Walls test today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC said it was hard. What about yours?

Same. DC also said there was not enough space to write 6 paragraphs.

The essay said specifically to write six paragraphs?

It apparently said, write an intro, 4 paragraphs on the subject and a closing. Per my DD there was much debate among her friends post test over texts about how many paragraphs that meant. My DD was there for 3 hours as were most of her friends. They are all strong students that I would expect to do well so it sounds like a harder test than previous ones.

Do they provide the students with their scores or just whether or not they made it to the interview rounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC said it was hard. What about yours?

Same. DC also said there was not enough space to write 6 paragraphs.

The essay said specifically to write six paragraphs?

It apparently said, write an intro, 4 paragraphs on the subject and a closing. Per my DD there was much debate among her friends post test over texts about how many paragraphs that meant. My DD was there for 3 hours as were most of her friends. They are all strong students that I would expect to do well so it sounds like a harder test than previous ones.

Do they provide the students with their scores or just whether or not they made it to the interview rounds?

They don’t give grades. What was the theme? Six paragraphs are a lot!

[Anonymous]

I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

Di Blasio is doing the same thing in NYC.

It's what identity politics is driving us into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

This is nothing new. Walls has not been “destroyed” yet.and for the majority of the students, it is a perfectly safe, though not that outstanding, high school experience in the middle of a major city. But you can’t certainly skate through and many do.

[Anonymous]

^^ CAN skate through!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

If you think this quota system at SWW (perhaps less formal) is new, you’ve not been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

If this shift at SWW troubles you, then go to Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

Di Blasio is doing the same thing in NYC.

It's what identity politics is driving us into.

Every day, we get closer to Harrison Bergeron.

The WaPo article -- and headline -- we're typically tendentious, with the WP propagating woke "correct think." The premisses are accepted without question, as is the change itself, as though no reasonable person would disagree. Apparently the only reason the WaPo thought it was newsworthy is that the families of unqualified kids were the victims... of DC government incompetence. Talk about burying the lede.

[Anonymous]

If you read between the lines, this proposed "policy change" is actually to maintain a version of the Walls admission status quo. If you are OK with Walls as it is right now, you should not have a problem with this "change" because it's essentially preserving the current access path *to sit for the Walls test* for kids from weak middle schools.

The actual policy change was requiring a 4 or 5 on PARCC to sit for the Walls test, which is being implemented for the first time this year. Based on the stats in the article, the PARCC score requirement has changed who is eligible to sit for the test, which may yield an even richer, whiter incoming freshman class - in a school that is already richer and whiter than most in the city.

I'm curious if DC's plan was/is to implement access to the Walls test for the top 15% of kids from each middle school for both DCPS and charter schools - hard to know since they didn't write anything down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read today’s Post article on Walls. This notion of admitting any student in the top 15 percent of failing middle schools - in the name of the gods of diversity and inclusion - is jist nuts. The problem for DCPS is that in some schools only 1 percent of students pass the national standardized exam. If you effectively create a quota of at risk students at Walls by waiving academic success criteria, then the result will be diversion of faculty and staff resources to bring underperforming students up to grade level, at the expense of the learning experience of the high performing students. Or the curriculum will be dumbed down. Why DCPS seems hell bent on destroying one of the few standout schools in the District is beyond me. I guess it’s philosophical — it somehow being better to provide ‘equitable and inclusive’ access to mediocrity instead of letting those who have worked hard to achieve reach their full potential.

Di Blasio is doing the same thing in NYC.

It's what identity politics is driving us into.

Every day, we get closer to Harrison Bergeron.

The WaPo article -- and headline -- we're typically tendentious, with the WP propagating woke "correct think." The premisses are accepted without question, as is the change itself, as though no reasonable person would disagree. Apparently the only reason the WaPo thought it was newsworthy is that the families of unqualified kids were the victims... of DC government incompetence. Talk about burying the lede.

+1.

This looks like a Marx Brothers movie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you read between the lines, this proposed "policy change" is actually to maintain a version of the Walls admission status quo. If you are OK with Walls as it is right now, you should not have a problem with this "change" because it's essentially preserving the current access path *to sit for the Walls test* for kids from weak middle schools.

The actual policy change was requiring a 4 or 5 on PARCC to sit for the Walls test, which is being implemented for the first time this year. Based on the stats in the article, the PARCC score requirement has changed who is eligible to sit for the test, which may yield an even richer, whiter incoming freshman class - in a school that is already richer and whiter than most in the city.

I'm curious if DC's plan was/is to implement access to the Walls test for the top 15% of kids from each middle school for both DCPS and charter schools - hard to know since they didn't write anything down.

Kids scoring < 4 on PARCC need remedial classes, not advanced ones. And high performing kids aren’t well served in classes where the teachers are focused on remedial lessons.

Maybe it doesn’t matter if our plan is to import our Stem talent from China and India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you read between the lines, this proposed "policy change" is actually to maintain a version of the Walls admission status quo. If you are OK with Walls as it is right now, you should not have a problem with this "change" because it's essentially preserving the current access path *to sit for the Walls test* for kids from weak middle schools.

The actual policy change was requiring a 4 or 5 on PARCC to sit for the Walls test, which is being implemented for the first time this year. Based on the stats in the article, the PARCC score requirement has changed who is eligible to sit for the test, which may yield an even richer, whiter incoming freshman class - in a school that is already richer and whiter than most in the city.

I'm curious if DC's plan was/is to implement access to the Walls test for the top 15% of kids from each middle school for both DCPS and charter schools - hard to know since they didn't write anything down.

I'm confused. My kids took the test five years ago and back then you needed proficient or advanced on the DCCAS to take the test. How is this new?

[Anonymous]

Because for the last few years, when PARCC was newer, it wasn’t required. All you needed was a 3.0 to take the exam.

[Anonymous]

And PARCC is a lot more rigorous than DC CAS.

In 2014, overall DC CAS showed 54% math proficiency and 50% reading proficiency for the city.

PARCC overall for the 17-18 year was 29% math proficiency and 33% ELA proficiency. In other words, using PARCC as the criteria establishes a much smaller pool of kids eligible for admission to the selective schools.

I'd be interested to see if DC's other selective high schools are maintaining the "4 or 5 on PARCC" admission requirement.