SWW - when do notices go out about interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have one kid who is thriving at Walls and my 8th grader didn’t get an interview. My younger is a wonderful, smart, kind and athletic kid. I guess i can take solace in the fact that they will likely thrive anywhere.

So no sort of sibling preference? If. Kid had a high gpa and a sibling at walls, I think that younger sibling should get some sort of bump. SWW is a citywide school and making it easy on families by allowing their kids to attend the same school should be factored into the calculations. No dog in this fight. Just my opinion. And I'm not suggesting younger siblings that don't have a high gpa should get special treatment. But sibling preference should be worth a point or something in the calculation.

The HS kids mostly get to/from school by themselves, so eliminates the logistics of drop off/pick up that sibling pref helps with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

How do you know how the two interviewers' rankings were weighted? My older kid is at SWW and we never knew whether the student interviewer graded them at all.

(Their younger sibling did not get an interview this year.)

[Anonymous]

^^^because I asked and this is what they told me. Each of the two interviewers (one teacher/staff, one student) completes the form independently, assigns a ranking, and the rankings are averaged. Or were. I can't speak for this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's more than obnoxious, it's racist. I know a lot of parents with expensive *name brand* fleeces and organic everything and ski trips and beach houses whose children look uncouth and rarely bathed. We are a family of "URMs" and "low income!" (1) I am offended by all of this "the poor children without proper shoes" talk and (2) my babies always look nice AND are bathed daily (I didn't know yall didn't bathe your babies daily until I met more white parents). Good luck to everyone tomorrow and next week!

This is pretty much it! It's pretty sad to watch.They are whinning b/c they view SWW as "their" school with some sort of birth right. How dare anyone ask me to do anything to inconvenience me.This is true for pretty much all the magnet programs esp in their beloved NYC, Boston, etc.

One thing about URM and low income-the community will come together to make damn sure the kids with opportunities have what they need. There is no complaining about basic dress req, interview time, recs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's more than obnoxious, it's racist. I know a lot of parents with expensive *name brand* fleeces and organic everything and ski trips and beach houses whose children look uncouth and rarely bathed. We are a family of "URMs" and "low income!" (1) I am offended by all of this "the poor children without proper shoes" talk and (2) my babies always look nice AND are bathed daily (I didn't know yall didn't bathe your babies daily until I met more white parents). Good luck to everyone tomorrow and next week!

This is pretty much it! It's pretty sad to watch.They are whinning b/c they view SWW as "their" school with some sort of birth right. How dare anyone ask me to do anything to inconvenience me.This is true for pretty much all the magnet programs esp in their beloved NYC, Boston, etc.

One thing about URM and low income-the community will come together to make damn sure the kids with opportunities have what they need. There is no complaining about basic dress req, interview time, recs, etc.

OK, except overwhelmingly at-risk students are just not applying. The money quote on this was:

“It could be that our families have gotten wind that certain schools are not for them, or not supportive of them,” said Carlene Reid, the Ward 8 representative on the D.C. State Board of Education. “I would not trust to put my child in a school that has systemically shut out students from Ward 8.”

Even before you get to the part about dress and interview time, they're selecting out of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-without-walls-admissions-test-diversity/2021/08/27/6959cec2-0293-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html

[Anonymous]

For the record, my kid hasn't needed formal clothes in past few years. We attended a warm season wedding, so that dress would not be appropriate (and she wore it with tennis shoes, as many girls do in her cohort). We don't go to religious services. She has a hard enough time shopping for clothes she needs, because of indecisiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record, my kid hasn't needed formal clothes in past few years. We attended a warm season wedding, so that dress would not be appropriate (and she wore it with tennis shoes, as many girls do in her cohort). We don't go to religious services. She has a hard enough time shopping for clothes she needs, because of indecisiveness.

Sure, but it isn't a last-minute surprise that there is an interview component to this process. There has been time to find an appropriate outfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's more than obnoxious, it's racist. I know a lot of parents with expensive *name brand* fleeces and organic everything and ski trips and beach houses whose children look uncouth and rarely bathed. We are a family of "URMs" and "low income!" (1) I am offended by all of this "the poor children without proper shoes" talk and (2) my babies always look nice AND are bathed daily (I didn't know yall didn't bathe your babies daily until I met more white parents). Good luck to everyone tomorrow and next week!

This is pretty much it! It's pretty sad to watch.They are whinning b/c they view SWW as "their" school with some sort of birth right. How dare anyone ask me to do anything to inconvenience me.This is true for pretty much all the magnet programs esp in their beloved NYC, Boston, etc.

One thing about URM and low income-the community will come together to make damn sure the kids with opportunities have what they need. There is no complaining about basic dress req, interview time, recs, etc.

OK, except overwhelmingly at-risk students are just not applying. The money quote on this was:

“It could be that our families have gotten wind that certain schools are not for them, or not supportive of them,” said Carlene Reid, the Ward 8 representative on the D.C. State Board of Education. “I would not trust to put my child in a school that has systemically shut out students from Ward 8.”

Even before you get to the part about dress and interview time, they're selecting out of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-without-walls-admissions-test-diversity/2021/08/27/6959cec2-0293-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html

More to do with distance than anything. There is no easy way to get there from Ward 8 and most of DC. My daughter has a few friends that commute from Ward 8 and it's a pain. Plus some are responsible for younger siblings getting to school.

SWW has its issues but I don't put a lot of weight in the comment. Principle, Asst. Principle, and lots of AA teachers are Black and are very approachable. There are simply people that are only comfortable being around their own. Can't change that...

[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:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's more than obnoxious, it's racist. I know a lot of parents with expensive *name brand* fleeces and organic everything and ski trips and beach houses whose children look uncouth and rarely bathed. We are a family of "URMs" and "low income!" (1) I am offended by all of this "the poor children without proper shoes" talk and (2) my babies always look nice AND are bathed daily (I didn't know yall didn't bathe your babies daily until I met more white parents). Good luck to everyone tomorrow and next week!

This is pretty much it! It's pretty sad to watch.They are whinning b/c they view SWW as "their" school with some sort of birth right. How dare anyone ask me to do anything to inconvenience me.This is true for pretty much all the magnet programs esp in their beloved NYC, Boston, etc.

One thing about URM and low income-the community will come together to make damn sure the kids with opportunities have what they need. There is no complaining about basic dress req, interview time, recs, etc.

OK, except overwhelmingly at-risk students are just not applying. The money quote on this was:

“It could be that our families have gotten wind that certain schools are not for them, or not supportive of them,” said Carlene Reid, the Ward 8 representative on the D.C. State Board of Education. “I would not trust to put my child in a school that has systemically shut out students from Ward 8.”

Even before you get to the part about dress and interview time, they're selecting out of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-without-walls-admissions-test-diversity/2021/08/27/6959cec2-0293-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html

More to do with distance than anything. There is no easy way to get there from Ward 8 and most of DC. My daughter has a few friends that commute from Ward 8 and it's a pain. Plus some are responsible for younger siblings getting to school.

SWW has its issues but I don't put a lot of weight in the comment. Principle, Asst. Principle, and lots of AA teachers are Black and are very approachable. There are simply people that are only comfortable being around their own. Can't change that...

It's clearly not just a commute issue. At-risk kids from every ward are less likely to apply. That's not a criticism of either them or the school. But the idea that small stuff doesn't matter or turn people off -- clearly, something is mattering!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

How do you know how the two interviewers' rankings were weighted? My older kid is at SWW and we never knew whether the student interviewer graded them at all.

(Their younger sibling did not get an interview this year.)

If this is true, it is truly outrageous. I can't believe they would let 14/15 year-olds rate other kids. There is no way that these kids aren't being influenced by who they think is cool/who they would want as their friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

How do you know how the two interviewers' rankings were weighted? My older kid is at SWW and we never knew whether the student interviewer graded them at all.

(Their younger sibling did not get an interview this year.)

If this is true, it is truly outrageous. I can't believe they would let 14/15 year-olds rate other kids. There is no way that these kids aren't being influenced by who they think is cool/who they would want as their friends.

+1000

And what measures do they take to ensure these students do not have some connection to the kids they are interviewing (siblings of friends/friends of siblings)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^because I asked and this is what they told me. Each of the two interviewers (one teacher/staff, one student) completes the form independently, assigns a ranking, and the rankings are averaged. Or were. I can't speak for this year.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one delusional enough to be hoping for a 'we made a mistake, your kid is invited for an interview' email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one delusional enough to be hoping for a 'we made a mistake, your kid is invited for an interview' email?

For the class of 2025 they actually did with my son. He had a 4.0 and no interview. I emailed and the staff said it was a mistake. My daughter also has a 4.0 (this year) and no interview but I assume it's not a mistake. Given the lack of transparency they've set up with this new system, I doubt they would even admit if it was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one delusional enough to be hoping for a 'we made a mistake, your kid is invited for an interview' email?

For the class of 2025 they actually did with my son. He had a 4.0 and no interview. I emailed and the staff said it was a mistake. My daughter also has a 4.0 (this year) and no interview but I assume it's not a mistake. Given the lack of transparency they've set up with this new system, I doubt they would even admit if it was a mistake.

Is your son there now?