PARENTS4PARENTS is a new initiative aimed at highlighting the vast expertise of our parents community while helping other parents better navigate the college admissions process. aggies1989 is a UC alumnus and parent of two UC college kids. ASK HIM ANYTHING!
GUEST STUDENT OF THE WEEK: fintech3753 is a current student at the Wharton School. Majoring in finance, he is hoping to pursue a career at the intersection of finance and technology. ASK HIM ANYTHING!
Make sure to check out our August Checklist for HS Seniors. Consult these quick resources to get you started on the process this month.
As we work to adjust to the current reality, make sure to check out these dedicated COVID-19 resources: our directory of virtual campus tours, our directory of extended deadlines, as well as the list of schools going test optional this fall.
"How New York’s Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students"
This discussion has been closed.
Replies to: "How New York’s Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students"
I agree with you that the triumvirate of Stuy, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech are not the best options for all high performing students. They are heavily math and science oriented and known pressure-cookers. In retrospect, I would have gone to Brooklyn Latin or Bard or Beacon in my day if they were options. Instead, I went to Stuyvesant. It was that or Brooklyn Tech, and my JHS teacher's said I should go for Stuyvesant. ;-)
Regarding Bard's assessment test. Is it graded? Are the results public? I imagine it's one of many criteria and the admissions team exercises it's own discretion. Much like Harvard exercises discretion. I don't think these schools are pure meritocracies (if meritocracy measures grades and standardized test scores). I also gather Bard is much more diverse than many of the SHSAT schools. It's about 39% white, 24% Asian and about 33% African-American and Hispanic. I think very talented African-American and Hispanic kids at Bard, in another era would probably be at Stuy or Brooklyn Tech.
I agree the diversity of programs are wonderful and very exciting.
I think there are more options for students these days, which may, indeed, be contributing to the decrease in White, African American and Hispanic presence in the SHS,
I do think, however, that the DeBlasio and Carranza are unfairly targeting the Asian community just because they found their niche - the SHSAT dependent schools. They aren't targeting Bard, Beacon and the like, even though they are not representative of the overall demographic of NYC public schools and are much more favorable to White students. The optics of the demographics at schools like Bard and Beacon aren't nearly as egregious as what we're seeing at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Brooklyn Tech, but, if 15% of the public school population in NYC is white, and some of these public country day schools are over 50% white, and the criteria isn't one objective test, you would think there might be some red flags going up here.
I'm grateful that schools like Bard and Beacon are providing an excellent education to diverse students. However,
It's a lot harder for DeBlasio and Carranza to go after the white power base than it is to go after the Asians. And as our Asian friends are pointing out, "Why are you mad at us just because we are passing one objective test and neglecting the interview based schools with much more subjective criteria that are still favoring whites at three times their representation in the population?
The catholic school community in the boroughs has completely fallen apart. Many of the elementary schools have closed (even after attempting to re-brand as academies) and very few of the high schools still exist. Xaverian went co-ed to survive and the others from that time - bishop kearney, bishop ford, etc. have all closed.
Merit can be determined using measures beyond grades and test scores (or whatever other stats relate to the situation), and may be judged holistically. Consider how you determine which of your co-workers at work are better or worse at their jobs, for example.
However, subjective evaluation of merit can allow biases not relating to personal merit (e.g. the usual kinds of illegal discrimination) to creep in, and can also allow hiding how large of an effect criteria other than personal merit (e.g. legacy in college admissions) makes.
https://www.bths.edu/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=222176&type=d
I couldn't agree with you more. The Asian families are being targeted because the mayor and chancellor find them to be easy marks, as they have often been targeted in this city.
While Bard and Beacon, etc. are diverse, they actually have enrolled a lot of wealthy white kids from families who have clout and are happy to use it. It's classic bullying by the mayor and chancellor, they won't take on groups who they expect to fight back.
My opinion (which I know many others don't share and I respect that), is that the diversity of options and entrance processes is a wonderful thing , that we should be proud of the options available to our kids, and that our elected officials should be bragging about all of these good things.
I'd like to see more black and Hispanic kids admitted to the SHSAT schools, but only if they truly want to be there. I don't think it's a goal unto itself. In my ideal world, each student would get a placement that is just right for him or her.
That is not true. There are too many variables and factors in play to assume laziness or industriousness are the only things that matter.
It's been shown repeatedly that when provided a rigorous curriculum paired with an appropriate quality of teaching, most children will perform well. The KIPP schools are a good example of that. And obviously, the earlier in the education process the change takes place, the better.
Naturally gifted and generally hardworking students are no match under a score only admission policy for other gifted students whose culture is built around doing whatever is necessary to get a top score.
Agreed. It's no knock on the cultures that see a loophole and exploit that loophole, but it's a valid criticism that more needs to be done to provide an equal opportunity to all.
as our Asian friends are pointing out, "Why are you mad at us just because we are passing one objective test and neglecting the interview based schools with much more subjective criteria that are still favoring whites at three times their representation in the population?
...
regarding public education, Asians have found their niche in test-only schools, and Whites their niche in interview-based and "portfolio based/ well-rounded- profile" schools. African-American and Hispanic students are still, largely, neighborhood-based public schools
These two quotes go hand-in-hand. Ignoring the "why" and acknowledging the truth that, for whatever the reasons (and they exist,) African-American and Hispanic families don't always see the clear pathway to a better education that Asians and Caucasians see. History has proven, not just in education opportunity but in everything from taxes to buying concert tickets, where a loophole exists it will be exploited. A loophole exists in this system. Many loopholes exist.
The flaw is that a band-aid quick-fix approach was employed. Instead of providing a quality education to all (or even most) a better solution was provided to only a small percentage of public school students. Instead of saying "we will help only a very small percentage" the situation was presented as "we will help those that DESERVE help by proving their bonafides." And the powers that be got away with that for a long time. American society is accustomed to "The strong survive and thrive. The weak/lazy get what they deserve."
However, that system was flawed from the beginning, and over time, people were able to exploit the system. Now, instead of fixing the system that was broken from its first implementation, all the sufferers are pitted against each other, claiming flaws in the cultures of the others as the reasons why the system isn't fair. No, that type of argument misses the point. The system is not fair now, because it was never fair to begin with. It was never designed to be fair. It was designed to be a temporary band-aid to quiet the crowd.
I agree with @melvin123 and others who say: I thought I read in the article that part of the problem was that they got rid of the gifted programs in the middle schools, and they didn't really publicize (or at least didn't chat-up) the test dates and what a great opportunity this is. If no one from your community goes to these schools, how are you going to know what a great opportunity it is, and therefore worth your time preparing for the test? Bring back the lower and middle school gifted programs.
It's not feasible to recreate the entire public school system immediately. The entire system has never been equitable for all students, and it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to enable total equality. It is feasible to implement more competent elementary and middle school pockets within each district. The children from those schools will then naturally fill the "chosen" High Schools in a more equitable fashion.
This is also, in some sense, saying what's obivious - NYC has a terribly segregated, highly unequal public lower education system.
I don't blame anyone for trying to exploit the loopholes, and yet I'm not terribly optimistic that getting an excellent public education for all in a rapidly gentrifying city with increasing inequality is likely to happen anytime soon.
I don't know any college admissions professional who thinks they could do a better job identifying talent if the only information they had was the test score, and they didn't know students' grades or backgrounds.
Although students are eligible to test until they are in second grade (for admission to a gifted class in third grade), there are no new seats except those vacated by students who leave the NYC public school system or go to a different school.
Yes, @Theoden
However, to clarify, I think nearly every young student can be competent and motivated. KIPP schools prove that by sending 99% of their students to college. If the NYC public school system decides to create elementary and middle schools that provide the same level and quality of education as the honored High Schools, the NYC public school system will ensure fewer students are left out.
It is an all too obviously unfair system that admits it is not doing enough to educate young students, but promises to reward those poorly educated students with a top-shelf High School education ONLY IF those poorly educated students prove they have somehow overcome the limits of the poor k-8 education they were provided with by the NYC public school system.
I think a start to improving today's system is to create feeder elementary and middle schools that mirror the quality of the best high schools.
This is also, in some sense, saying what's obivious - NYC has a terribly segregated, highly unequal public lower education system.
Yeah. As do many other school systems across America.
KIPP has 7 elementary schools, 7 middle schools and 1 high school in NYC, which has a million students enrolled.
Source: https://www.kipp.org/results/national/#question-4:-are-our-students-climbing-the-mountain-to-and-through-college
The main difference really is the income based census tracking. Almost every student taking the test has straight As. Being from an upper income area mean there are schools (Walter Payton for sure) where you must get an almost perfect score ( greater than 99 percent I believe from what my friends dealing with selective enrollment this year tell me that if a kid got more than one wrong this year it knocked you out of contention for Payton) where student In the lowest income track could score about an 80 percent and get in. The issue in NYC is that there are tons of ( Asian) students from low income families just scoring very very high. Chicago’s structure is less likely to work.
SP. No, I don't think they have it any more. Back in the '60s and '70s it was there to prevent white flight from the city. Everyone in the program loved it, but it was indeed de facto segregation. It wasn't test-based. Pretty much the fifth-grade teachers "identified" students for 2-year and 3-year SP.
And you're right, the fact that a lot of the Asian students who crack the SHSAT are in the low income bracket, would mean that particular system wouldn't work too well in NYC.
Some feel that a single objective test is the most meritocratic way of gaining admission to a school. And Asians will point out since they are not ensconced in the white power structures of admissions staff, they have a better shot in test-centric environments where they at least have a clear metric to shoot for and and can focus on things they have control over. The stats in NYC would prove that assumption. The white-dominant public "interview" high-schools, though significantly more diverse than the SHSAT schools (vis as vis African American and Hispanic Students) are still generally majority white, with Asians, African-Americans and Hispanics attending in varying proportions. Again, since the optics in these schools aren't nearly as jarring as the SHSAT, schools, the dept of education isn't gunning for them.
Isn't it the case that (before NYC public schools started giving free lunch to all students) nearly three quarters of NYC public school students were in the free or reduced price lunch category? If so, that suggests that there has been flight of non-F/RP-lunch students to private schools or some such. (The SHSAT schools had lower percentages of F/RP lunch students, but still around half.)