Walls test today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test? It's just not possible. You could, however, take the highest PARCc score plus the highest SWW test scorers.

Right now they clearly take the 250 and have them interview and probably do NOT take just the top 140 scores.

They clearly try to balance by ward and MS, by gender, by race -- those numbers have been far too consistent over the years.

If I had to choose between basing it on test scores and basing it on a lottery of kids getting a minimum test score (top 250) I would say the test score is probably more accurate. From what I can tell, admissions to the competitive high schools in NY are based solely on test results. If you want to add diversity, set aside seats for diversity but among the “not diverse” you should base it on their scores.

I think adding the PARCC would not be a bad idea, but they would have to account for differences in test taken, 7th graders take, math 7, math8, algebra and geometry. Are all 5s weighted equally? Also, what about private school kids or transfer kids that did not take the PARCC?

By way of comparison, the selective enrollment high schools require the following for admission:

1) 7th-grade PARCC scores (soon to be the new IL statewide test as they are leaving the PARCC consortium) minimum score (for math you must be proficient/advanced for the level you are at with the minimum being Math 7. No plus up for being in Algebra/Geometry in 7th). Notably, so many 8th graders from privates want to apply to these schools that the privates administer the state exams to anyone who needs it/wants it.

2) GPAs over a certain level -- no adjustments based on what school you are coming from.

3) Take an admission test for the school you wish to apply to. The math/science high schools have different exams from the ones with other focuses.

4) To ensure equity and diversity, every neighborhood is given a score. If you are from a poorer neighborhood with fewer adult college graduates your application is slightly weighted. If you are from a wealthy area you don't get a weighting. The lines are redone every year (by a consortium of academic demographers, not the city or school system, so that rapidly gentrifying areas are not getting weighting they no longer qualify for. neighborhood at the time of application. The neighborhoods are small - the DC analogy would be the apartments on Connecticut Ave near Murch would be treated differently than the SFH on the east side of Connecticut even though both are IB for Murch.

Is that a description of how NY selective school applications work today? Are the qualifications just to sit for the test and then admissions is based on the test scores alone but weighted to account for the neighborhood as described? I would support a plan like that assuming that the weighting did not let kids in that were not prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test? It's just not possible. You could, however, take the highest PARCc score plus the highest SWW test scorers.

Right now they clearly take the 250 and have them interview and probably do NOT take just the top 140 scores.

They clearly try to balance by ward and MS, by gender, by race -- those numbers have been far too consistent over the years.

Of course there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test. I am sure that the best 140 did significantly better than the worse 110, and they should be rewarded for it instead of being judged by their skin color and ward and whatever "balancing" bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test? It's just not possible. You could, however, take the highest PARCc score plus the highest SWW test scorers.

Right now they clearly take the 250 and have them interview and probably do NOT take just the top 140 scores.

They clearly try to balance by ward and MS, by gender, by race -- those numbers have been far too consistent over the years.

Of course there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test. I am sure that the best 140 did significantly better than the worse 110, and they should be rewarded for it instead of being judged by their skin color and ward and whatever "balancing" bs.

Really? You think there's such a huge difference between the student who scored 140th and the student who scored 141st that no further information should be necessary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test? It's just not possible. You could, however, take the highest PARCc score plus the highest SWW test scorers.

Right now they clearly take the 250 and have them interview and probably do NOT take just the top 140 scores.

They clearly try to balance by ward and MS, by gender, by race -- those numbers have been far too consistent over the years.

If I had to choose between basing it on test scores and basing it on a lottery of kids getting a minimum test score (top 250) I would say the test score is probably more accurate. From what I can tell, admissions to the competitive high schools in NY are based solely on test results. If you want to add diversity, set aside seats for diversity but among the “not diverse” you should base it on their scores.

I think adding the PARCC would not be a bad idea, but they would have to account for differences in test taken, 7th graders take, math 7, math8, algebra and geometry. Are all 5s weighted equally? Also, what about private school kids or transfer kids that did not take the PARCC?

By way of comparison, the selective enrollment high schools require the following for admission:

1) 7th-grade PARCC scores (soon to be the new IL statewide test as they are leaving the PARCC consortium) minimum score (for math you must be proficient/advanced for the level you are at with the minimum being Math 7. No plus up for being in Algebra/Geometry in 7th). Notably, so many 8th graders from privates want to apply to these schools that the privates administer the state exams to anyone who needs it/wants it.

2) GPAs over a certain level -- no adjustments based on what school you are coming from.

3) Take an admission test for the school you wish to apply to. The math/science high schools have different exams from the ones with other focuses.

4) To ensure equity and diversity, every neighborhood is given a score. If you are from a poorer neighborhood with fewer adult college graduates your application is slightly weighted. If you are from a wealthy area you don't get a weighting. The lines are redone every year (by a consortium of academic demographers, not the city or school system, so that rapidly gentrifying areas are not getting weighting they no longer qualify for. neighborhood at the time of application. The neighborhoods are small - the DC analogy would be the apartments on Connecticut Ave near Murch would be treated differently than the SFH on the east side of Connecticut even though both are IB for Murch.

Is that a description of how NY selective school applications work today? Are the qualifications just to sit for the test and then admissions is based on the test scores alone but weighted to account for the neighborhood as described? I would support a plan like that assuming that the weighting did not let kids in that were not prepared.

For the elite NYC selective high schools (list below), admissions are based on your score on the NYC's SHSAT test combined with how you ranked the schools in your application (most students apply to more than one). No weighting the way Chicago does it, or interviews. There are some accommodations available for ELL and former ELL students. https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/learning/testing/specialized-high-school-admissions-test

Bronx High School of Science
Brooklyn Latin School
Brooklyn Technical High School
High School for Math, Science and Engineering at City College
High School for American Studies at Lehman College
Queens High School for Sciences at York College
Staten Island Technical High School
Stuyvesant High School

DeBlasio has proposed eliminating selective admissions at the city's middle schools, and if that can of worms is, in fact, opened no one is quite sure what will happen. There is also a new effort to overhaul NYCPS curriculum and among other things, ensure it is culturally relevant and diverse https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/01/24/chancellor-richard-carranza-vows-to-bring-new-coherence-to-curricula-in-new-york-city-schools/

[Anonymous]

Of course there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test. I am sure that the best 140 did significantly better than the worse 110, and they should be rewarded for it instead of being judged by their skin color and ward and whatever "balancing" bs.

You didn't mention the biggest "balancer" - gender. And they don't consider it until after they've eliminated 3/4 of the applicant pool based on test score.

Have had kids in private, at SWW and now in college. IME the SWW application process is the only one that clearly places the most weight on test score. Private schools and colleges balance by factors other than test score - gender, region, race, etc. SWW invites the top 250 scores to the interview round. No other admissions process works that way. Test scores are "one factor" in private school admissions and for college. Take a look at the private school admissions forum - posts about kids with SSAT scores below 80% getting admitted is not unusual. At SWW test score is the only factor in getting to the interview round. If an applicant gets to the interview round their chances of admission are incredibly high regardless of any balancing that may be done after the interview. It's an application high school and should rely on test score as heavily as it does. Arguing that other factors shouldn't be considered is naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test. I am sure that the best 140 did significantly better than the worse 110, and they should be rewarded for it instead of being judged by their skin color and ward and whatever "balancing" bs.

You didn't mention the biggest "balancer" - gender. And they don't consider it until after they've eliminated 3/4 of the applicant pool based on test score.

Have had kids in private, at SWW and now in college. IME the SWW application process is the only one that clearly places the most weight on test score. Private schools and colleges balance by factors other than test score - gender, region, race, etc. SWW invites the top 250 scores to the interview round. No other admissions process works that way. Test scores are "one factor" in private school admissions and for college. Take a look at the private school admissions forum - posts about kids with SSAT scores below 80% getting admitted is not unusual. At SWW test score is the only factor in getting to the interview round. If an applicant gets to the interview round their chances of admission are incredibly high regardless of any balancing that may be done after the interview. It's an application high school and should rely on test score as heavily as it does. Arguing that other factors shouldn't be considered is naive.

I agree. I am surprised at the posters who complain at how opaque the SWW process is and laud the private schools' so called "holistic" selection machinery.

[Anonymous]

SWW is not a private school. It is a public school and is by nature supposed to provide opportunity to all, and a level of transparency about how a student is able to access the limited resource of a seat at the school.

The problem with the SWW process is that it is opaque and leaves lots of room for subjectivity and concerns about equity, gender balance and racial balance.

I would far prefer the test be the only criteria and toss the interview altogether. I do not believe one word that the SWW admins say about how their post-test process works because they give slightly different answers every year, and it varies from person to person (principal vs. vice principal vs. admission director).

I have no doubt that there are students in the bottom half of the interview pool who are picked because of where they come from or their personality -- over students who are more academically qualified. Which is fine, but TELL PEOPLE that.

But if there is going to be an interview, they should publish the criteria that the interview My suggestion would be for them to publish something like this (NOTE - this is my sense of what happens. Would love for the admins to post what their criteria really i[i]s)

"All students who are in the top 250 scorers on the test are invited to interview. Both sections of the exam - multiple choice and essays -- and used to determine who the top scorers are, with the portions of the SWW weighted equally / writing is 75% / writing is 30% (or whatever it is).

"Students will be offered a seat based on a number of factors including an ability and interest to contribute to the SWW community. We also seek to ensure that our students reflect the diversity of our city in terms of geography, ethnicity, and race and economic background.

"All students who are not offered one of the 140 seats available for the class of 2023 will be placed on the waitlist. Initial waitlist is determined by XXX."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think there are distinctions in how 250 students performed on the test? It's just not possible. You could, however, take the highest PARCc score plus the highest SWW test scorers.

Right now they clearly take the 250 and have them interview and probably do NOT take just the top 140 scores.

They clearly try to balance by ward and MS, by gender, by race -- those numbers have been far too consistent over the years.

If I had to choose between basing it on test scores and basing it on a lottery of kids getting a minimum test score (top 250) I would say the test score is probably more accurate. From what I can tell, admissions to the competitive high schools in NY are based solely on test results. If you want to add diversity, set aside seats for diversity but among the “not diverse” you should base it on their scores.

I think adding the PARCC would not be a bad idea, but they would have to account for differences in test taken, 7th graders take, math 7, math8, algebra and geometry. Are all 5s weighted equally? Also, what about private school kids or transfer kids that did not take the PARCC?

By way of comparison, the selective enrollment high schools require the following for admission:

1) 7th-grade PARCC scores (soon to be the new IL statewide test as they are leaving the PARCC consortium) minimum score (for math you must be proficient/advanced for the level you are at with the minimum being Math 7. No plus up for being in Algebra/Geometry in 7th). Notably, so many 8th graders from privates want to apply to these schools that the privates administer the state exams to anyone who needs it/wants it.

2) GPAs over a certain level -- no adjustments based on what school you are coming from.

3) Take an admission test for the school you wish to apply to. The math/science high schools have different exams from the ones with other focuses.

4) To ensure equity and diversity, every neighborhood is given a score. If you are from a poorer neighborhood with fewer adult college graduates your application is slightly weighted. If you are from a wealthy area you don't get a weighting. The lines are redone every year (by a consortium of academic demographers, not the city or school system, so that rapidly gentrifying areas are not getting weighting they no longer qualify for. neighborhood at the time of application. The neighborhoods are small - the DC analogy would be the apartments on Connecticut Ave near Murch would be treated differently than the SFH on the east side of Connecticut even though both are IB for Murch.

Is that a description of how NY selective school applications work today? Are the qualifications just to sit for the test and then admissions is based on the test scores alone but weighted to account for the neighborhood as described? I would support a plan like that assuming that the weighting did not let kids in that were not prepared.

The NY system is terrible. Every kid has to go through a huge application process for high school. They are so stressed out about prospects and placement starting in 6th grade it is frankly disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWW is not a private school. It is a public school and is by nature supposed to provide opportunity to all, and a level of transparency about how a student is able to access the limited resource of a seat at the school.

The problem with the SWW process is that it is opaque and leaves lots of room for subjectivity and concerns about equity, gender balance and racial balance.

I would far prefer the test be the only criteria and toss the interview altogether. I do not believe one word that the SWW admins say about how their post-test process works because they give slightly different answers every year, and it varies from person to person (principal vs. vice principal vs. admission director).

I have no doubt that there are students in the bottom half of the interview pool who are picked because of where they come from or their personality -- over students who are more academically qualified. Which is fine, but TELL PEOPLE that.

But if there is going to be an interview, they should publish the criteria that the interview My suggestion would be for them to publish something like this (NOTE - this is my sense of what happens. Would love for the admins to post what their criteria really i[i]s)

"All students who are in the top 250 scorers on the test are invited to interview. Both sections of the exam - multiple choice and essays -- and used to determine who the top scorers are, with the portions of the SWW weighted equally / writing is 75% / writing is 30% (or whatever it is).

"Students will be offered a seat based on a number of factors including an ability and interest to contribute to the SWW community. We also seek to ensure that our students reflect the diversity of our city in terms of geography, ethnicity, and race and economic background.

"All students who are not offered one of the 140 seats available for the class of 2023 will be placed on the waitlist. Initial waitlist is determined by XXX."

Everyone who sits the test is academically qualified based on grades and one standardized test. Everyone who makes the top 250 is also academically qualified based on a second standardized test. You may believe that your child is "more qualified" than kids who got in, but they all passed the same tests.

[Anonymous]

I'm 12:51 and was responding to 8:51, who asserted that the top 140 scorers on the SWW were absolutely more qualified than the bottom 110 based on their exams. I disagree.

I think that all 250 are qualified, or they wouldn't advance. And I hope at that point that everyone interviewed starts from a clean slate and has an equal shot, regardless of whether one kid scored a 96 and another scored 91.

But we don't really know because we don't know what criteria they are using post-test beyond a brief interview.

I do know that before the list goes final for every application high school, the central office reviews it. Is it adjusted in any way at that point, or do the Walls admins have the final say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got an email from see today notifying that my child didn't meet the test requirements and is out. Ok.
The big puzzle is that he is almost all a student in a private Catholic school and took 3 he tests recently with the following results: ssat 97% average, isee 94-98, Catholic hs test 99%. He said sww test was very easy. Someone else on this forum said their test is a joke.wtf?? Can anyone explain this?

I don't have a dog in this fight (my child is in 6th grade) but this is fascinating to me. My kid was at a JKLM for elementary and has received 5's on every PARCC she/he has taken (97%+ scores for the JKLM, 99%+ for the city each year----3rd, 4th, 5th). Now goes to Deal and has had 2 quarters of basically 100% in all classes putting him/her at the very top of Deal students; currently in math 7 and one of 20 kids just invited to take math 8 this summer in order to take Algebra in 7th (they invited a very, very small cohort mid-year and based on funding will possible invite more after spring semester).
My kid took the ISEE in 5th and 6th grade and with a TON of studying each time scored around 90% in math--because he/she had never seen a good 50% of the material presented that way before. Many of his/her friends also took the ISEE (or SSAT) these years and many scored in the 20's, 30's, 40's and these are bright kids. It's a hard test especially regarding math because most of the material has never been presented to the kids before. It's not that they can't master it--it's just that they've never seen it before.

That all said, it's fascinating that a kid who rocked the ISEE wouldn't do well on the Walls test. Maybe the two tests are testing different things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got an email from see today notifying that my child didn't meet the test requirements and is out. Ok.
The big puzzle is that he is almost all a student in a private Catholic school and took 3 he tests recently with the following results: ssat 97% average, isee 94-98, Catholic hs test 99%. He said sww test was very easy. Someone else on this forum said their test is a joke.wtf?? Can anyone explain this?

I don't have a dog in this fight (my child is in 6th grade) but this is fascinating to me. My kid was at a JKLM for elementary and has received 5's on every PARCC she/he has taken (97%+ scores for the JKLM, 99%+ for the city each year----3rd, 4th, 5th). Now goes to Deal and has had 2 quarters of basically 100% in all classes putting him/her at the very top of Deal students; currently in math 7 and one of 20 kids just invited to take math 8 this summer in order to take Algebra in 7th (they invited a very, very small cohort mid-year and based on funding will possible invite more after spring semester).
My kid took the ISEE in 5th and 6th grade and with a TON of studying each time scored around 90% in math--because he/she had never seen a good 50% of the material presented that way before. Many of his/her friends also took the ISEE (or SSAT) these years and many scored in the 20's, 30's, 40's and these are bright kids. It's a hard test especially regarding math because most of the material has never been presented to the kids before. It's not that they can't master it--it's just that they've never seen it before.

That all said, it's fascinating that a kid who rocked the ISEE wouldn't do well on the Walls test. Maybe the two tests are testing different things?

Lots of kids who "rocked" the ISEE and SSAT got into Walls too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got an email from see today notifying that my child didn't meet the test requirements and is out. Ok.
The big puzzle is that he is almost all a student in a private Catholic school and took 3 he tests recently with the following results: ssat 97% average, isee 94-98, Catholic hs test 99%. He said sww test was very easy. Someone else on this forum said their test is a joke.wtf?? Can anyone explain this?

I don't have a dog in this fight (my child is in 6th grade) but this is fascinating to me. My kid was at a JKLM for elementary and has received 5's on every PARCC she/he has taken (97%+ scores for the JKLM, 99%+ for the city each year----3rd, 4th, 5th). Now goes to Deal and has had 2 quarters of basically 100% in all classes putting him/her at the very top of Deal students; currently in math 7 and one of 20 kids just invited to take math 8 this summer in order to take Algebra in 7th (they invited a very, very small cohort mid-year and based on funding will possible invite more after spring semester).
My kid took the ISEE in 5th and 6th grade and with a TON of studying each time scored around 90% in math--because he/she had never seen a good 50% of the material presented that way before. Many of his/her friends also took the ISEE (or SSAT) these years and many scored in the 20's, 30's, 40's and these are bright kids. It's a hard test especially regarding math because most of the material has never been presented to the kids before. It's not that they can't master it--it's just that they've never seen it before.

That all said, it's fascinating that a kid who rocked the ISEE wouldn't do well on the Walls test. Maybe the two tests are testing different things?

My DC who went through a JKLM is now an 8th grader at Deal. DC got an average 87% score on the SSAT, studying at home with a book and Khan Academy. No tutoring. DC flunked the HSPT although said it was very easy! DC has found the Walls test hardest of all. DC has been invited to the Walls interview, so we will see. I absolutely think the tests are different.

[Anonymous]

The thing that is aggravating to many I think is the vagueness of how to prepare. You cannot do test prep for the walls test (although you can review your algebra if you are in geometry and, if you are not in geometry, learn some geometry for the test). There is no guidance how how to prepare for the interview and it is judged in part by students.

The people posting here likely prepared for every high stakes test they ever took. It is hard for us type As to let go. It is hard for us to accept “get a good night’s sleep” and “just be yourself” as all we can have our kids do to prepare. That combined with not understanding how the objective measures (the test) are combined with the subjective measures (interview and writing sample), makes us nuts. And we cannot shut up about it.

I am going to go meditate now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that is aggravating to many I think is the vagueness of how to prepare. You cannot do test prep for the walls test (although you can review your algebra if you are in geometry and, if you are not in geometry, learn some geometry for the test). There is no guidance how how to prepare for the interview and it is judged in part by students.

The people posting here likely prepared for every high stakes test they ever took. It is hard for us type As to let go. It is hard for us to accept “get a good night’s sleep” and “just be yourself” as all we can have our kids do to prepare. That combined with not understanding how the objective measures (the test) are combined with the subjective measures (interview and writing sample), makes us nuts. And we cannot shut up about it.

I am going to go meditate now.

It's kinda surprising to me to read the posts by parents whose kids rocked other tests and didn't pass the Walls test. Our kid has some learning disabilities, and while he gets good grades he struggles with some standardized tests and does well on others (and sometimes performs vastly differently on the same test at different sittings). We called Walls to ask about test results after he was invited to interview, and they told us he scored in the top 2% of kids who took the test. We were kinda shocked. I wonder what it's testing that's so different.