Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like near unanimous support here for the entrance exam to return. Let's reach out to the media and start the conversation.

By "unanimous" do you mean the 4-5 repeat posters? On DCUM? LOL Of course, you can "go to the media" with whatever you want, but I find it HILARIOUS that you are basing your idea of "unanimous support" from a DCUM echo chamber. Be sure to tell the media all about your convo on DCUM.

What reasonable person is opposed to an entrance exam?

There are plenty of reasonable people who do not favor an entrance exam. There are reasonable arguments for and against. Just because those arguments against are not your arguments does not make them unreasonable.

No reasonable person would support the current Walls admissions process.

Imagine if a selective college counted GPA for 10%, 2 teacher letter recs as 30%, and a 5-minute interview and 1 paragraph essay as 60%.

Completely absurd.

+1. Sure, they have a floor of 3.7 but that is meaningless in DC with massive grade inflation.

Worse, colleges look the rigor of transcripts and re-weight to ensure that an A in PE doesn't count the same as an A in accelerated math. Walls doesn't do that either.

Totally ridiculous admissions sytem.

Would love to know if where you live plays a role and if minority status get priority.

On this last one - I bet you could play this out quietly internally to DCPS/OSSE/DME and guess how it'd go.

My guess is that if you took the top 10% of EACH middle school and did a lottery you'd get a more diverse pool by a lot.

(And I'd want it to be that private school kids get in after this, i.e., they get the scraps. But I can't tell whether that's doable.)

If able to get individualized data (never publicly disclosed) you could take a backward looking pool, e.g., 2017 matriculants who were top 10% of GPA from each middle school, then see their school completions, GPAs, and PARCC and other test scores. I think that the top 10% of the worst DCPS middle schools in performance terms are probably quite malleable into top performers with good support. Hopefully historical data backs that up.

I expect that proximity and transportation would limit attendance, and other factors would probably continue to lead to white, high-income, etc., overrepresentation, but it could probably generate a high performing school.

Having talked all this out...you almost imagine that DCPS could do this as a new selective school. First, you do a summer session with the top 10% of 7th and 8th graders invited. I've heard of some states that have a highperforming student 'camp' experience like this. Not sure what grades, where. I bet some of you all know what I'm talking about. Then if that experience shows that this 'DCPS academic summer camp' resembles a possible school cohort, launch it. Build it somewhere actually accessible. (MacArthur is an accessibility crime.) Like at Phelps or something.

But don't build on SWW or Banneker or Brown or Bard or whatever like this. Have it be its own thing.

Now, I don't think DCPS wouldn't do it unless we had some real demographic pressure. My sense is that that pressure is declining.

But it's an idea. Rather than a rigor/curriculum-based school-building process like BASIS, a cohort-first process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.

Not my first choice, but better than what they're doing now.

yep. Another poster. I'd be happy with a GPA cut-off and lottery. Make it 3.7 or whatever they want.
It would save a zillion manpower hours and be far more fair.

I honestly wonder why they haven't done it.

Or even--take the top 20% of kids from every middle school and lottery them. They'd get a very diverse cohort this way too.
If during this process there is a GPA tie at a middle school then lottery them within the school before the city wide lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.

Agreed. And then high-performing kids who don't get in won't feel they have been rejected or somehow failed; instead they'd realize it was just a case of bad luck.

Selective school processes do not exist to make kids feel good. Even with an entrance exam, there are kids who feel bad if they do not get in. Further, there are plenty of kids who understand that they do not have the same opportunities and privileges as other kids, opportunities and privileges that inevitably lead to higher academic achievement, thereby leading to higher acceptance rates in selective schools. And maybe they feel bad about that. Maybe we can work on those systems? I am all for making processes fair for ALL kids, but any time something might impact high SES kids in any way that does not reinforce their entitlement, schools are supposed to bend over backwards to make sure they feel good about the process? And yes, there are some low SES, non-white, high achieving kids, like my kid, who might also feel bad if they get rejected. But my kid also does not feel a sense of entitlement. She knows she is worthy, but she does not think anything is owed to her. Her sense of self is not wrapped up a high school acceptance, and she knows she will do just great somewhere else. Maybe work on your kid's self-esteem not being tied to being accepted to SWW instead of trying to tailor the process to them.

I'm the one who said I'd be fine with GPA plus a lottery (and I say this as a parent whose high achieving 4.0 DC was waitlisted at Walls with a high number a couple of years ago after the test was removed based on a 3 minute, 1 question interview)...while I feel pretty certain they would have gotten in with the old system using test scores, I'd be fine with GPA plus lottery. Not because my DC would have had a better shot (on the contrary, likely a worse shot than with test scores) or because of making anyone "feel good". I'd be fine with it because it removes bias. The problem with the current system is that it reeks of bias and subjectivity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like near unanimous support here for the entrance exam to return. Let's reach out to the media and start the conversation.

By "unanimous" do you mean the 4-5 repeat posters? On DCUM? LOL Of course, you can "go to the media" with whatever you want, but I find it HILARIOUS that you are basing your idea of "unanimous support" from a DCUM echo chamber. Be sure to tell the media all about your convo on DCUM.

What reasonable person is opposed to an entrance exam?

There are plenty of reasonable people who do not favor an entrance exam. There are reasonable arguments for and against. Just because those arguments against are not your arguments does not make them unreasonable.

No reasonable person would support the current Walls admissions process.

Imagine if a selective college counted GPA for 10%, 2 teacher letter recs as 30%, and a 5-minute interview and 1 paragraph essay as 60%.

Completely absurd.

I understand your math here, but it is disingenuous to suggest that GPA is 10% when SWW won't even let in kids below a high GPA threshold. Once in, maybe they then account for GPA differently, but at that point, they are splitting hairs between As and A-s. So no, GPA is not 10% when you look at the whole process. If that were the case, they would be interviewing kids with Bs, Cs, or even Ds. And good luck even if you're a B+ student. It is perfectly normal to count GPA as a lower percentage once you are looking at kids who are all between 3.7 and 4.0.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like near unanimous support here for the entrance exam to return. Let's reach out to the media and start the conversation.

By "unanimous" do you mean the 4-5 repeat posters? On DCUM? LOL Of course, you can "go to the media" with whatever you want, but I find it HILARIOUS that you are basing your idea of "unanimous support" from a DCUM echo chamber. Be sure to tell the media all about your convo on DCUM.

What reasonable person is opposed to an entrance exam?

There are plenty of reasonable people who do not favor an entrance exam. There are reasonable arguments for and against. Just because those arguments against are not your arguments does not make them unreasonable.

No reasonable person would support the current Walls admissions process.

Imagine if a selective college counted GPA for 10%, 2 teacher letter recs as 30%, and a 5-minute interview and 1 paragraph essay as 60%.

Completely absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.

Agreed. And then high-performing kids who don't get in won't feel they have been rejected or somehow failed; instead they'd realize it was just a case of bad luck.

Selective school processes do not exist to make kids feel good. Even with an entrance exam, there are kids who feel bad if they do not get in. Further, there are plenty of kids who understand that they do not have the same opportunities and privileges as other kids, opportunities and privileges that inevitably lead to higher academic achievement, thereby leading to higher acceptance rates in selective schools. And maybe they feel bad about that. Maybe we can work on those systems? I am all for making processes fair for ALL kids, but any time something might impact high SES kids in any way that does not reinforce their entitlement, schools are supposed to bend over backwards to make sure they feel good about the process? And yes, there are some low SES, non-white, high achieving kids, like my kid, who might also feel bad if they get rejected. But my kid also does not feel a sense of entitlement. She knows she is worthy, but she does not think anything is owed to her. Her sense of self is not wrapped up a high school acceptance, and she knows she will do just great somewhere else. Maybe work on your kid's self-esteem not being tied to being accepted to SWW instead of trying to tailor the process to them.

Anonymous wrote:So, I'll be the ableist voice here. And I'm willing to hear your points of view. Mostly I just haven't heard them. But I am somewhat skeptical of parents, mostly upper class and high achieving, advocating for the entitlement of their children to be the same.

So, to ask the question:

Why, in a world where those who are bold, articulate, and engaged become our leaders, transform the economy, innovate, etc., do we not reward them?

And I get that we shouldn't institutionalize or shun those who are intelligent but unable to share economically-valued abilities with the rest of the world, but why does a selective high school have to pick a student who doesn't show an ability to participate meaningfully, engage with their teachers and peers, complete work or tests, etc.?

Basically, I can see why we set a floor for your child with autism but I can't see why we have to also seat them on the heights, in a tiered and selective education system.

I expect that I have crossed some lines here, but really it's because I haven't heard these arguments and would like to.

You have completely missed the point. An ASD kid might be academically very bright and talented but might not “interview well”, especially with an undertrained HS student.

Returning to a more objective measure of academic ability would likely help these kinds of kids.

Tracking here this thread has jumped from:

1. Did you get an interview yes/no?
2. When/Why did the weigh recommendations letter so heavily. Who graded these letter and how?
3. Should they reinstate the entrance exam?
4. They should use PARCC scores or other standardized tests.
5. Students should not be a part of the interview process.
6. What is the most fair and equitable process?

GPA, interview, essay would be my preference for admission. And stop advertising a 3.0 as a minimum when a 3.7 historically has been the minimum for an interview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like near unanimous support here for the entrance exam to return. Let's reach out to the media and start the conversation.

By "unanimous" do you mean the 4-5 repeat posters? On DCUM? LOL Of course, you can "go to the media" with whatever you want, but I find it HILARIOUS that you are basing your idea of "unanimous support" from a DCUM echo chamber. Be sure to tell the media all about your convo on DCUM.

What reasonable person is opposed to an entrance exam?

There are plenty of reasonable people who do not favor an entrance exam. There are reasonable arguments for and against. Just because those arguments against are not your arguments does not make them unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:So, I'll be the ableist voice here. And I'm willing to hear your points of view. Mostly I just haven't heard them. But I am somewhat skeptical of parents, mostly upper class and high achieving, advocating for the entitlement of their children to be the same.

So, to ask the question:

Why, in a world where those who are bold, articulate, and engaged become our leaders, transform the economy, innovate, etc., do we not reward them?

And I get that we shouldn't institutionalize or shun those who are intelligent but unable to share economically-valued abilities with the rest of the world, but why does a selective high school have to pick a student who doesn't show an ability to participate meaningfully, engage with their teachers and peers, complete work or tests, etc.?

Basically, I can see why we set a floor for your child with autism but I can't see why we have to also seat them on the heights, in a tiered and selective education system.

I expect that I have crossed some lines here, but really it's because I haven't heard these arguments and would like to.

DCPS is not overflowing with options for kids who are academically high-performing. If you're the kid who, say, did Algebra II in 8th grade, there are very limited academic options for you in this city. It's not like there's Walls, but there's also a selective program for kids who are great in math and science but can't make eye contact to save their lives. So the question is, does DCPS think they have an obligate to provide those kids with appropriate educations? Do you? Or do you think that appropriate-level classes for smart kids should be reserved for smart kids who are also, at 13 or 14, "bold, articulate, and engaged become our leaders"? For context, DC is an outlier here in terms of how they do admissions to selective high schools.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.

Agreed. And then high-performing kids who don't get in won't feel they have been rejected or somehow failed; instead they'd realize it was just a case of bad luck.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.

Not my first choice, but better than what they're doing now.

I'm fine with not having a standardized test...just use GPA and a lottery. At least that's fair.