Anonymous wrote:It's a pseudo-gifted magnet school, not a regular charter-kids should be accepted based on aptitude and achievement/drive. It is also a school where one needs to be self-motivated, organized and responsible academically. The best way to determine that is the entrance exam, PARCC scores, and grades and interviews. Basing it on lottery numbers will get you students whose parents want them there but are not up for it.

The kids who really wanted to go there, were totally up for it, and didn't get in in spite of aptitude, achievement, and drive, know better than anyone that the interview is not about sorting out kids who don't really want to be there.

Anonymous wrote:It's a pseudo-gifted magnet school, not a regular charter-kids should be accepted based on aptitude and achievement/drive. It is also a school where one needs to be self-motivated, organized and responsible academically. The best way to determine that is the entrance exam, PARCC scores, and grades and interviews. Basing it on lottery numbers will get you students whose parents want them there but are not up for it.

You aren't understanding my suggestion. Right now they take kids with a minimum GPA of 3.0 in 'core classes' + test scores to create an interview pool. And pick from there based on ??? No teacher recommendations, no PARCC scores.

I'm suggesting that they use objective, academic achievement criteria to create the qualified applicant pool and then choose from within that group by lottery. There's no way that their family interviews are separating kids with the desire and interest from the rest. It's done as a cover to keep racial and ethnic balances in place.

It's a pseudo-gifted magnet school, not a regular charter-kids should be accepted based on aptitude and achievement/drive. It is also a school where one needs to be self-motivated, organized and responsible academically. The best way to determine that is the entrance exam, PARCC scores, and grades and interviews. Basing it on lottery numbers will get you students whose parents want them there but are not up for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was back to the school after 5 years. Much different ethnic mix of interested families than 5 years ago. More than 50% white. Used to be 20% or less. The school selection process is murky. I am sure they do take into account racial/ethnic balance.

Agree. The numbers are just too perfect. No other real reason for a family interview.

Black 36%, white 38% .

All other things constant, based on what we saw today, a white student has lower chances of being accepted at SWW if the mix had to stay the same.

Based on what people know of highly qualified (actually near perfect) candidates who don't get in, this is not news.

Yes. I think people just assume that their bright kid is going to automatically get in. And maybe that was a good bet until recently. However it's truly a crap shoot since the pool of kids who pass the exam is larger than seats available.

If they don't want to make admissions based solely on the test results, with the highest scorers being accepted, I'd like to see them take all the kids who pass the entrance exam and admit in order based on their common lottery number. At least that gives everyone an equal shot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was back to the school after 5 years. Much different ethnic mix of interested families than 5 years ago. More than 50% white. Used to be 20% or less. The school selection process is murky. I am sure they do take into account racial/ethnic balance.

Agree. The numbers are just too perfect. No other real reason for a family interview.

Black 36%, white 38% .

All other things constant, based on what we saw today, a white student has lower chances of being accepted at SWW if the mix had to stay the same.

Based on what people know of highly qualified (actually near perfect) candidates who don't get in, this is not news.

Are you judging by the way the audience looked or what your were told?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was back to the school after 5 years. Much different ethnic mix of interested families than 5 years ago. More than 50% white. Used to be 20% or less. The school selection process is murky. I am sure they do take into account racial/ethnic balance.

Agree. The numbers are just too perfect. No other real reason for a family interview.

Black 36%, white 38% .

All other things constant, based on what we saw today, a white student has lower chances of being accepted at SWW if the mix had to stay the same.

Anonymous wrote:I was back to the school after 5 years. Much different ethnic mix of interested families than 5 years ago. More than 50% white. Used to be 20% or less. The school selection process is murky. I am sure they do take into account racial/ethnic balance.

Agree. The numbers are just too perfect. No other real reason for a family interview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Q&A one parent asked whether, at the time of admissions, they take gender and ethnicity of applicants into consideration (I had the same question in mind about ethnicity, but did not dare to ask). The Principal replied on the gender aspect only. Did anyone notice? Does it mean that they plan ethnic mix ahead, i.e. do social engineering ?

What did he say re gender?

he said that accepted students are on average 60% and that they are gender-neutral, i.e. do not look at gender while screening, and do not attempt to re-balance.

Are on average 60% girls.

I was back to the school after 5 years. Much different ethnic mix of interested families than 5 years ago. More than 50% white. Used to be 20% or less. The school selection process is murky. I am sure they do take into account racial/ethnic balance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Q&A one parent asked whether, at the time of admissions, they take gender and ethnicity of applicants into consideration (I had the same question in mind about ethnicity, but did not dare to ask). The Principal replied on the gender aspect only. Did anyone notice? Does it mean that they plan ethnic mix ahead, i.e. do social engineering ?

What did he say re gender?

he said that accepted students are on average 60% and that they are gender-neutral, i.e. do not look at gender while screening, and do not attempt to re-balance.

Anonymous wrote:In the Q&A one parent asked whether, at the time of admissions, they take gender and ethnicity of applicants into consideration (I had the same question in mind about ethnicity, but did not dare to ask). The Principal replied on the gender aspect only. Did anyone notice? Does it mean that they plan ethnic mix ahead, i.e. do social engineering ?

What did he say re gender?

In the Q&A one parent asked whether, at the time of admissions, they take gender and ethnicity of applicants into consideration (I had the same question in mind about ethnicity, but did not dare to ask). The Principal replied on the gender aspect only. Did anyone notice? Does it mean that they plan ethnic mix ahead, i.e. do social engineering ?

Anonymous wrote:To boot, they could buy a good audio system. 40 million in renovations and the only person I can hear is the principal.

Yes, the audio quality was awful. And the two screens were not synchronized. I thought the same when the Principal said they had spent 40 million in renovations.

To boot, they could buy a good audio system. 40 million in renovations and the only person I can hear is the principal.