Walls admissions article in the Post

[Anonymous]

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?

From the article:

“ Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8, though the city says it does not have the ward of residence for 39 students. None of these students were enrolled in the traditional public school system.”

So it might be more than four, but based on demographics of the class as a whole, it’s unlikely to be much more. And yes, none from the public MSs in wards 7 and 8.

I think part of the problem is that if you live in a part of the city with mostly underperforming schools, being “academically inclined” is largely a function of whether your family is academically inclined, and thus works hard to get you into a better performing school via the lottery PLUS invests (or even has) the time and energy to get you to school at non-neighborhood schools. Kids in wealthier parts of the city who are naturally academically inclined can just go to their IB schools and take advantage of the opportunities presented. That’s much harder to do in Wards 7 and 8.

How can they verify residency if they don't know what ward their kids live in? Sounds like Ward 9

Doubt it's nefarious. More likely students without a dcps 8th grade transcript coming for private schools. Walls has always provided this onramp for families who bailed on DCPS for middle school to come back for HS, even if it's at the expense of denying qualified DCPS students.

How is at the expense of DCPS students? It's a public school and all residents that meet the criteria are eligible to apply. I've known kids that were home schooled, attended privates, etc. to attend Walls as well as Banneker.

It's not like those families don't have other options -- they've already exercised those options. Turning away highly qualified students from their own system is a pretty big self-own.

The main selling point to Walls is scarcity and whiteness

How many do they turn away? Not many.

They have about 1000 kids apply each year (I think this year it was 1200?) and they take 140. This year the waistlist moved 90 spots. So let's say they took 250 out of 1200 who wanted the school.

Just because they get to 90 on the waitlist doesn't mean there are 90 openings. More like 25-30, and they have to get to 90 to someone who hasn't already decided elsewhere. This year's 90 isn't far off the historical 70ish of recent pre-COVID movement. Let's see how this incoming class does. I doubt we will see a marked decline in Walls, either SAT/ACT or college placements in 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Funny when DCUM talks about why white kids don’t apply to Banneker many posters will say the academics are no joke and they prefer Walls because it’s not as serious. 🤷🏽‍♀️

No one says that. 😞

What? I've seen arguments like that on many threads that talk about Banneker, as a justification for why white kids don't go there. Too much homework, etc.

[Anonymous]

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?

From the article:

“ Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8, though the city says it does not have the ward of residence for 39 students. None of these students were enrolled in the traditional public school system.”

So it might be more than four, but based on demographics of the class as a whole, it’s unlikely to be much more. And yes, none from the public MSs in wards 7 and 8.

I think part of the problem is that if you live in a part of the city with mostly underperforming schools, being “academically inclined” is largely a function of whether your family is academically inclined, and thus works hard to get you into a better performing school via the lottery PLUS invests (or even has) the time and energy to get you to school at non-neighborhood schools. Kids in wealthier parts of the city who are naturally academically inclined can just go to their IB schools and take advantage of the opportunities presented. That’s much harder to do in Wards 7 and 8.

How can they verify residency if they don't know what ward their kids live in? Sounds like Ward 9

Doubt it's nefarious. More likely students without a dcps 8th grade transcript coming for private schools. Walls has always provided this onramp for families who bailed on DCPS for middle school to come back for HS, even if it's at the expense of denying qualified DCPS students.

How is at the expense of DCPS students? It's a public school and all residents that meet the criteria are eligible to apply. I've known kids that were home schooled, attended privates, etc. to attend Walls as well as Banneker.

It's not like those families don't have other options -- they've already exercised those options. Turning away highly qualified students from their own system is a pretty big self-own.

The main selling point to Walls is scarcity and whiteness

How many do they turn away? Not many.

They have about 1000 kids apply each year (I think this year it was 1200?) and they take 140. This year the waistlist moved 90 spots. So let's say they took 250 out of 1200 who wanted the school.

Just because they get to 90 on the waitlist doesn't mean there are 90 openings. More like 25-30, and they have to get to 90 to someone who hasn't already decided elsewhere. This year's 90 isn't far off the historical 70ish of recent pre-COVID movement. Let's see how this incoming class does. I doubt we will see a marked decline in Walls, either SAT/ACT or college placements in 4 years.

Right. No one said that there were 90 openings. Just that they offered admission to roughly 235 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

From the article:

“ Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8, though the city says it does not have the ward of residence for 39 students. None of these students were enrolled in the traditional public school system.”

So it might be more than four, but based on demographics of the class as a whole, it’s unlikely to be much more. And yes, none from the public MSs in wards 7 and 8.

I think part of the problem is that if you live in a part of the city with mostly underperforming schools, being “academically inclined” is largely a function of whether your family is academically inclined, and thus works hard to get you into a better performing school via the lottery PLUS invests (or even has) the time and energy to get you to school at non-neighborhood schools. Kids in wealthier parts of the city who are naturally academically inclined can just go to their IB schools and take advantage of the opportunities presented. That’s much harder to do in Wards 7 and 8.

How can they verify residency if they don't know what ward their kids live in? Sounds like Ward 9

Doubt it's nefarious. More likely students without a dcps 8th grade transcript coming for private schools. Walls has always provided this onramp for families who bailed on DCPS for middle school to come back for HS, even if it's at the expense of denying qualified DCPS students.

How is at the expense of DCPS students? It's a public school and all residents that meet the criteria are eligible to apply. I've known kids that were home schooled, attended privates, etc. to attend Walls as well as Banneker.

It's not like those families don't have other options -- they've already exercised those options. Turning away highly qualified students from their own system is a pretty big self-own.

The main selling point to Walls is scarcity and whiteness

How many do they turn away? Not many.

They have about 1000 kids apply each year (I think this year it was 1200?) and they take 140. This year the waistlist moved 90 spots. So let's say they took 250 out of 1200 who wanted the school.

Just because they get to 90 on the waitlist doesn't mean there are 90 openings. More like 25-30, and they have to get to 90 to someone who hasn't already decided elsewhere. This year's 90 isn't far off the historical 70ish of recent pre-COVID movement. Let's see how this incoming class does. I doubt we will see a marked decline in Walls, either SAT/ACT or college placements in 4 years.

Right. No one said that there were 90 openings. Just that they offered admission to roughly 235 kids.

That's possible, but not certain--people could have removed themselves from the wait list once they enrolled their kid elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

From the article:

“ Preliminary data shows the new freshman class includes four students from Wards 7 and 8, though the city says it does not have the ward of residence for 39 students. None of these students were enrolled in the traditional public school system.”

So it might be more than four, but based on demographics of the class as a whole, it’s unlikely to be much more. And yes, none from the public MSs in wards 7 and 8.

I think part of the problem is that if you live in a part of the city with mostly underperforming schools, being “academically inclined” is largely a function of whether your family is academically inclined, and thus works hard to get you into a better performing school via the lottery PLUS invests (or even has) the time and energy to get you to school at non-neighborhood schools. Kids in wealthier parts of the city who are naturally academically inclined can just go to their IB schools and take advantage of the opportunities presented. That’s much harder to do in Wards 7 and 8.

How can they verify residency if they don't know what ward their kids live in? Sounds like Ward 9

Doubt it's nefarious. More likely students without a dcps 8th grade transcript coming for private schools. Walls has always provided this onramp for families who bailed on DCPS for middle school to come back for HS, even if it's at the expense of denying qualified DCPS students.

How is at the expense of DCPS students? It's a public school and all residents that meet the criteria are eligible to apply. I've known kids that were home schooled, attended privates, etc. to attend Walls as well as Banneker.

It's not like those families don't have other options -- they've already exercised those options. Turning away highly qualified students from their own system is a pretty big self-own.

The main selling point to Walls is scarcity and whiteness

How many do they turn away? Not many.

They have about 1000 kids apply each year (I think this year it was 1200?) and they take 140. This year the waistlist moved 90 spots. So let's say they took 250 out of 1200 who wanted the school.

Just because they get to 90 on the waitlist doesn't mean there are 90 openings. More like 25-30, and they have to get to 90 to someone who hasn't already decided elsewhere. This year's 90 isn't far off the historical 70ish of recent pre-COVID movement. Let's see how this incoming class does. I doubt we will see a marked decline in Walls, either SAT/ACT or college placements in 4 years.

Right. No one said that there were 90 openings. Just that they offered admission to roughly 235 kids.

That's possible, but not certain--people could have removed themselves from the wait list once they enrolled their kid elsewhere.

No difference. Whether they declined by removing themselves or after they were given a spot, they still declined to attend Walls. The list has now moved 92 spots. So 92 kids were given the opportunity to attend Walls this year and decided not to. 143 (per the article) have elected to attend.

[Anonymous]

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?

Isn’t the whole point of an IEP is that the kid can’t keep up with normal kids without help? That should eliminate them from contention from high achieving spots in a competitive field…. Because they can’t keep up without help. There is no IEP allowances at my office. Eventually the cold B-smack of reality will come down on the kids who can’t keep up.

I’m all for helping them through but we shouldn’t pretend they are normal.

Wrong ignorant one. I would sue so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

[Anonymous]

Right. No one said that there were 90 openings. Just that they offered admission to roughly 235 kids.

That's possible, but not certain--people could have removed themselves from the wait list once they enrolled their kid elsewhere.

No difference. Whether they declined by removing themselves or after they were given a spot, they still declined to attend Walls. The list has now moved 92 spots. So 92 kids were given the opportunity to attend Walls this year and decided not to. 143 (per the article) have elected to attend.

Huh. My kid's waitlist number was less than 92 (even after it was bumped up by 3 in the first weekend) and they have not been offered a spot. My kid is now very low on the WL, but I think your number isn't correct.

[Anonymous]

The constant citing of DCPS demographics as being the most "relevant" is so incredibly short-sighted. The only demographics that should matter when discussing education in DC are the demographics of ALL school aged children in DC---NOT just the school age children currently using DCPS or DCPS-charter. The goal should be to create schools that ALL families want to use.

[Anonymous]

Wanted to revisit this thread now that the 2022-23 Walls admissions process is under way and seats for the incoming freshman class have been offered. What have others observed?

What we’ve seen: A number of academically motivated and high-achieving kids with high GPAs were not offered seats and are in the lower (bottom) rungs of the Walls waitlist. In previous years, these kids would’ve been a good fit for acceptance at Walls. Meanwhile, the kids we know who have been offered seats for next fall are not academically high achieving or particularly inclined. All of the kids mentioned above are White.

The Walls admissions process and criteria were not transparent this year. We attended all of the virtual open houses to hear what the school leadership could offer about admission requirements, since there was apparently a delayed decision from DCPS about what the minimum GPA required would be.

The explanations were vague, and included a mention of a “lottery component” of admission, which was not mentioned in years prior when academic achievement (a certain GPA) was the first criterion, as well as attaining certain PARCC scores, getting a higher score on an entrance exam, having teacher recommendations, and participating in an interview. All of those former requirements, aside from the very brief interview, were gone this year. From this thread, it sounds like that was the case last year as well.

It was not made at all clear how GPA and interview would be weighted in the decision-making process. Hard to believe that GPA, as evidence of student motivation over time, apparently carries so little weight with Walls now.

Finding the utter lack of transparency on the admissions process concerning and would like to see the school publicly share the data on how students were selected for admission.

[Anonymous]

I find parents speculating on which kids are highly motivated and good fits when you haven’t observed these kids or been privy to their grades is gross.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the process is not transparent. Walls is a public school, and the metrics and criteria for entry should be clearly stated, whatever they may be. The murkiness of the whole thing leads to a loss of trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to revisit this thread now that the 2022-23 Walls admissions process is under way and seats for the incoming freshman class have been offered. What have others observed?

What we’ve seen: A number of academically motivated and high-achieving kids with high GPAs were not offered seats and are in the lower (bottom) rungs of the Walls waitlist. In previous years, these kids would’ve been a good fit for acceptance at Walls. Meanwhile, the kids we know who have been offered seats for next fall are not academically high achieving or particularly inclined. All of the kids mentioned above are White.

The Walls admissions process and criteria were not transparent this year. We attended all of the virtual open houses to hear what the school leadership could offer about admission requirements, since there was apparently a delayed decision from DCPS about what the minimum GPA required would be.

The explanations were vague, and included a mention of a “lottery component” of admission, which was not mentioned in years prior when academic achievement (a certain GPA) was the first criterion, as well as attaining certain PARCC scores, getting a higher score on an entrance exam, having teacher recommendations, and participating in an interview. All of those former requirements, aside from the very brief interview, were gone this year. From this thread, it sounds like that was the case last year as well.

It was not made at all clear how GPA and interview would be weighted in the decision-making process. Hard to believe that GPA, as evidence of student motivation over time, apparently carries so little weight with Walls now.

Finding the utter lack of transparency on the admissions process concerning and would like to see the school publicly share the data on how students were selected for admission.

It doesn't sound like you even applied. If you did, there are things you would be aware of. What do you really want? You can search the other threads for info and issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find parents speculating on which kids are highly motivated and good fits when you haven’t observed these kids or been privy to their grades is gross.

Kids know peers and share with each other. No one names names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to revisit this thread now that the 2022-23 Walls admissions process is under way and seats for the incoming freshman class have been offered. What have others observed?

What we’ve seen: A number of academically motivated and high-achieving kids with high GPAs were not offered seats and are in the lower (bottom) rungs of the Walls waitlist. In previous years, these kids would’ve been a good fit for acceptance at Walls. Meanwhile, the kids we know who have been offered seats for next fall are not academically high achieving or particularly inclined. All of the kids mentioned above are White.

The Walls admissions process and criteria were not transparent this year. We attended all of the virtual open houses to hear what the school leadership could offer about admission requirements, since there was apparently a delayed decision from DCPS about what the minimum GPA required would be.

The explanations were vague, and included a mention of a “lottery component” of admission, which was not mentioned in years prior when academic achievement (a certain GPA) was the first criterion, as well as attaining certain PARCC scores, getting a higher score on an entrance exam, having teacher recommendations, and participating in an interview. All of those former requirements, aside from the very brief interview, were gone this year. From this thread, it sounds like that was the case last year as well.

It was not made at all clear how GPA and interview would be weighted in the decision-making process. Hard to believe that GPA, as evidence of student motivation over time, apparently carries so little weight with Walls now.

Finding the utter lack of transparency on the admissions process concerning and would like to see the school publicly share the data on how students were selected for admission.

This happened last year too...the only additional information given last year was that "31 out of 36" points would be given to the interview. 5 points given to 7th grade GPA. When there were ties, it went into the lottery.

But no information on how those 31 points were determined in the interview (as many have noted, the interviews last year ranged from 3 minutes to 10 minutes and were done by students and faculty. Some kids got one question, some got three). An absolute embarassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to revisit this thread now that the 2022-23 Walls admissions process is under way and seats for the incoming freshman class have been offered. What have others observed?

What we’ve seen: A number of academically motivated and high-achieving kids with high GPAs were not offered seats and are in the lower (bottom) rungs of the Walls waitlist. In previous years, these kids would’ve been a good fit for acceptance at Walls. Meanwhile, the kids we know who have been offered seats for next fall are not academically high achieving or particularly inclined. All of the kids mentioned above are White.

The Walls admissions process and criteria were not transparent this year. We attended all of the virtual open houses to hear what the school leadership could offer about admission requirements, since there was apparently a delayed decision from DCPS about what the minimum GPA required would be.

The explanations were vague, and included a mention of a “lottery component” of admission, which was not mentioned in years prior when academic achievement (a certain GPA) was the first criterion, as well as attaining certain PARCC scores, getting a higher score on an entrance exam, having teacher recommendations, and participating in an interview. All of those former requirements, aside from the very brief interview, were gone this year. From this thread, it sounds like that was the case last year as well.

It was not made at all clear how GPA and interview would be weighted in the decision-making process. Hard to believe that GPA, as evidence of student motivation over time, apparently carries so little weight with Walls now.

Finding the utter lack of transparency on the admissions process concerning and would like to see the school publicly share the data on how students were selected for admission.

This happened last year too...the only additional information given last year was that "31 out of 36" points would be given to the interview. 5 points given to 7th grade GPA. When there were ties, it went into the lottery.

But no information on how those 31 points were determined in the interview (as many have noted, the interviews last year ranged from 3 minutes to 10 minutes and were done by students and faculty. Some kids got one question, some got three). An absolute embarassment.

Completely agree with this, including the fact that last year, a bunch of kids who (at least on the surface) seemed less qualified got in and a bunch of kids who (at least on the surface) seemed perfect for Walls did not. (All the "on the surface" caveats are because I don't honestly know, as a PP has pointed out, what these kids' grades are--nor how they did in their ridiculously short interview.)