The Cutthroat World of Elite Public Schools

[summer]

www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/12/the-cutthroat-world-of-elite-public-schools/383382/

In September 2012, the NAACP’s legal arm joined forces with two other advocacy groups to file a federal civil rights complaint against New York City’s public school system. The issue at hand was—and still is—the city’s nine elite public high schools. Like most public high schools in the city, these schools can choose who attends. But the elite schools are their own animal: Whereas other schools look at a range of criteria to determine students’ eligibility, eight of these nine elite institutions admit applicants based exclusively on how the students score on a rigorous, two-and-a-half-hour-long standardized test.



The test-only admissions policy is touted by supporters as a tactic that promotes fairness and offers the best way to identify the city’s most gifted students. But the complaint, which is still pending, tells a different story—one of modern-day segregation, in which poor kids of color are getting left behind.



"As a result of the [New York City Department of Education’s] exclusive, unjustified, and singular reliance on the [exam], many fully qualified, high-potential students are denied access to the life-changing experiences that the Specialized High Schools offer," the complaint says. "In a community as diverse as New York City, it is particularly critical that these pathways to leadership be ‘visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.’ ... Yet, year after year, thousands of academically talented African-American and Latino students who take the test are denied admission to the Specialized High Schools at rates far higher than those for other racial groups."



But New York City is just one of many cities across the country where this sort of cherry-picking happens. Public schools in cities across the country—schools intended to break down the walls typical of expensive, elite private institutions by opening up access to stimulating, quality education for kids of all means—are closed in their admissions. In other words, kids aren’t just automatically enrolled because they live in the neighborhood—they have to apply to get in. As a result, their student populations are often far less diverse than they should be. And, sometimes, kids who would otherwise be eligible for these schools never get to enjoy them.



New York City epitomizes the shortcomings of such schools, largely because of its unusual test-only policy. Still, although testing is a key force behind those shortcomings, it is one of several culprits when it comes to the flaws of selective enrollment in public education. Selective-admissions policies can easily shortchange disadvantaged kids when they include as criteria such as middle-school attendance records or grade-point averages and fail to consider non-classroom factors, too. Even simply requiring student candidates (and their parents) to be proactive, to take the time to fill out what are often laborious applications risks discriminating against the less fortunate.


National data on selective-admissions schools is limited—so limited that it prompted Chester Finn Jr., president emeritus of the right-leaning Fordham Institute, to conduct his own survey in 2012. The country, he discovered, is home to some 165 of these institutions—"exam schools," as he calls them—or 1 percent of all public high schools. These schools, some of which are centuries old, are concentrated in 31 states, including nearly three dozen total in New York City, Chicago, and Boston alone. All but three of these 31 states are located in the eastern half of the country, the outliers being California, Nevada, and Arizona. (Meanwhile, nearly half of all states have specific laws that set priorities for districts to follow when accepting students for open enrollment, according to the Education Commission of the States.)



Selective-admissions programs are in part symptomatic of a broader, three-decade-old reform movement that has aimed to overcome the "mediocre educational performance" of the country’s students as highlighted in the landmark report "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform." They’re also an example of "school choice," the tenet that parents should have options when it comes to their kids’ education, even when it’s free. And according to Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action, cities often have multiple incentives for retaining or establishing selective-admissions high schools.



"The idea was that, if you wanted to provide an excellent, gifted, and talented education for public school students, one could do a better job of that if in large cities there were specialized schools that would bring academically talented students together," said Kahlenberg, who opposes test-only admissions policies such as those in New York City. Secondly, selective-enrollment schools "are very sought after by upper-middle class people who might not consider using public schools if it weren’t for the selective-enrollment institutions. Essentially, it’s a way of ensuring greater participation from wealthier families who might otherwise move to the suburbs."



But "the trick," he said, "is you don’t want the selective-enrollment schools to become enclaves of privilege that are separate and unequal from the rest of the system."



Selective-enrollment high schools have long been caught at the center of legal debates over the fairness of their admissions policies. Early efforts to ensure desegregation at these schools resulted in racial quotas in Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, but those policies were eventually all lifted, in large part because of lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.


Now, many of these selective-enrollment institutions face a new set of dilemmas as they come under fire for admitting far smaller percentages of minority students than other public schools. And, as Betheny Gross, a senior research analyst at the Center for Reinventing Public Education, noted, getting into selective-enrollment schools typically requires having proactive parents who know how to navigate the system—a resource many children lack.



"There are kids whose parents aren’t as mobilized or might not be as informed," said Gross, who commended selective schools that automatically screen all students in their district for eligibility, not just the ones who went out of their way to take an admissions test. "There’s an entry layer that has nothing to do with the kid’s school level."



The clashes over selective-admissions policies reflect the challenges districts face in reconciling two goals that are often diametrically opposed: academic achievement and equity. How can a school be color blind while simultaneously promoting educational access and diversity? Or, as Kahlenberg phrased it, "How do you recognize excellence on the one hand and promote genuine equal opportunity on the other?" But perhaps more importantly, the dilemma begs another question: Can a fair selective-admissions system for public schools even exist?



* * *



The ongoing tug-of-wars over selective-admissions and racial diversity—including the battle currently being waged in New York City—are a reminder that urban school districts are nowhere near coming up with a model that works well and raises all students. The fact remains that many of these schools look and operate like elite schools exclusive to elite families.


Take Boston Latin Academy, which is arguably Massachusetts’ most prestigious public school and said to be the oldest in the country. At Boston Latin, whites make up 48 percent of the student population, while blacks and Latinos collectively amount to just 20 percent. The rest identify as Asian or multiracial. Compare that with Boston’s public school population as a whole, in which three-fourths of students are black or Latino, while just 14 percent are white. And unlike New York City’s elite schools, Boston’s three selective institutions look at GPA on top of test scores. Until the late ’90s, the schools also factored in race, enrolling half of its students based on a combination of their academics and ethnic background, but a lawsuit eventually forced the schools to drop race-based admissions completely.



The numbers are even more staggering in New York City. The city is home to the largest school district in the country, serving more than 1 million kids, including roughly 300,000 high school students. Unlike some other school districts, in New York City geography rarely decides where a student enrolls. Instead, students have to apply to attend one of the city’s 400 or so public high schools, many of which are specialized or geared around specific academic objectives: vocational training programs, for example, or schools designed for newly arrived immigrants who speak English as a second language.



Every fall, the city’s eighth graders must submit their applications, listing as many as 12 of their preferred high schools. The Department of Education then matches students with one of their chosen schools based on a range of factors that vary depending largely on schools’ admissions policies and available seats. Some of these schools have relatively demanding admissions standards, requiring applicants to submit portfolios and transcripts or audition, while others simply randomly select their students or give preference to applicants who attend open houses.



But on top of these 12 choices, students can also apply to one of the elite public high schools, which are so selective that the odds of getting in are in the single digits—as low as 3 percent. All but one of these nine "specialized high schools" rely exclusively on exam scores to determine students’ eligibility—a custom that’s garnered criticism amid growing skepticism of over-testing in schools and the widespread belief that the focus on assessments effectively bars access for poor kids and different kinds of learners. (The ninth school—LaGuardia High School of Music and Art and Performing Arts—offers admission based on auditions or portfolio assessments.)



These are schools renowned for their academic prowess and widely seen as conduits to the country’s top colleges. But, as the NAACP complaint demonstrates, they’re also notorious for their lack of racial diversity, enrolling disproportionate numbers of white and, in particular, Asian students, who made up 60 percent of the student bodies at these schools last year despite constituting just 15 percent of the city’s total enrollment. The specialized schools—including the Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Brooklyn Technical High School—all serve very small populations of black and Latino students. Blacks and Latinos made up just 7 percent and 5 percent of the student bodies at these elite schools last year, respectively, even though the two groups together account for 70 percent of the public school population citywide.



Of course, race isn’t the only factor that comes into play when assessing a school’s diversity. Joyce Szuflita, a private consultant for families trying to navigate the education system in the city, pointed out that many of New York City’s specialized high schools are more socioeconomically diverse than critics make them out to be. At Stuyvesant High, for example, 37 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals (compared to about three-quarters of kids citywide). And sometimes, Szuflita said, the test-only policy can enhance opportunity for certain disadvantaged children who excel at multiple-choice exams or come from families that place an emphasis on test prep over, for example, expensive extracurriculars.


"It’s not just a simple picture—there’s no one profile in this city," she said. "Those [test-only] schools are serving some first-generation strivers and working-class strivers that some of these other schools are not taking … A lot of the [other types of selective] schools are snagging wealthy, high-performing kids, whatever their race, whereas at those testing schools, many of those struggling parents are working two jobs to be able to afford the test prep."



Still, it’s hard to deny arguments that the test-only admissions policy can serve as a form of de facto discrimination. The multiple-choice exam is so rigorous some students devote entire summers to studying for it, often with the help of private tutors or intensive prep courses that cost thousands of dollars. For many of the brightest students, admission to one of these elite, ostensibly free schools unfortunately comes with too big a price tag. And according to Kahlenberg and Gross, much of the prejudice traces back to the lack of equal educational opportunity in kids’ earlier years, which effectively debunks the notion that a test is the fairest way to assess a student’s eligibility for enrollment. School districts "need to just do a better job preparing kids so that they do all have a better chance and more equal chance at getting admitted," Gross said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged to reevaluate the decades-old admissions policies at these elite schools and de-emphasize the testing component. But state legislation introduced this year that would’ve allowed the city to overhaul the schools’ admissions policies—and move away from the test-only approach—gained little traction and ultimately fell flat.



Again, New York City’s specialized high schools are rare because they admit students based solely on their test scores. Meanwhile, most of the country’s selective-admissions public schools look at a range of criteria, such as attendance records, grades, and written portfolios. Some schools, like those in Boston, look at two components. And some districts have stipulations in place that, similar to affirmative action at colleges, at least attempt to retain some semblance of racial and socioeconomic diversity at even the most elite schools.



That’s the case with Chicago’s 10 selective-enrollment schools, which admit students based on both their merit and socioeconomic backgrounds. The city, which is home to the third-largest school district in the country, a few years ago came up with an admissions algorithm that’s designed to reward the academically gifted while ensuring kids from all walks of life are afforded access to the top schools. In 2009, a legal battle brought Chicago’s racial desegregation consent decree to an end, and the new admissions policy was engineered to ensure selective schools remained diverse in a city where, like New York, blacks and Latinos make up the vast majority of the population. (Together, the two groups account for 85 percent of Chicago’s public school student population, while just 9 percent of its pupils identify as white.)



Every student is rated on a 900-point scale based on his or her grades and performance on both the state assessment and admissions test, the latter of which students must be invited to take based on their academic performance in middle school. But students are also categorized into one of four tiers depending on a number of social and economic factors, including their household income, knowledge of English, and family structure.



When it comes to admission to one of the selective schools, most students only compete with their peers in the same tier. A student who lives in a single-parent household and relies on welfare, for example, would in theory rarely contend with a middle-class student for the same seat. Just 30 percent of the seats at each selective school goes to the highest-scoring students, regardless of their tier; the rest, for the most part, are divided among the highest-performing students in each tier. That means the bar is typically set higher for kids in the upper tiers (the fourth tier corresponds with the highest median income) than for those in the lower ones.



Kahlenberg, who worked with officials in Chicago to come up with the current admissions methodology, said he thinks the city’s approach is "the right balance" and offers a creative example of how to proactively promote racial diversity at selective schools without explicitly using race as a factor. "Given the overlap between race and class in American society in cities like Chicago, giving a leg up to economically disadvantaged students will translate into [racial diversity]," he said.



But even schools like those in Chicago that base admission on a range of criteria or proactively admit poorer students can raise questions about the fairness of selective-enrollment in public education. A recent Chicago Sun-Times analysis of the Windy City’s 10 selective schools found that the percentage of white students enrolled in the top four of these institutions has grown over the years since the new admissions policy was put in place in 2010, even making up nearly half of the freshmen enrolled at one of them: Northside College Prep. For comparison’s sake, the 1980 consent decree, which was discontinued following a federal court ruling, stipulated that whites couldn’t account for more than 35 percent of any school’s student population.

The recent phenomenon could in part be explained by caveats in the city’s admissions policy. Kids are placed in tiers based on the census blocks they live in—not on their individual socioeconomic profiles. The Chicago Sun-Times investigation found that low-income students occasionally get placed in the same tier as the city’s wealthiest. For example, Tier 4 includes students who live in the affluent Gold Coast neighborhood—where the median income is nearly $305,000—but it also encompasses those who live near the Halsted area on the South Side, where the median income is about $42,000, according to the paper’s analysis. Moreover, the tier-based admissions policy isn’t a hard-and-fast rule; school administrators have some discretion over which students to enroll and can choose to admit someone who doesn’t meet the testing criteria.



And in Chicago, not all selective schools look the same. The four highest-ranking schools are essentially "white schools," receiving and enrolling disproportionate numbers of Caucasian applicants, while another four almost exclusively serve minority students. Chicago Alderman Latasha Thomas, who chairs the city council’s Education Committee, recently said the discontinuation of the desegregation decree has resulted in the re-segregation of the city’s schools, according to a Sun-Times report.

Diversity aside, selective-enrollment high schools also raise questions about what the admissions process can do to an adolescent’s psyche, particularly when it places an inordinate emphasis on testing. Forget Halloween, weekend sleepovers with friends, playing outdoors. For many eighth graders in New York City, the fall is synonymous with tutors and exams, while the spring brings intense competition—and often volatile emotions—over placement in coveted spots at the city’s best high schools.



“If you can make it through the high school application process, college is a breeze.”



And that’s just the kids: Parents feel the crunch, too, sacrificing their work days to take their children on high school tours and sometimes dipping into their savings to pay for test prep. Of course, the stress that some families undergo would be a luxury for many others—parents who might be so new to the city, or so unfamiliar with the English language, or so overburdened by life’s other problems that they either don’t know how to navigate the morass of tests and applications or simply don’t have the resources to try.

"It’s gallows humor for New York City families," Szuflita said. "If you can make it through the high school application process, college is a breeze."



Indeed, New York City’s district-wide system of selective-admissions high schools—test-only and otherwise—causes headaches for parents and students across the city. "It’s not a perfect system by a long shot," Szuflita said. "If you ask any parent that was going through it right now, they would say it’s absolutely the worst system they ever saw." Some parents have to take off work and tour as many as 20 schools. (That, ironically, is particularly difficult for the ones who work as teachers and are themselves in the classrooms being toured by fellow parents.)



As for the students, "you’re given a cornucopia of beautiful and horrible choices and then held up, feeling like you’re being assessed and placed and feeling like your life is not your own," Szuflita said. "It feels very uncertain, and it feels like there are great triumphs and disasters." In 2012, according to Szuflita, about half of the more than 77,000 eighth graders who applied to public schools got their first choices, while three-fourths of them got one of their top-three picks. But 10 percent of the students didn’t get a match. That’s nearly 8,000 students.



"With the variety," Szuflita said, "comes tremendous anxiety."



"It’s lovely to have the variety; some of these schools are really unique and spectacular choices," Szuflita continued. "But if you don’t get that placement you feel stricken."

[Cicero]

I don't understand why the article implies that state law has to change to change the admissions process. There is a magnet school in Buffalo that looks at teacher recommendations and GPA in addition to the test for admissions. I very much doubt Albany is forcing testing only admissions on NYCPS.

[ttt]

OK I haven't read the article yet, but the whole idea of public schools that you can't just go to because you live in the district is so bizarre and foreign to me.

Off to read now.

[orangeblossom]

Dec 5, 2014 8:24:24 GMT -5 ttt said:

OK I haven't read the article yet, but the whole idea of public schools that you can't just go to because you live in the district is so bizarre and foreign to me.

Off to read now.

I'm just the opposite, in that when I hear of kids only going to their assigned school and having to do an opt-out/choice type of thing, I'm always surprised.

[ttt]

So what happens if a kid doesn't apply to schools in middle school? Do they just not go to high school? This whole thing confuses me so much. Where I grew up and pretty much the only system I've really known, you go to the school your address is districted for, unless your parents send you to private school. The end.

[frlcb]

Dec 5, 2014 8:33:05 GMT -5 ttt said:

So what happens if a kid doesn't apply to schools in middle school? Do they just not go to high school? This whole thing confuses me so much. Where I grew up and pretty much the only system I've really known, you go to the school your address is districted for, unless your parents send you to private school. The end.

Agreed, obviously, since I think we both grew up here? But I feel like I hear more now about people trying to get into schools they aren't districted for.

[penguingrrl]

I definitely think test-only admission is very flawed. I'm an excellent student and relatively bright but suck at taking tests. Plus the test prep industry has such a stranglehold on NY public schools that people wil pay insane money to get into te "right" public school, which again hurts those who can't. Hell, if a kid has the flu the day of the test s/he can say goodbye to their dream HS, which is Bs. I definitely think there should be a more intensive admission process to identify those who belong in the highest performing schools unless liking in bubbles right is the goal of education.

[orangeblossom]

Dec 5, 2014 8:33:05 GMT -5 ttt said:

So what happens if a kid doesn't apply to schools in middle school? Do they just not go to high school? This whole thing confuses me so much. Where I grew up and pretty much the only system I've really known, you go to the school your address is districted for, unless your parents send you to private school. The end.

I haven't read the whole article yet, but where I'm from, you get a list of the high schools and send you send in your wish list from 1 - 9 I believe. From there they evaluate rest scores and grades. You're sent what school you go to before the end of he school year.

If you didn't apply/rank any of the magnet schools, you would go to your assigned school.

[ttt]

Dec 5, 2014 8:37:11 GMT -5 frlcb said:

Dec 5, 2014 8:33:05 GMT -5 ttt said:

So what happens if a kid doesn't apply to schools in middle school? Do they just not go to high school? This whole thing confuses me so much. Where I grew up and pretty much the only system I've really known, you go to the school your address is districted for, unless your parents send you to private school. The end.

Agreed, obviously, since I think we both grew up here? But I feel like I hear more now about people trying to get into schools they aren't districted for.

When my SS was in high school, he had several friends who were um...maybe not technically living in that district, exactly. But they had been districted for some really crappy city schools, and I don't blame their parents one bit for doing what they could to get their kids to better, safer schools. So I definitely see the downsides of the "you go to your districted school" method. But after reading this article, I am not at all convinced that the other way is any better. 

It certainly seems like the real solution here is to make the other schools better, so that there aren't only a handful of awesome schools everyone is clawing over each other to get into. Easier said than done, I know. 

[ttt]

Dec 5, 2014 8:42:18 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

Dec 5, 2014 8:33:05 GMT -5 ttt said:

So what happens if a kid doesn't apply to schools in middle school? Do they just not go to high school? This whole thing confuses me so much. Where I grew up and pretty much the only system I've really known, you go to the school your address is districted for, unless your parents send you to private school. The end.

I haven't read the whole article yet, but where I'm from, you get a list of the high schools and send you send in your wish list from 1 - 9 I believe. From there they evaluate rest scores and grades. You're sent what school you go to before the end of he school year.

If you didn't apply/rank any of the magnet schools, you would go to your assigned school.

Oh ok I see. Thanks. 

[orangeblossom]

Random fun fact about magnet schools. My sister's are much older than me, but we always lived at the same addres growing up. I never went to the same schools as them, and we all went to different high schools by choice. Zoning hadn't changed.

[wawa]

I will admit that I don't intuitively get why straight up testing is so unfair. Is it just a matter of people being able to pay more for test prep?

Because on the face of it everybody taking the same test and then people with certain scores get in seems fair to me. I mean, unfair to people who naturally aren't as good at taking tests, and limits the TYPES of learners you get in your student body - but I don't see how that has a disparate racial impact.

Is it basically just a matter of the test itself being an extra barrier? why don't they just give the test in school to everybody along with every other ridiculous test? Somebody help me out?

I suspect I'm wrong. I just don't entirely know WHY.

[orangeblossom]

Dec 5, 2014 8:53:40 GMT -5 wawa said:

I will admit that I don't intuitively get why straight up testing is so unfair. Is it just a matter of people being able to pay more for test prep?

Because on the face of it everybody taking the same test and then people with certain scores get in seems fair to me. I mean, unfair to people who naturally aren't as good at taking tests, and limits the TYPES of learners you get in your student body - but I don't see how that has a disparate racial impact.

Is it basically just a matter of the test itself being an extra barrier? why don't they just give the test in school to everybody along with every other ridiculous test? Somebody help me out?

I suspect I'm wrong. I just don't entirely know WHY.

It has a racial component, because it doesn't take into account all of the preparation lack thereof prior to taking the test.  If you're going to a poor performing school and/or are worrying about where you next meal is coming from, if you'll make it home in one piece, a parent(s) that can't take the time or afford to help you prep, etc  The things that already lead to racial disparities, is just exacerbated here.  Not to mention the some people aren't good test takers.

This paragraph from the article explains it a little better.

Still, it’s hard to deny arguments that the test-only admissions policy can serve as a form of de facto discrimination. The multiple-choice exam is so rigorous some students devote entire summers to studying for it, often with the help of private tutors or intensive prep courses that cost thousands of dollars. For many of the brightest students, admission to one of these elite, ostensibly free schools unfortunately comes with too big a price tag. And according to Kahlenberg and Gross, much of the prejudice traces back to the lack of equal educational opportunity in kids’ earlier years, which effectively debunks the notion that a test is the fairest way to assess a student’s eligibility for enrollment. School districts "need to just do a better job preparing kids so that they do all have a better chance and more equal chance at getting admitted," Gross said.

[hocus2]

Dec 5, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I don't understand why the article implies that state law has to change to change the admissions process. There is a magnet school in Buffalo that looks at teacher recommendations and GPA in addition to the test for admissions. I very much doubt Albany is forcing testing only admissions on NYCPS.

  State law mandates the original specialized HS are test only. I believe that is for 4 of the 9 schools mentioned but there isn't a ground swell of support for changing the system to be honesty and the asian community might counter sue if the standards were changed arguing that a double stand would be set (e.g that they would have to score higher on the test to get a spot than other applicants similar to what they are arguing for Harvard admissions). NYC tried a lot of different things to increase diversity and it is a hard thing to address. The city has offered free or reduced cost torturing sessions. I believe there was a period were certain minorities could be admitted if they were just below the cut off but I think that practice was abandoned. 

Overall though it isn't clear that the holistic approach would actually benefit black and Hispanics. It may decrease the asian % in the schools (which is ~60%-70% in the schools expect the performing arts school) but they maybe replaced by middle class white kids and not other minorities.

[wawa]

Dec 5, 2014 9:10:34 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

Dec 5, 2014 8:53:40 GMT -5 wawa said:

I will admit that I don't intuitively get why straight up testing is so unfair. Is it just a matter of people being able to pay more for test prep?

Because on the face of it everybody taking the same test and then people with certain scores get in seems fair to me. I mean, unfair to people who naturally aren't as good at taking tests, and limits the TYPES of learners you get in your student body - but I don't see how that has a disparate racial impact.

Is it basically just a matter of the test itself being an extra barrier? why don't they just give the test in school to everybody along with every other ridiculous test? Somebody help me out?

I suspect I'm wrong. I just don't entirely know WHY.

It has a racial component, because it doesn't take into account all of the preparation lack thereof prior to taking the test.  If you're going to a poor performing school and/or are worrying about where you next meal is coming from, if you'll make it home in one piece, a parent(s) that can't take the time or afford to help you prep, etc  The things that already lead to racial disparities, is just exacerbated here.  Not to mention the some people aren't good test takers.

This paragraph from the article explains it a little better.

Still, it’s hard to deny arguments that the test-only admissions policy can serve as a form of de facto discrimination. The multiple-choice exam is so rigorous some students devote entire summers to studying for it, often with the help of private tutors or intensive prep courses that cost thousands of dollars. For many of the brightest students, admission to one of these elite, ostensibly free schools unfortunately comes with too big a price tag. And according to Kahlenberg and Gross, much of the prejudice traces back to the lack of equal educational opportunity in kids’ earlier years, which effectively debunks the notion that a test is the fairest way to assess a student’s eligibility for enrollment. School districts "need to just do a better job preparing kids so that they do all have a better chance and more equal chance at getting admitted," Gross said.

But the people who aren't good test takers - there's no reason that would have a disparate impact, right?   

So it really does just boil down to some people have the time, money and opportunity to prep that others don't. And obviously there is a disparate racial/s-e impact there.  

I honestly don't see that this is something that needs to be fixed by changing the admissions though.  A test on the face of it, for a school where the entire mission is to bring together a certain type of academic high acheiver (ie. the type with the ability to do well on a test like this given equal prep), seems like a very reasonable admissions tool. I mean, it's a shame that tactile learners who do better being tested orally can't hack it  - but if you can't pass the test in the first place how are you going to do in your classes? I imagine this is not a place with a crap ton of differentiated learning since it's all "smart kids"?   Maybe I'm way off base.

I mean, obviously the *real* fix is to somehow magically fix the elemenary and middle schools so that everybody has as equal an early education as possible.  And then wave a magic wand and make pearson and every other test company dissapear off the face of the earth.  And give the test during school so that *everybody* takes it, and to whatever extent possible write the test in such a way to make it more resistant to prep.   (I'm not sure what i mean by that exactly - but I know there are tests out there that you can study and prep and drasstically improve your performance, and others that you kinda can't.)  But that's some idealized stuff. 

Maybe the best we can do is to make the admissions proccess more equitable even if it's fixing a symptom instead of the disease.

[wawa]

Dec 5, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 hocus2 said:

Dec 5, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I don't understand why the article implies that state law has to change to change the admissions process. There is a magnet school in Buffalo that looks at teacher recommendations and GPA in addition to the test for admissions. I very much doubt Albany is forcing testing only admissions on NYCPS.

  State law mandates the original specialized HS are test only. I believe that is for 4 of the 9 schools mentioned but there isn't a ground swell of support for changing the system to be honesty and the asian community might counter sue if the standards were changed arguing that a double stand would be set (e.g that they would have to score higher on the test to get a spot than other applicants similar to what they are arguing for Harvard admissions). NYC tried a lot of different things to increase diversity and it is a hard thing to address. The city has offered free or reduced cost torturing sessions. I believe there was a period were certain minorities could be admitted if they were just below the cut off but I think that practice was abandoned. 

Overall though it isn't clear that the holistic approach would actually benefit black and Hispanics. It may decrease the asian % in the schools (which is ~60%-70% in the schools expect the performing arts school) but they maybe replaced by middle class white kids and not other minorities.

that is a hilarious typo.

[Cicero]

Dec 5, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 hocus2 said:

Dec 5, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I don't understand why the article implies that state law has to change to change the admissions process. There is a magnet school in Buffalo that looks at teacher recommendations and GPA in addition to the test for admissions. I very much doubt Albany is forcing testing only admissions on NYCPS.

  State law mandates the original specialized HS are test only. I believe that is for 4 of the 9 schools mentioned but there isn't a ground swell of support for changing the system to be honesty and the asian community might counter sue if the standards were changed arguing that a double stand would be set (e.g that they would have to score higher on the test to get a spot than other applicants similar to what they are arguing for Harvard admissions). NYC tried a lot of different things to increase diversity and it is a hard thing to address. The city has offered free or reduced cost torturing sessions. I believe there was a period were certain minorities could be admitted if they were just below the cut off but I think that practice was abandoned. 

Overall though it isn't clear that the holistic approach would actually benefit black and Hispanics. It may decrease the asian % in the schools (which is ~60%-70% in the schools expect the performing arts school) but they maybe replaced by middle class white kids and not other minorities.

Gotcha.  That makes a lot more sense since having one set of standards for NYC and another for Buffalo at the state level just seemed odd to me.

[orangeblossom]

Dec 5, 2014 9:28:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

Dec 5, 2014 9:10:34 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

It has a racial component, because it doesn't take into account all of the preparation lack thereof prior to taking the test.  If you're going to a poor performing school and/or are worrying about where you next meal is coming from, if you'll make it home in one piece, a parent(s) that can't take the time or afford to help you prep, etc  The things that already lead to racial disparities, is just exacerbated here.  Not to mention the some people aren't good test takers.

This paragraph from the article explains it a little better.

Still, it’s hard to deny arguments that the test-only admissions policy can serve as a form of de facto discrimination. The multiple-choice exam is so rigorous some students devote entire summers to studying for it, often with the help of private tutors or intensive prep courses that cost thousands of dollars. For many of the brightest students, admission to one of these elite, ostensibly free schools unfortunately comes with too big a price tag. And according to Kahlenberg and Gross, much of the prejudice traces back to the lack of equal educational opportunity in kids’ earlier years, which effectively debunks the notion that a test is the fairest way to assess a student’s eligibility for enrollment. School districts "need to just do a better job preparing kids so that they do all have a better chance and more equal chance at getting admitted," Gross said.

But the people who aren't good test takers - there's no reason that would have a disparate impact, right?   

So it really does just boil down to some people have the time, money and opportunity to prep that others don't. And obviously there is a disparate racial/s-e impact there.  

I honestly don't see that this is something that needs to be fixed by changing the admissions though.  A test on the face of it, for a school where the entire mission is to bring together a certain type of academic high acheiver (ie. the type with the ability to do well on a test like this given equal prep), seems like a very reasonable admissions tool. I mean, it's a shame that tactile learners who do better being tested orally can't hack it  - but if you can't pass the test in the first place how are you going to do in your classes? I imagine this is not a place with a crap ton of differentiated learning since it's all "smart kids"?   Maybe I'm way off base.

I mean, obviously the *real* fix is to somehow magically fix the elemenary and middle schools so that everybody has as equal an early education as possible.  And then wave a magic wand and make pearson and every other test company dissapear off the face of the earth.  And give the test during school so that *everybody* takes it, and to whatever extent possible write the test in such a way to make it more resistant to prep.   (I'm not sure what i mean by that exactly - but I know there are tests out there that you can study and prep and drasstically improve your performance, and others that you kinda can't.)  But that's some idealized stuff. 

Maybe the best we can do is to make the admissions proccess more equitable even if it's fixing a symptom instead of the disease.

Yeah, the not  being a good tester doesn't have as much racial component to it, but minorities have not always done well on tests. Now is it based on lack of social ills or something else, is a different story.

But as you said, to get to the root of the problem, you have to work on this prior to middle schools, by having better schools across the board.  Sadly, in the end, even without testing, money talks, and those with money, will always flock to the best school districts, and shut poor people out, whether it's on purpose or not.

I mean look at the length that CA school went to, to prove that this poor brown girl, was in fact allowed to go to this elite school

[mominatrix]

Dec 5, 2014 9:47:03 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

Dec 5, 2014 9:28:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

But the people who aren't good test takers - there's no reason that would have a disparate impact, right?   

So it really does just boil down to some people have the time, money and opportunity to prep that others don't. And obviously there is a disparate racial/s-e impact there.  

I honestly don't see that this is something that needs to be fixed by changing the admissions though.  A test on the face of it, for a school where the entire mission is to bring together a certain type of academic high acheiver (ie. the type with the ability to do well on a test like this given equal prep), seems like a very reasonable admissions tool. I mean, it's a shame that tactile learners who do better being tested orally can't hack it  - but if you can't pass the test in the first place how are you going to do in your classes? I imagine this is not a place with a crap ton of differentiated learning since it's all "smart kids"?   Maybe I'm way off base.

I mean, obviously the *real* fix is to somehow magically fix the elemenary and middle schools so that everybody has as equal an early education as possible.  And then wave a magic wand and make pearson and every other test company dissapear off the face of the earth.  And give the test during school so that *everybody* takes it, and to whatever extent possible write the test in such a way to make it more resistant to prep.   (I'm not sure what i mean by that exactly - but I know there are tests out there that you can study and prep and drasstically improve your performance, and others that you kinda can't.)  But that's some idealized stuff. 

Maybe the best we can do is to make the admissions proccess more equitable even if it's fixing a symptom instead of the disease.

Yeah, the not  being a good tester doesn't have as much racial component to it, but minorities have not always done well on tests. Now is it based on lack of social ills or something else, is a different story.

But as you said, to get to the root of the problem, you have to work on this prior to middle schools, by having better schools across the board.  Sadly, in the end, even without testing, money talks, and those with money, will always flock to the best school districts, and shut poor people out, whether it's on purpose or not.

I mean look at the length that CA school went to, to prove that this poor brown girl, was in fact allowed to go to this elite school

a lot of times the questions, themselves, on standardized tests have kind of a "insider" racial component to them. Good test makers test their questions on diverse groups to make sure that they aren't missing stuff like that, but... not everybody is a good test maker, KWIM.



NYT Editorial: www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23hirsch.html?_r=0

A 1988 study indicated why this improvement in testing should be instituted. Experimenters separated seventh- and eighth-grade students into two groups — strong and weak readers as measured by standard reading tests. The students in each group were subdivided according to their baseball knowledge. Then they were all given a reading test with passages about baseball. Low-level readers with high baseball knowledge significantly outperformed strong readers with little background knowledge.

The experiment confirmed what language researchers have long maintained: the key to comprehension is familiarity with the relevant subject. For a student with a basic ability to decode print, a reading-comprehension test is not chiefly a test of formal techniques but a test of background knowledge.

Our current reading tests are especially unfair to disadvantaged students. The test passages may be random, but they aren’t knowledge-neutral. A child who knows about hiking in the Appalachians will have a better chance of getting the passage right; a child who doesn’t, won’t. Yet where outside of school is a disadvantaged student to pick up the implicit knowledge that is being probed on the reading tests?

eta wawa

[ijack]

Dec 5, 2014 8:53:40 GMT -5 wawa said:

I will admit that I don't intuitively get why straight up testing is so unfair. Is it just a matter of people being able to pay more for test prep?

Because on the face of it everybody taking the same test and then people with certain scores get in seems fair to me. I mean, unfair to people who naturally aren't as good at taking tests, and limits the TYPES of learners you get in your student body - but I don't see how that has a disparate racial impact.

Is it basically just a matter of the test itself being an extra barrier? why don't they just give the test in school to everybody along with every other ridiculous test? Somebody help me out?

I suspect I'm wrong. I just don't entirely know WHY.

It's the test prep. Wealthy families can pay for years and years of extra tutoring and help that could benefit kids on the exact test they're taking. Families that don't have the money wouldn't be able to pay for any prep, so they have a disadvantage from the start.
Also the process of needing to apply to so many schools and do the research, etc also is much easier for kids/families that come from stable backgrounds and aren't worried about where they're sleeping that night or if they're getting dinner.

[starlily]

I went to a high school similar to these in San Francisco. When I attended, different ethnic groups had different minimum test scores they had to meet in an attempt to diversify the student body. The school's explanation was that it had to comply with a consent decree from the 80s that capped any one ethnic group at making up more than 42% of the student body. The intent at the time was to limit the number of Caucasians, but by the time I attended Chinese-Americans were the ones limited by the 42%, so they had to achieve test scores significantly higher than all other applicants. Unsurprisingly someone did sue over this in the early 2000s and the school had to change its policy v to reflect a single minimum score

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 5, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 hocus2 said:

Dec 5, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5 Cicero said:

I don't understand why the article implies that state law has to change to change the admissions process. There is a magnet school in Buffalo that looks at teacher recommendations and GPA in addition to the test for admissions. I very much doubt Albany is forcing testing only admissions on NYCPS.

  State law mandates the original specialized HS are test only. I believe that is for 4 of the 9 schools mentioned but there isn't a ground swell of support for changing the system to be honesty and the asian community might counter sue if the standards were changed arguing that a double stand would be set (e.g that they would have to score higher on the test to get a spot than other applicants similar to what they are arguing for Harvard admissions). NYC tried a lot of different things to increase diversity and it is a hard thing to address. The city has offered free or reduced cost torturing sessions. I believe there was a period were certain minorities could be admitted if they were just below the cut off but I think that practice was abandoned. 

Overall though it isn't clear that the holistic approach would actually benefit black and Hispanics. It may decrease the asian % in the schools (which is ~60%-70% in the schools expect the performing arts school) but they maybe replaced by middle class white kids and not other minorities.

I definitely agree that you would see a decrease in the Asian-American student population but I think if you are looking at applicants holistically, schools may accept students from a higher number of schools (say, the best of the best in the underperforming schools who may not test as well as students who had the luxury of formal test prep, for example), and that may actually raise Hispanic/AA numbers at least somewhat. I don't know. I actually don't know what side I fall on here - by its nature, one test should be the fairest, most objective way to gain admission to these elite schools. But test prep services and the disparities among K-8 schools here don't make those results all that fair, IMO.

Like @lcap said, we need to improve schools across the board, no doubt about it. But that's something that takes YEARSSSSSS to do, if it ever happens, and we all know the obstacles related to resolving the issue of failing schools.

[wawa]

Can I just share that the issue of education disparities is by far the most depressing thing for me to talk about. I just never see a way out of it. Education should be the great equalizer, but then we have these awful schools that are letting their kids down - but I always get told that poverty and everything that goes with it is such a huge obstacle to those children doing better and those schools improving.

But how are they ever going to get out of poverty without a decent education? The vicious circle of it just bums me right the fuck out.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 5, 2014 13:57:00 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Dec 5, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I definitely agree that you would see a decrease in the Asian-American student population but I think if you are looking at applicants holistically, schools may accept students from a higher number of schools (say, the best of the best in the underperforming schools who may not test as well as students who had the luxury of formal test prep, for example), and that may actually raise Hispanic/AA numbers at least somewhat. I don't know. I actually don't know what side I fall on here - by its nature, one test should be the fairest, most objective way to gain admission to these elite schools. But test prep services and the disparities among K-8 schools here don't make those results all that fair, IMO.

Like @lcap said, we need to improve schools across the board, no doubt about it. But that's something that takes YEARSSSSSS to do, if it ever happens, and we all know the obstacles related to resolving the issue of failing schools.

I know, it's a conundrum. Maybe the answer is to impose income caps? If your family makes over $250k (or whatever) you can't go here. I can't imagine that going over very well But that's basically the objective right? To get a larger # of poorer students to enroll. The fact is, the wealthy will *always* use their money to game desirable situations. So what do you think about taking them out of the picture entirely? 

I disagree with that too. Wealth (or lack thereof) is not the kid's fault. Plus there is a benefit (IMO) to having a school filled with students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, rich and poor.

Maybe one solution is to guarantee admission to any one of the 9 schools to the top 1-5% of students from all public middle schools in NYC. I think this is done in some states for admission to state colleges (I want to say Texas does or did this?). I don't know enough about whether this works elsewhere but it at least guarantees that there will be some diversity since many public schools in NYC are majority-minority schools and/or are located in poorer communities. Then maybe the test minimums would come into play for all other students.

[cville]

Dec 5, 2014 13:55:06 GMT -5 wawa said:

Can I just share that the issue of education disparities is by far the most depressing thing for me to talk about. I just never see a way out of it. Education should be the great equalizer, but then we have these awful schools that are letting their kids down - but I always get told that poverty and everything that goes with it is such a huge obstacle to those children doing better and those schools improving.

But how are they ever going to get out of poverty without a decent education? The vicious circle of it just bums me right the fuck out.

I am right here with you.  So hard.  

[whattheheck]

Here's some info about changes for Stuy/Sci/Tech:

www.ny1.com/content/news/education/205105/process-for-getting-into-specialized-high-schools-could-change-next-year

This week, nearly 28,000 students will find out whether they scored high enough on a test to earn a spot at one of the city's eight specialized high schools, but this year's eighth graders could be the last to go through that process. NY1's Lindsey Christ filed the following report.

In honor of high school admissions week, here's a numbers problem. Make that a problem with the numbers.

There are 77,000 eighth graders. Five thousand scored well enough on an exam to get into one of the city's specialized high schools.

Stuyvesant High School has always required the highest scores. This year, 952 students got in. Just 21 of them are Hispanic. Seven are black.

"These schools are the jewels in the crown for our public school system," said Mayor Bill de Blasio. "They produce extraordinary leaders."

The student demographics at the specialized schools, however, have been increasingly out of line with the rest of the school system. Seventy percent of city students are black or Hispanic. This year, they got 12 percent of the offers.

As a candidate, de Blasio pledged to make admissions based on more than just a single test. On Tuesday, he said he's committed to making that change.

"This is a city blessed with such diversity. Our schools, particularly exceptional schools, need to reflect that diversity," he said.

Admissions requirements are set in state law for the three oldest, and traditionally most prestigious, specialized high schools, so for Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Brooklyn Tech, the mayor would have to go to Albany. For five other specialized high schools, however, the mayor can change the test-based admissions process.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education is currently investigating a complaint filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which claims that admission by test score alone is discriminatory because many black and Hispanic students have less access to expensive test prep courses.

"So what you see is that students who are able to afford or access that test prep are able to gain access into the schools," said Monique Lin-Luse of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

What they've suggested, and the mayor has embraced, is a process similar to what most prestigious universities use for admissions. That means seventh graders gearing up for a summer of test prep might need to focus on essays, interviews and their report card grades as well.

[whattheheck]

And an objection to the change:
nypost.com/2014/05/21/dont-destroy-new-york-citys-best-high-schools/
Mayor de Blasio is obsessed with leveling the playing field throughout the city, i.e., producing equal outcomes.
In response to a reporter’s question about the city’s specialized high schools last month, de Blasio repeated his assertion that the “schools don’t look like New York.” I’m sure that came as a surprise to the students, parents and alumni.
“I don’t want them messing around with the Bronx Science test,” said my cousin Kenon during our discussion of Mayor de Blasio’s social agenda.
Kenon, a graduate of Bronx Science and Carnegie Mellon University, added, “It’s one of the few bastions of fairness.”
Like me, Kenon recalls Bronx Science as a tolerant environment because everyone had earned their place there.
He says the situation at Carnegie Mellon was different because some white students assumed black students were there illegitimately, either as recipients of athletic scholarships or from affirmative action.
Joyce Johnson, a former aide to city Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew, views the Specialized High School Admission Test, or SHSAT, as a standard that black and Hispanic kids should work academically to meet.
During a brief stint in the Carnegie Mellon admissions office, Kenon learned that admission officers were more inclined to take students from the specialized high schools than from any of the city’s zoned high schools.
In fact, Bronx Science had the largest contingent of graduates in his freshman class at Carnegie Mellon.
Modal Trigger
Students outside of the Bronx High School of Science
Photo: Helayne Seidman
And a majority of those kids were Asian.
Asian students and their parents are opposed to lowering standards or instituting quotas. In fact, they feel targeted for being high achievers.
Who could blame them? They invest in their education and then suddenly get penalized for being “overrepresented” at specialized high schools. Similar concerns over the “overrepresentation” of Asians at California public universities and colleges recently prompted an effort to repeal the state’s ban on affirmative-action admissions — until a grassroots movement arose to thwart an effort.
Polly Low, president of California’s Chinese-American Elected Officials Association, believes that the backlash reflected the intense anxieties that the education issue triggers among Asian immigrant parents.
Jewish-Americans no doubt recall the “gentlemen’s agreements” that for decades limited their numbers in elite US colleges and universities.
Here in the city, some critics of the admissions test propose offering admission to the top students at every middle school or creating a portfolio of admission criteria, including extracurricular activities.
But the uneven academic quality at city middle schools casts doubt on the true scholastic abilities of those valedictory and salutatory students.
Leveling the academic playing field should begin by desegregating middle schools, maintaining high standards, challenging curricula and increasing support for our low-performing middle schools (which are in predominantly black and Hispanic communities).
Polls show that New Yorkers believe that education should be a priority.
Ending unequal middle-school education should be the answer — not simply sidelining the tests that expose that inequality.There is no doubt that a high-quality middle-school education cuts dropout rates and increases on-time high-school graduation rates.
Once we revamp the city’s middle schools, raise expectations and improve achievement, the number of blacks and Latinos at the very best public high schools will increase.
An SHSAT entrance examination is the only truly fair arbiter because every student admitted will have earned his or her place.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 5, 2014 14:11:30 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Dec 5, 2014 14:04:44 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I disagree with that too. Wealth (or lack thereof) is not the kid's fault. Plus there is a benefit (IMO) to having a school filled with students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, rich and poor.

Maybe one solution is to guarantee admission to any one of the 9 schools to the top 1-5% of students from all public middle schools in NYC. I think this is done in some states for admission to state colleges (I want to say Texas does or did this?). I don't know enough about whether this works elsewhere but it at least guarantees that there will be some diversity since many public schools in NYC are majority-minority schools and/or are located in poorer communities. Then maybe the test minimums would come into play for all other students.

I think one of the problems with that is that some of the schools in the top 9 are considered better than others. Like, there are a lot of nyc kids who opt out of private school because Stuy is considered so great. How would you determine who gets to go there without a test?

And then I also remembered that LaGuardia is included in the 9 and that school requires auditions, so you can't really put it on the same level as the other schools (not because it's not an academically-stringent school, just that it's a very different school). 

All this to say, I don't know what the solution is because all the solutions have shitty consequences. So that's why I wonder if we should just stick with the status quo despite its problems. ETA: Once you get into having admissions offices in these schools, that will cost the city money to staff and then you have all the problems with subjectivity and all the "Why didn't my precious get into Stuyvesant?" complaints etc.

[Velar Fricative]

The objection above makes it seem like failing middle schools are the problem. No. Most kids didn't attend elite elementary schools and then go to shitty middle schools. Failing schools from the very beginning are the problem. But again, that's something that takes years to fix if it ever gets fixed.

[msmerymac]

Dec 5, 2014 8:41:42 GMT -5 @lcap said:

I empathize with the kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds that make getting into these schools such a long shot. But instead of changing how Stuy or Bronx Sci etc. admit students, wouldn't it make more sense to focus their efforts on improving the failing schools? You hear about a group of people (usually parents but I wouldn't think it would necessarily need to be parents) radically changing things and turning the school itself around in the course of a few years. It's possible to do.

Many grade schools in NYC have done this. There are many fabulous public schools in the K-5 realm. But these also vary a LOT by neighborhood. Basically, if you live in a really upscale neighborhood, the K-5 school your kids go to is more likely to be top notch because 1) your child IS assigned to the local school, there's no switching at that age unless you do private (or charter) and 2) many parents like their young children going to school close by and with other kids in the neighborhood and 3) parents in those neighborhoods have the time, money and effort to institute a very influential PTA. 

With the high schools, being far-flung and not neighborhood based, it's a bit harder, because it's not exactly an investment in your community. Also, part of the point is that kids who have parents who work 2-3 jobs, have less than a high school education, or aren't fluent in English also have a right to have a good education. Since schools are "flipped"by the parents/community, when your community is lacking in resources, it's hard. 

Like Cicero said, in Buffalo, there's one really top notch public high school. It's actually one of the best high schools in the state, similar to Stuyvesant. They also value diversity. But they value parent and community participation, too. They do a better job with diversity than the NYC schools are doing, but... there are a few decent high schools in Buffalo and some really, really bad high school, too. I see the same thing in the Philadelphia school district. One really elite public high school, a few pretty decent ones, and some that I would scared to walk into, and I don't think kids can actually be educated there, through little fault of their own. I don't know that I want to say there's a flaw in the system. I like that there are great public options. In theory, poor kids living in the Bronx whose parents can't afford private school will be able to get a great education without having to compete for spots with rich kids from the suburbs. But one key is parental involvement. Modeling that you take your child's education seriously so they take it seriously. Allowing your child the time to concentrate on their studies. Celebrating academic successes and talking about future plans. In a household or community where that is absent, how do you reach those kids?