2300...we're in the same boat. My child is currently in an independent private that is fairly rigorous; has gotten mostly A's, but some B's the last 2 years; took the SSAT, ISEE and HSPT and did extremely well on the SSAT/HSPT and pretty good on the ISEE; was one of the first finished with the SWW test and said it was a breeze....then today i get an email stating we're out of the running -_- I'm absolutely baffled....

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?

It means 250 kids did better than your kid, but call and ask for the score.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney on one point: If "every standardized test created, has a racial bias", how is it that on average Asian Americans -- even 1st generation -- outperform American born whites on the SAT? And hispanics outperform AAs? Tests created in the US are biased against whites?

For one thing, living in a country with decades of systemic racism creates different outcomes for AA compared to groups which arrived more recently and do not have the same history.

http://www.nea.org/home/73288.htm
https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

What amount of BS.

You think a Vietnamese or Honduran guy who doesn't have papers or speak English has it easier than AAs?

Drop the bs, please, as that helps no one.

Please read the studies. Annecdotes are not data.

FYI - our DC just received an interview invite so they are coming out.

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.

Baloney on one point: If "every standardized test created, has a racial bias", how is it that on average Asian Americans -- even 1st generation -- outperform American born whites on the SAT? And hispanics outperform AAs? Tests created in the US are biased against whites?

For one thing, living in a country with decades of systemic racism creates different outcomes for AA compared to groups which arrived more recently and do not have the same history.

http://www.nea.org/home/73288.htm
https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

What amount of BS.

You think a Vietnamese or Honduran guy who doesn't have papers or speak English has it easier than AAs?

Drop the bs, please, as that helps no one.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

PP - When my son took the test 5 years ago - it was an old assessment from another state. it was standardized - I asked. They may have changed their process since then, but I would not assume that the test is “home grown.”

Well this year they threw out a math question mid test - told kids not to bother answering because it was unanswerable. Doesn’t sound like a standardized test to me.

I have zero issues with giving kids that want to try the opportunity to take the test, even if they do not score a 4 or 5 on the PARCC (and my understanding is that walls used to have a minimum DCAS score but waited until the PARCC test was more of a known, so not entirely a new concept).

That said, I do have concerns with lowering the standard for success on the test for some students and I am very wary of the ”interview” aspect as it seems an opportunity to game the system away from pure merit for whatever the administration’s policy goals are.

I have to say the not knowing and all this speculation about questionable practices is making me nuts.

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.

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.

PP - When my son took the test 5 years ago - it was an old assessment from another state. it was standardized - I asked. They may have changed their process since then, but I would not assume that the test is “home grown.”

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.

Baloney on one point: If "every standardized test created, has a racial bias", how is it that on average Asian Americans -- even 1st generation -- outperform American born whites on the SAT? And hispanics outperform AAs? Tests created in the US are biased against whites?

For one thing, living in a country with decades of systemic racism creates different outcomes for AA compared to groups which arrived more recently and do not have the same history.

http://www.nea.org/home/73288.htm
https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

Yawn these tests are closely correlated to SES levels plus asians and UMC+ whites generally test prep more which is why you get the results you do

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWW should send every test taker a letter/email with their score as well as the high/low/median and where the cutoff score fell in any given year.

It is also unclear -- I've heard two different things when I asked 2 different admins -- whether the writing portion is graded for all. Some SWW admins have said that only after the cut score is determined is the essay reviewed.

Their process is clear as mud.

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.

Baloney on one point: If "every standardized test created, has a racial bias", how is it that on average Asian Americans -- even 1st generation -- outperform American born whites on the SAT? And hispanics outperform AAs? Tests created in the US are biased against whites?

For one thing, living in a country with decades of systemic racism creates different outcomes for AA compared to groups which arrived more recently and do not have the same history.

http://www.nea.org/home/73288.htm
https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

Anonymous wrote: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.

Mostly from people saying they don't know their kids' score or the cut off. In most situations when you take a test, they send you your score. Here, if you want to know the score, you call to ask, which is weird and most people who get the interview don't bother asking because at that point, who cares.

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.

+1000 - if the point was really diversity, this was not the means to that end.

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.

Baloney on one point: If "every standardized test created, has a racial bias", how is it that on average Asian Americans -- even 1st generation -- outperform American born whites on the SAT? And hispanics outperform AAs? Tests created in the US are biased against whites?