn’t mature, or kind, or whatever….they have to differentiate between the apps, and so the recs add to the big picture. Even if there were no recs, many 4.0 kids would not get interviews because they just can’t interview everyone. I think the system is crazy that everyone is vying for spots for what is really not even a particularly awesome school (we did apply, though), but even I can recognize that recs aren’t inherently an unfair part of the process.

Walls used to have an entrance exam. Do you think that would be fairer?

Actually, no. I’m not a fan of the entrance exam. Kids take loads of tests during middle school, all of which are factored into their grades, which make up their gpa. I know the arguments for the test, but I’ve never heard a good enough argument for it that outweighs the reasons against it.

Grades mean different things at different schools. There are middle schools in DC where virtually no one is at grade level in math. It's not like they don't give out As there. The point of standardized testing is that it lets you compare skills across different schools.

Walls had 9 kids last year who got 1s and 2s on the Algebra PARCC. Those are kids who are substantially below grade level. Those are slots that could have gone to kids who are far enough ahead that DCPS has no ability to meet their academic needs at their neighborhood high schools. That should be the point of these high schools - to provide academic opportunities for kids who can take advantage of them and who otherwise wouldn't have appropriate curricula available. Even if a teacher thinks they don't have great social skills, they still should get an appropriate education.

ALL kids should get an appropriate education. And if SWW thinks a kid who scored low on PARCC is a good choice, that’s their business. You don’t know the whole story. And it’s no one else’s business. SWW is a selective school—no one is entitled to a spot. Parents think their kid is, but no one is. Loads of capable kid’s won’t get in to SWW. And it’s not the only school they can apply to. There are “slots” elsewhere. If SWW was your kid/your first choice, that’s a bummer, but bummers don’t equate to unfair practices.

It's certainly not just SWW's business, it's a political matter of vital importance and political pressure for change is growing in this city. San Fran parents were told the same thing about Lowell HS, in 2020, when the school began to admit via a lottery system (with a GPA cut-off). Walls has essentially done the same thing in the last four years, moving away from a merit-based admissions system, under pressure from Mayor Bowser. Here's what Wikipedia tells us about the Lowell story during the pandemic.

The SFUSD did not rescind the unlawful vote and the Friends of Lowell Foundation led plaintiffs, Lowell Alumni Association, SF Taxpayers Association and the Asian American Legal Foundation to file a complaint in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging that the SFUSD had violated the Ralph M. Brown Act when the Board of Education adopted lottery admissions. However, in November, Judge Ethan P. Schulman granted the petition challenging the lawfulness of the adoption of lottery admissions and reversed the vote to make the change permanent. The next month, the school board voted to extend the lottery system through 2022.

During the 2021–22 school year, the first in which the lottery system was in effect, nearly 25% of freshmen students reported D or F grades, compared to nearly 8% of freshmen from the previous academic year. Constituents who remained outraged over the change in Lowell's admissions policy triggered a recall election against three School Board Commissioners on February 15, 2022, who were ousted by voters in a landslide. Their replacements were named by Mayor London Breed. On June 22, despite SFUSD Superintendent Vincent Matthews recommending an extension of the lottery system, the Board opted to restore merit-based admissions for the 2023–24 school year in a 4–3 vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have to laugh. This is quite a robust magnet school that DCPS is running. Academic record has completely ceased to be a factor in admissions. 🤔🤪

I just have to laugh at this post. Because a few parents on DCUM post their 4.0 kids didn’t get an interview the school has completely let go of academic records as a factor? Hyperbolic much? My 4.0 kid got an interview. As I’m sure many of 4.0 kids did.

Knowing stats would be helpful. How many applicants were there? How many had a 4.0? How many spots are there total? How many interview invites did they extend? Did all the kids being invited to interview rank school without walls as number one? I really think the recommendation letter process was not fair. This was a lot of extra unpaid work for the teachers, some of whom probably were not too happy, and it might've shown in their letters.

Correct. There were teachers asked to write one letter and teachers asked to write 50.
There were kids whose parents applied in the 11th hour (for a million reasons) and I can imagine that if they asked the teacher writing 50 recs, that might have not have been viewed favorably.

there were teachers who had to be reminded by parents (a process probably also not viewed favorably by the teacher who is already over burdened).

There were kids who were the first kid to ask a teacher (and probably were also not high scorers as recommenders always tend to leave room at the top for those who come later).

All sorts of room for error and bias, which is why recs don't typically count for everything in an admissions process like this. But in this case they did since 4.0s were turned down.

King of crazy. This was ultimately decided entirely by the recs!!

So much conjecture. First of all, you don’t know what the recs say about your kid. A kid might not have gotten an interview because their rec wasn’t as good as other kids, which is valid. The recs ask about all sorts of things, including social skills. Maybe a 4.0 kid isn’t mature, or kind, or whatever….they have to differentiate between the apps, and so the recs add to the big picture. Even if there were no recs, many 4.0 kids would not get interviews because they just can’t interview everyone. I think the system is crazy that everyone is vying for spots for what is really not even a particularly awesome school (we did apply, though), but even I can recognize that recs aren’t inherently an unfair part of the process.

Walls used to have an entrance exam. Do you think that would be fairer?

Actually, no. I’m not a fan of the entrance exam. Kids take loads of tests during middle school, all of which are factored into their grades, which make up their gpa. I know the arguments for the test, but I’ve never heard a good enough argument for it that outweighs the reasons against it.

Grades mean different things at different schools. There are middle schools in DC where virtually no one is at grade level in math. It's not like they don't give out As there. The point of standardized testing is that it lets you compare skills across different schools.

Walls had 9 kids last year who got 1s and 2s on the Algebra PARCC. Those are kids who are substantially below grade level. Those are slots that could have gone to kids who are far enough ahead that DCPS has no ability to meet their academic needs at their neighborhood high schools. That should be the point of these high schools - to provide academic opportunities for kids who can take advantage of them and who otherwise wouldn't have appropriate curricula available. Even if a teacher thinks they don't have great social skills, they still should get an appropriate education.

ALL kids should get an appropriate education. And if SWW thinks a kid who scored low on PARCC is a good choice, that’s their business. You don’t know the whole story. And it’s no one else’s business. SWW is a selective school—no one is entitled to a spot. Parents think their kid is, but no one is. Loads of capable kid’s won’t get in to SWW. And it’s not the only school they can apply to. There are “slots” elsewhere. If SWW was your kid/your first choice, that’s a bummer, but bummers don’t equate to unfair practices.

SWW does not have access to test scores when making admissions choices. They can't look at it. So they have no idea who is below grade level. If you have selective admissions high schools, and you've also given up on providing advanced curricula.at most of your neighborhood schools, then the way to get the most kids appropriate curricula is to admit kids to your selective high schools who you otherwise have no interest in or ability to educate. A kid who is below grade level does not need to be at Walls to get an appropriate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any Hardy students get interviews? My child has a 3.9 and did not. Disappointing.

Yes, I’ve heard of several. Sorry, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any Hardy students get interviews? My child has a 3.9 and did not. Disappointing.

Yes, I’ve heard of several. Sorry, PP.

Were they all 4.0 kids?

[Anonymous]

For the last few years, Walls has been fixated on GPA but, with grade inflation in DC, the school is not necessary selecting the top students. For example, based on 9th grade PARRC results, over 30% of Walls 9th graders are below grade level in math. If they had an admission test, Walls could easily only select 9th graders who are at least grade level in math. Just compare Walls to Stuyvesant, a 82% minority magnet school in NYC, which has an admissions test and where no 9th grader is below grade level in math. Obviously, Walls is not focused on picking the top students in DC.

This year Walls changed the admissions system so that subjective teacher recs are worth three times more than a kid’s GPA. And the teacher recs are not based on any numerical rating. Thus, overworked Walls admissions staff are assigning numerical weights to these teacher recs based on general comments such as “this student is great” or “this student is solid” and using these comments to calculate the applicant’s overall numerical score to determine if he or she warrants an interview. As a result, a student with a relatively low GPA but excellent teacher recs will receive an interview over a kid with a stronger GPA who submitted more lukewarm teacher recs.

Based on this change, it is hard to see how Walls will be picking a stronger class this year than previous years. It will be interesting to see if the new class, like previous recent ones, includes a high percentage of “straight A” kids testing below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWW does not have access to test scores when making admissions choices. They can't look at it. So they have no idea who is below grade level. If you have selective admissions high schools, and you've also given up on providing advanced curricula at most of your neighborhood schools, then the way to get advanced kids appropriate curricula is to admit kids to your selective high schools who you otherwise have no interest in or ability to educate. A kid who is below grade level does not need to be at Walls to get an appropriate education.

I feel this pretty hard this morning for my kid who has a 4.0, has never gotten below a 5 on PARCC, and scores 98th percentile+ on standardized tests. We don't live IB for JR. So maybe we'll move?

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry PP, that’s really disheartening

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWW does not have access to test scores when making admissions choices. They can't look at it. So they have no idea who is below grade level. If you have selective admissions high schools, and you've also given up on providing advanced curricula at most of your neighborhood schools, then the way to get advanced kids appropriate curricula is to admit kids to your selective high schools who you otherwise have no interest in or ability to educate. A kid who is below grade level does not need to be at Walls to get an appropriate education.

I feel this pretty hard this morning for my kid who has a 4.0, has never gotten below a 5 on PARCC, and scores 98th percentile+ on standardized tests. We don't live IB for JR. So maybe we'll move?

I'm sorry, PP. you have every right to feel let down. Our tax dollars fund this school which is supposed to be for high achieving kids. The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. Not sure if this will make you feel any better, but remember that of the 300 or so kids offered an interview half of them won't get a spot. I have an 8th grader at Hardy who was not offered an interview and I'm kind of relieved because I didn't want to set my son up for bigger disappointed. But we do have the Jackson-Reed option. In your shoes, I'd consider moving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWW does not have access to test scores when making admissions choices. They can't look at it. So they have no idea who is below grade level. If you have selective admissions high schools, and you've also given up on providing advanced curricula at most of your neighborhood schools, then the way to get advanced kids appropriate curricula is to admit kids to your selective high schools who you otherwise have no interest in or ability to educate. A kid who is below grade level does not need to be at Walls to get an appropriate education.

I feel this pretty hard this morning for my kid who has a 4.0, has never gotten below a 5 on PARCC, and scores 98th percentile+ on standardized tests. We don't live IB for JR. So maybe we'll move?

It sucks. And it's a choice they're making. There are few enough kids in the DC public school system who have that profile that you could admit them all to Walls. And they can't even do something halfway, where they use standardized test scores but have different cutoffs for different middle schools, because then the data would be available to be FOIAd. So they have this admissions process where they literally cannot access any standardized test data about your kid in service of keeping this process as opaque as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the last few years, Walls has been fixated on GPA but, with grade inflation in DC, the school is not necessary selecting the top students. For example, based on 9th grade PARRC results, over 30% of Walls 9th graders are below grade level in math. If they had an admission test, Walls could easily only select 9th graders who are at least grade level in math. Just compare Walls to Stuyvesant, a 82% minority magnet school in NYC, which has an admissions test and where no 9th grader is below grade level in math. Obviously, Walls is not focused on picking the top students in DC.

This year Walls changed the admissions system so that subjective teacher recs are worth three times more than a kid’s GPA. And the teacher recs are not based on any numerical rating. Thus, overworked Walls admissions staff are assigning numerical weights to these teacher recs based on general comments such as “this student is great” or “this student is solid” and using these comments to calculate the applicant’s overall numerical score to determine if he or she warrants an interview. As a result, a student with a relatively low GPA but excellent teacher recs will receive an interview over a kid with a stronger GPA who submitted more lukewarm teacher recs.

Based on this change, it is hard to see how Walls will be picking a stronger class this year than previous years. It will be interesting to see if the new class, like previous recent ones, includes a high percentage of “straight A” kids testing below grade level.

While I agree with you that the process leaves a lot to be desired (my 4.0 kid didn't get an interview), I also want to call into question two of your statements. First, Stuyvesant is something like 10% Black and Latino, so saying it's 82% minority effectively means it's 72% Asian. I don't think Asian kids are underrepresented in NYC's selective schools, so it doesn't seem right to include them in the minority stats.

Second, I don't think your comment about Walls choosing based on vague recommendations is correct. The recommendation forms have choices for teachers such as "5: reading level is far advanced for age and grade level," "4: Reads well above expectations for age and grade level," etc. So even though it's subjective based on the teacher's judgment, the admissions staff won't have to assign guesstimates to what "this student is solid" means.

[Anonymous]

PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.