Where is this no one knows the cut off coming from?

I understand we can ask the cut off and we can ask for our own children's score. When I asked the SWW employee answering admissions questions at the open house how it works he said that the cut off is set by whatever the score that the top 250 test takers score is the cut off and those students are interviewed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think people know the history of SWW and who it served.

It was started as a progressive school designed to promote experiential learning to all sorts of students — college bound and not. The school website still claims its curriculum is unique but it isn’t. It is just another AP-oriented, college prep school.

This is true. I'm happy for my child to apply but mainly because it's rigorous and has a good peer group for him; not because it has a unique curriculum. It's basically all AP as far as I can tell?

Yes it's pretty much APs, but fewer of them are offered than at Wilson.

If you run out of APs to take (e.g. have taken Cal BC as a junior) you can dual-enroll at a DC area college, assuming you can make it work in your schedule. That, however, is an opportunity available to students at every DCPS.

A select few students (competitively selected) are able to pursue the A.B. program at GWU ut for students who know they are headed to a 4-year university, especially one that won't accept college credits taken for credits toward a high school diploma, that isn't a great option.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think people know the history of SWW and who it served.

It was started as a progressive school designed to promote experiential learning to all sorts of students — college bound and not. The school website still claims its curriculum is unique but it isn’t. It is just another AP-oriented, college prep school.

This is true. I'm happy for my child to apply but mainly because it's rigorous and has a good peer group for him; not because it has a unique curriculum. It's basically all AP as far as I can tell?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think that there has never been a student at SWW that didn't score below a 4, or proficient on DC CAS, you are sorely mistaken. Before this year, they never required PARCC to apply to take the test.

The point is that PARCC, like every standardized test created, has a racial bias. What is the harm of letting 200 more students take Walls test? If they don't score well, they won't advance to the interview round.

The proposed policy was/is a farce. You allow students who didn’t score well on a standardized test (PARCC) to sit for another standardized test (the Walls exam) and expect them to have a different outcome. Dumb. The top 15 students is an interesting idea, but it would have little to no impact unless it also allowed the top 15 to bypass the Walls exam. Even if this legislation had passed I bet it would have little to no impact on the diversity at Walls. If Walls and the principal are serious about providing expanded access to the school, they should come up with a serious policy proposal.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that Walls actually calls in for interviews the top scorers on the test anyway. In other words, since they don’t make the test results or methodology public, there could be any number of ways that the process is manipulated (to meet goals other than moving only the top scorers forward) between test taking and interviews, and again between interviews and offers. When the whole process is so opaque, it’s almost silly to quibble over the equity/fairness of one step in the process.

Exactly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think that there has never been a student at SWW that didn't score below a 4, or proficient on DC CAS, you are sorely mistaken. Before this year, they never required PARCC to apply to take the test.

The point is that PARCC, like every standardized test created, has a racial bias. What is the harm of letting 200 more students take Walls test? If they don't score well, they won't advance to the interview round.

The proposed policy was/is a farce. You allow students who didn’t score well on a standardized test (PARCC) to sit for another standardized test (the Walls exam) and expect them to have a different outcome. Dumb. The top 15 students is an interesting idea, but it would have little to no impact unless it also allowed the top 15 to bypass the Walls exam. Even if this legislation had passed I bet it would have little to no impact on the diversity at Walls. If Walls and the principal are serious about providing expanded access to the school, they should come up with a serious policy proposal.

The Walls test is not a standardized test -- standardized tests are developed by (so-called) testing experts who conduct test exams, norm them across a broad population, and they are scored by disinterested parties.

PARCC, ACT, SAT are standarized tests. The home-grown, locally graded SWW test is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council is currently debating the Walls admissions process, including the draft 15% proposal.

source - Perry Stein (Wash Post) on twitter says Councilmembers seem to want to ensure there's a 2ay in the future to ensure students across all income levels have access to selective high schools.

https://twitter.com/PerryStein/status/1097904134873849858

They are following what NYC is doing it's the latest progressive thing to do

I actually think it is the way SWW has operated for years -- having flexibility to allow students with GPA but lower entrance exam scores in based on their interview results (can't confirm it, but suspect).

Adding a 4 or 5 PARCC score as a requirement makes that practice impossible.

I would imagine the Council isn't just reacting to the situation at SWW. Banneker, McKinley, SWW all now require a 7th-grade PARCC score of 4 or 5 for admission. That eliminates a lot of DC students from consideration.

Yup

For Black Males its just

20.7% with a 4+ ELA 17.7% Math

For At-Risk its just

21.1% and 15%

I'm not sure what you think those numbers show? The bolded is obviously incorrect. While that percentage may sound low, when you compare it to raw numbers, you will see that that is a lot of students compared to the enrollment space at SWW. In fact in raw numbers, you could fill the entire 9th grade selecting only from those 20% of at risk kids and still not all of them would get a spot. Thousands of kids qualified to take the test for 150 seats.

In 17-18 there were ~2400 DCPS 7th graders taking PARCC. DCPS stats show 77% of the total population is Econ. Disad. Rough analysis, if as you say ~20% of Econ. Disad. students scored high enough, that would be ~370 Econ. Disad. students in the pool for 150 total spots in the 9th grade class at SWW.

It seems to me that if the Council wants to reserve spots for at risk kids at Walls, they can do so and fill it entirely from kids already qualified to attend. They don't need to change the admission standard. Presently, 12% of the school is Econ. Disad.; they want to change that to 15%, so you folks are arguing over four 9th grade seats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think that there has never been a student at SWW that didn't score below a 4, or proficient on DC CAS, you are sorely mistaken. Before this year, they never required PARCC to apply to take the test.

The point is that PARCC, like every standardized test created, has a racial bias. What is the harm of letting 200 more students take Walls test? If they don't score well, they won't advance to the interview round.

The proposed policy was/is a farce. You allow students who didn’t score well on a standardized test (PARCC) to sit for another standardized test (the Walls exam) and expect them to have a different outcome. Dumb. The top 15 students is an interesting idea, but it would have little to no impact unless it also allowed the top 15 to bypass the Walls exam. Even if this legislation had passed I bet it would have little to no impact on the diversity at Walls. If Walls and the principal are serious about providing expanded access to the school, they should come up with a serious policy proposal.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that Walls actually calls in for interviews the top scorers on the test anyway. In other words, since they don’t make the test results or methodology public, there could be any number of ways that the process is manipulated (to meet goals other than moving only the top scorers forward) between test taking and interviews, and again between interviews and offers. When the whole process is so opaque, it’s almost silly to quibble over the equity/fairness of one step in the process.

Anonymous wrote:If you think that there has never been a student at SWW that didn't score below a 4, or proficient on DC CAS, you are sorely mistaken. Before this year, they never required PARCC to apply to take the test.

The point is that PARCC, like every standardized test created, has a racial bias. What is the harm of letting 200 more students take Walls test? If they don't score well, they won't advance to the interview round.

The proposed policy was/is a farce. You allow students who didn’t score well on a standardized test (PARCC) to sit for another standardized test (the Walls exam) and expect them to have a different outcome. Dumb. The top 15 students is an interesting idea, but it would have little to no impact unless it also allowed the top 15 to bypass the Walls exam. Even if this legislation had passed I bet it would have little to no impact on the diversity at Walls. If Walls and the principal are serious about providing expanded access to the school, they should come up with a serious policy proposal.

If you think that there has never been a student at SWW that didn't score below a 4, or proficient on DC CAS, you are sorely mistaken. Before this year, they never required PARCC to apply to take the test.

The point is that PARCC, like every standardized test created, has a racial bias. What is the harm of letting 200 more students take Walls test? If they don't score well, they won't advance to the interview round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council is currently debating the Walls admissions process, including the draft 15% proposal.

source - Perry Stein (Wash Post) on twitter says Councilmembers seem to want to ensure there's a 2ay in the future to ensure students across all income levels have access to selective high schools.

https://twitter.com/PerryStein/status/1097904134873849858

They are following what NYC is doing it's the latest progressive thing to do

I actually think it is the way SWW has operated for years -- having flexibility to allow students with GPA but lower entrance exam scores in based on their interview results (can't confirm it, but suspect).

Adding a 4 or 5 PARCC score as a requirement makes that practice impossible.

I would imagine the Council isn't just reacting to the situation at SWW. Banneker, McKinley, SWW all now require a 7th-grade PARCC score of 4 or 5 for admission. That eliminates a lot of DC students from consideration.

Yup

For Black Males its just

20.7% with a 4+ ELA 17.7% Math

For At-Risk its just

21.1% and 15%

So unfair. I think SWW should do a lottery. Wilson's honors classes also should use a lottery system. And Havard, of course. I think Harvard should just put all our children's names in a big bag and invite a celebrity to do the draw. It should be on YouTube so we would know for sure it was fair. I would pray a lot and then my DC would finally be a WINNER!

Kids don't control where they are born and what school system they are zoned for. By taking from each area you might incentive more folks "of means" to move to "less desirable" areas in order to game the system. This would actually improve inequality which should be the end goal for society. Having an entire underclass helps no one and actually costs more money as people become adults.

Did you at least visited SWW? I don’t think you did. A kid who doesn’t score at least 4 will not be able to succeed there. All classes are AP, workload is heavy. Any unqualified student will fail. And then you will blame the teachers.

I don’t think people know the history of SWW and who it served.

It was started as a progressive school designed to promote experiential learning to all sorts of students — college bound and not. The school website still claims its curriculum is unique but it isn’t. It is just another AP-oriented, college prep school.

Bill before Council to allow the 15% rule to go into effect this year, as promised to students last fall failed. Vote was 6-6. 200 students were affected. Trogdich was called out for the screw up.

Plan will go into effect for next year, meaning that if you didn’t get a 4 or 5 on PARCC but are in the top 15% of your class, you can sit for the SWW exam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-rejects-reprieve-for-students-ineligible-for-school-without-walls/2019/02/19/23821b4a-3453-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html

Anonymous wrote:What about doing a test in for a Wilson program with extra supports for promising kids that are less prepared?

The whole point of Walls and Banneker are to provide qualified kids with a stronger cohort and more challenging curriculum. If you lower the bar to enter you lower the quality of the eduction. Either find a way to get these smart kids that have been ill served by their middle schools with a selective middle school program that can prepare them for the test or give them supports in high school and an opportunity to join Walls in 10th or 11th grade if they can show they are qualified.

+++

What about doing a test in for a Wilson program with extra supports for promising kids that are less prepared?

The whole point of Walls and Banneker are to provide qualified kids with a stronger cohort and more challenging curriculum. If you lower the bar to enter you lower the quality of the eduction. Either find a way to get these smart kids that have been ill served by their middle schools with a selective middle school program that can prepare them for the test or give them supports in high school and an opportunity to join Walls in 10th or 11th grade if they can show they are qualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council is currently debating the Walls admissions process, including the draft 15% proposal.

source - Perry Stein (Wash Post) on twitter says Councilmembers seem to want to ensure there's a 2ay in the future to ensure students across all income levels have access to selective high schools.

https://twitter.com/PerryStein/status/1097904134873849858

They are following what NYC is doing it's the latest progressive thing to do

I actually think it is the way SWW has operated for years -- having flexibility to allow students with GPA but lower entrance exam scores in based on their interview results (can't confirm it, but suspect).

Adding a 4 or 5 PARCC score as a requirement makes that practice impossible.

I would imagine the Council isn't just reacting to the situation at SWW. Banneker, McKinley, SWW all now require a 7th-grade PARCC score of 4 or 5 for admission. That eliminates a lot of DC students from consideration.

Yup

For Black Males its just

20.7% with a 4+ ELA 17.7% Math

For At-Risk its just

21.1% and 15%

So unfair. I think SWW should do a lottery. Wilson's honors classes also should use a lottery system. And Havard, of course. I think Harvard should just put all our children's names in a big bag and invite a celebrity to do the draw. It should be on YouTube so we would know for sure it was fair. I would pray a lot and then my DC would finally be a WINNER!

Kids don't control where they are born and what school system they are zoned for. By taking from each area you might incentive more folks "of means" to move to "less desirable" areas in order to game the system. This would actually improve inequality which should be the end goal for society. Having an entire underclass helps no one and actually costs more money as people become adults.

It would not. It would just sink SWW. If I had to move to a bad neighborhood to get a kid in a downtown school, I would go to the suburbs because it would not make any sense.

You had the lotteries for better DCPS schools if yours sucked. You had charter schools. You could have applied to private and asked for financial aid. But no. You decided to just wait until HS. Now you want to put your child in that DCPS magnet school because you heard it is great. Guess what? It is great because the students who go there worked hard to get in.