I live in Brooklyn Chinatown (but not an Asian) where there are dozens of private prep schools that are open 7 days a week. The schools are so busy that it is hard to find a spot. You could tell that people who bring their kids there are mostly poor immigrants from China. They work insane hours to be able to spend almost every penny in education of their kids.
The Mayor, to whom I disagree on many other issues (feud with the Governor, thin-skinned relationship with the press, use of Park Slope gym during business days, etc.) is wrong on this issue, too. Instead of designing programs to motivate the parents and families of Black and Latino kids who are apparently lagging in school, he is punishing kids and families who are making an outstanding effort to succeed.
Again, the merit principle is being thrown out of window for the benefit of scoring political points with Black and Latino voters.
667
Amen. I live in Manhattan's Chinatown, am also not Asian, and my son went through all the prep classes with his classmates. It took one summer - full time, one school year after school on Wed. and all day on Saturday and the following summer - full time, but he got into Stuy. And the prep program he went to was free, and city funded. A lot of upper class white parents gave me a hard time about pushing him too hard. Your choice.
11
No not political points. Affirmative Action has been in place for decades. Time for selfish parents to grow up.
actually it's not the merit principle at work here, it is the parent principle. Few kids want to spend their weekends and evenings in test prep, but if they are prodded, pushed and punished for not doing so, will end up in those courses.
1
Diversity of levels is one thing that makes our city great. We cultivate pockets of artistic excellence. Not everyone can get into Juilliard, but it keeps alive standards of musical activity at the highest level. Not everyone goes, or cares to go, to the Met Museum, but it's one of the greatest museums in the world.
Those kids who get into Stuyvesant can not only add and subtract negative numbers (which not every math teacher in the public schools can do) but many if not all can comprehend a rigorous proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Probably very few parents can do that. We are better off cultivating areas of excellence than maintaining mediocrity everywhere. Please don't water it down.
18
There is only one legitimate way to get into the best high schools: hard work and lots of studying. The same holds true for college and graduate schools. Lessening the standards hurts us all. This is not about race, color, gender, etc. It's about who works hard and is bright and motivated enough to get in.
498
Of course studying and hard work are important. But do not discount the significance of disparity in quality of education, a stable home life, and other social and economic factors. Some students have many more hurdles than others, as I have seen first-hand when teaching; there are many studies to support this.
9
This is the argument that a lot of people, especially conservatives, have made to justify things like the lack of women, lack of non whites, in schools and the like.
No one argues that hard work and studying are required to succeed, they are. The problem with this statement is the idea that your background doesn't matter, that everyone has a fair shot at making it, that if a rich kid has access to a top level prep school and tutoring and SAT prep and gets into Harvard his/her background had nothing to do with it, which is wrong. The idea of equal outcomes from unequal backgrounds doesn't work. Yes, poor kids can get ahead but when they do, it is because they have things available to them that drives them forward. NYC in the 1930's and 1940's had one of the best public school systems in the world, in large part because even poor kids had access to great teachers, because of the depression and then WWII people who might have taught in college ended up in the city schools. The problem is that isn't always true, and while a poor Asian kid can get into Stuyvescant for example, that also may leave out that they have the advantage of a strong community around them, much as Jews traditionally have had, that gives them advantages. The real question is how to level the playing field, to make sure that all kids have that kind of acccess.
3
You do know that the so-called "legacy admission" rate at Ivy League schools can reach as high as 30%?
If you want to clear the system of preferences, why not start with the rich kids? Or do we dictate only to public schools?
1
In the field of education, "diversity" is the ultimate goal. Not educating children, but diversity.
The same thing is happening in my town with our own version of these elite schools. The school that is #1 in the state should be the "jewel in the crown" of our school district, but instead has had multiple Superintendents of Schools and others try to change it to admit more underrepresented minorities.
I loved the comment "I quickly learned that the magic of the place, then as now, was its cohort of incredibly bright kids encouraged by camaraderie and competition to push themselves to succeed." This is exactly what happens at our elite high school. They feed off one another.
At the graduation ceremony this year, the principal shared some statistics about our school. A huge number (can't remember the percentage) were not born in the US and came from over 14 different countries, many with names I could barely pronounce or find on a map. Yet the school is criticized for the admission process being "too complicated" for minority families (it's not a single test admission). Too complicated? So all these families not only figured out how to get out of their country of origin, but get to the US and then to our city, and then apply to this school? But families who live less than a mile from this HS find the admission process too difficult?
PD James had a character in a book talk about "...the assault on excellence by naming it elitism". And it IS an assault.
434
can't these kids who feed off one another, feed other kids?
1
Diversity—of thought, of background, of experiences, of ethnicity, of culture, of color, of class, etc.—IS an education, whether those of whatever privilege or ability or color, like it or not.
2
The author is correct. Stuyvesant is intended for the best and the brightest; it always has been. To say that one test is an unfair determinant is specious reasoning. This one test has been an effective culling tool for generations of New Yorkers, and Stuy is not lacking in diversity. It simply has fewer black and Hispanic students than the Mayor wants. Somehow, that's what the current definition of diversity is; not a mix of many, but the absence of one.
19
the best article ever. Talent and hard work should be rewarded, regardless of ethnic and race.
18
I agree that near misses should be considered for admission. If someone from a poor school with inferior resource excels to the point of barely missing the cut on the test, that person clearly has the fortitude, drive and hunger for learning required for success at these so-called elite schools.
My son graduated as part of the white minority at Bronx Science, which has graduated 8 Nobel laureates in the sciences. These are not ordinary schools and they should not be made ordinary. Standards should remain extremely high, and gaining a seat should remain an accomplishment that a student remembers for the rest of her/his life.
19
I was a Stuy graduate and took the test. I realize the test is being brought up due to questions of diversity but I'd like to consider whether just a test is the best way to determine aptitude. Yes, it's one way. Yet some extremely bright students are not accepted when there's a high stress test as the only access to school entry. There are always bright students who don't test well due to anxiety and pressure. I'd be curious to try an admission system that integrates a combination of the current system, some students are let in based on the test, and maybe a percentage of students are allowed in based on being the top students in their middle school. If this system were used it should be carefully tracked to make sure that it's actually making a positive difference.
8
Mr. Mayor don’t know where to begin with your poor reasoning on this issue. These tests aren’t just admission test , they’re a good predictor of whether students can withstand the academic work load. What do you suggest we do beyond high school should we lower our standards on college admission as well so we can accommodate all students.
7
Me again. Why does Stuyvesant have to water down its curriculum if it has more minority students? My private school didn't water anything down for us. Shouldn't the school (and, by corollary, the city) offer academic and other types of support to ALL of the students who need it to help them succeed? Many of you have already decided that minority students can't and won't. (Isn't that the very definition of racism?) And, by the way, a more egalitarian admissions process is long over due because these are PUBLIC schools, which means black and Hispanic students' families are funding them as well. So everyone should have a reasonable chance of attending a good school in the city, and standardized testing has been demonstrated to be racially biased. Many of you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too: You want a private school that you don't have to pay for.
5
Nobody is saying the standards will be lower because the students are minority. The standards will be lower because they will admit students that couldn’t make the cut.
6
I worked for NYC government for almost 4 years, and I saw this perspective first hand - there is an embedded hierarchy at play when discussing achievement, and it is not on the basis of any sort of merit - rather, your level of achievement was tied to your identity and your identity only. If you were lucky enough to be part of a protected interest group - black, Latino and/or a liberal who espoused the evils of "privilege", you were fast-tracked up this hierarchy. But for those who were not able to choose their identity at birth, and who chose not to politic on the city's dime, your career fate was already sealed.
It does not shock me that Mayor Deblasio is adopting the same sort of identity politics in policies that affect our best and brightest youngsters. In his eyes, and the political power class in NYC at large, there is no such thing as hard work and merit if you are not part of NYC's protected political classes .
8
I attended Brooklyn Tech from '68 to '72. The test was not trivial. In my senior year, I helped proctor the entrance exam and was rather stunned at the simplicity of some of the questions, one of which is literally 2+2= (multiple choice). I learned that the school was sued by a parent whose child lived in the area but did not qualify due to the test, therefore the test was lowered to increase admissions. Visiting the school later teachers privately lamented the lowering of the bar.
From Minh-Ha T. Pham' article:
"Getting rid of it means that more kids will have a bit more access to the best of what this city has to offer."
NO! What it does mean is that different kids will have more access to the best of what this city has to offer, while some who would have had access will be denied. It is in essence handicapping some to benefit others.
7
I agree with Boaz 100%. The emphasis should be put on academic excellence in all schools. Why not institute a system whereby schools where the students are not performing well (from, say, grades 3 through 12), have after school homework assistance and tutoring programs. Yes, that would be marginally more expensive than a simple attempt at social engineering, but it would help address the root problem: Some kids aren't getting the educational experience they need and deserve from an early age.
7
Minus tangible National Crisis demanding worthy merit based scholars (Ex. Manhattan Project, Sputnik) parochial political machinations prevail benefiting “minority” majority (more votes). Byproduct being Stuyvesant 2022 Degree containing asterisk, within 5-10 years, after Asian flight,segregated also ran.
2
Well said, Mr. Weinstein. If you live in NYC and agree, write your state assembly person and the mayor to urge them not to eliminate the test and destroy the specialized schools.
I voted for De Blasio too - twice. I don't get why he thinks this is a good plan. Fix the failing schools, don't destroy the good ones.
8
When my father went to City College in the 30s, it was 90% Jewish. When I went in the 60s, it was perhaps 50% Jewish. Now it is maybe 15% Jewish.
Times change. Ethnic groups come and go. Quotas aren't the answer.
582
Yes, the Mayor's and Chancellor's proposal is just another dressed-up quota aimed against Asian kids. In the 30's Jewish enrollment was held down at Ivy League schools through the pursuit of "geographic diversity." The Chancellor's statement that Stuyvesant High School "does not belong to any one ethnic group" is a racist cunard, implying that Asians are somehow claiming ownership by wishing to be admitted on the basis of their individual merits. I don't know how DeBlasio came up with this Chancellor, but a race-baiter like this doesn't belong in New York. BTW, there are plenty of truly intellectually gifted African American and Hispanic kids in NYC, but they're in great demand. By and large, they do not remain in under-performing neighborhood middle schools, but end up in schools like Hunter Elementary or in the elite private schools (sometimes on scholarship).
3
my father graduated CCNY in 1932 - i believe it was considered level with many ivy league schools. he was in the top 2% but could not get into a decent medical school in this country because of clear quotas and discrimination against jews.
he and two other jewish classmates who were also in the top of the class went to medical school in europe.
5
And compare City College's reputation today with that of the 1930s or 60s.
2
If you admit students that aren’t qualified, one of two things will happen. Either they will fail or the curriculum will get dumbed down.
38
Perfect and concise.
2
I see that my earlier comment was deleted. All I said was that’s in East Asia, as opposed to the USA, you are expected to game every assignment and exam by sharing work and old exams with your friends. This is not a comment on race, but rather on cultural aspects of nationality of parents and, at US universities, foreign students themselves. Parents are are bringing over a set of exam practices that were not contemplated when the when this exam was originally set up. The prep and gaming style should be counteracted by designing a more valid and meaningful exam mechanism. This happens from time to time throughout academia.
5
Classic BDB solution: if you don’t like the results, change what you measure. Worked great for lead paint in NYCHA.
Why isn’t the goal addressing the poorly performing middle schools in order to increase their test scores? A stop gap solution is worthy of debate, but only if the underlying problem is being addressed.
7
I don't get it why destroyed something work so well. Why can't the mayor create a school just for top 7% students from all over the public middle school and see if it works first? Destroying all the good schools won't help the society especially Latino or African-American students at all. It is actually bad for them if they get all the C or Ds. So bad for their self-esteem too. What Mayor should do is improve their study from elementary school. Teach them how to read, write and math. The foundation is shallow can't build a tall building. It will all fall down.
14
It is legitimate for de Blasio to troll for votes any way he can. That's why we have a set of checks and balances. I doubt he has the authority to mandate this himself by fiat. Who is pulling his strings?
1
I DEEPLY resent the implication by soooo many commenters that black and Hispanic students are automatically likely to bring down the standards at Stuyvesant. How dare you! One of the problems minorities have is that every white (and Jewish and Asian) student thinks they are smarter than the black or Hispanic student sitting next to them. Again, how dare you! Group statistics may lead you in that direction, but there are outliers, and statistics don't hold for really small samples. (Did you know that? No? Then I guess you're not so smart after all). You don't know how many times this assumption was made about me in school (I went to a private school and my headmaster was so impressed with my SAT score, which I got without any preparation, that he wanted me to go to his Ivy league alma mater) and in the work place. You also don't know how many white students and white co-workers I was smarter than. But the assumption was always that I wasn't, so I was treated accordingly. The other thing I noticed about this article and the comments is that no one talks about the likelihood that white students who may not have been able to score highly enough on the entrance exam but may get into Stuyvesant now if they are in the top 7% at their middle school may bring down Stuyvesant's excellence. Why is just the black and Hispanic students who may doom the school? Many of you need to check yourselves. Your comments are either outright racist or racist-adjacent.
4
You are reading the situation wrong. It is quite simple. No matter what your skin color, if you clear the test, you will be in. Middle school grades can be easily gamed. In fact urban inner city schools are notorious for that. A significant percentage of urban high school graduates barely read and do math at elementary level, yet they graduate. How much trust you will put in grades by such teachers. Standardized tests are the only neutral way of measuring student ability. If you are as smart as you think, you will not complain.
17
Rhonda, the implication is present in the mayor's plan. He wants to guarantee admission to certain kids, "regardless of their abilities" (as the article puts it), for the purpose of increasing the number of black and Latino students. He doesn't suggest any other way of accomplishing that purpose, so the implication is that lowering the school's standards is necessary. If you think that the implication is racist, then so is the mayor's plan.
14
Are these Asian students the ones whose mothers came to America to have them so they would get an American passport and then went back to Asia to live and get special intensive education to get high marks on the test? I think the Mayor is right.
1
Richard Carranza, “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.” As an Asian Hunter alum (diff test I know), I say that you are 100% right! Hard work isn't like the height needed for basketball. This prize is there for *anyone* willing to put in the work.
11
Here's a modern solution to an otherwise intractable problem: Just get a certain percentage of the kids who get accepted to agree to identify as black/latino/female/gay/etc. to meet the diversity quota goals... problem solved!
8
And the result at CCNY? This time will be different... Yep , just keep telling yourself that and it will be true...
9
As recently as last year, no student from Success Academies (the charter chain with which the author is involved) had tested into Stuyvesant - something that warrants mention, given Mr. Weinstein's views on New York City's real public schools. Even with their significantly higher funding, ability to remove students and to decline transfers, longer school days, and intense discipline, the Success Academies have not improved student performance on the exam. Perhaps the test isn't measuring student performance. Perhaps charter schools are not the answer for what ills public education. It's rather dishonest of the Times to enable the lack of disclosure here, however.
8
Couldn’t agree more.
1
Same old stealth racist "it's actually better for Jackie Robinson if he doesn't have to face all the problems - we're really keeping him out of baseball to HELP him" routine.
Yes, there will be struggles, and yes, it will still be worth the effort.
I wonder what the Stuyvesant case says about the notion of "White Privilege," so sacred that it is often presented as fact in these pages. The school's student body appears to be about 19% White, whereas I read on Wikipedia that NYC is believed to be 44% White. I further wonder what proportion of the school's White kids are Jewish (I can't find any stats on this, but in my experience, probably a fairly high amount). Would De Blasio and Carranza's compassion and concern extend in any way to to non-Jewish White students, seemingly marginalized? Shall I hold my breath for an action plan?
That being said, I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Weinstein. I think the admissions process at Stuy is fair (in the sense that everyone has a shot based on merit, even if life hands out intellectual gifts in an unfair way) and rewards hard work and intelligence. I personally have come to doubt the "performance gap" among various groups can ever be overcome by honest means (i.e. other than gaming it De Blasio style) and that in a school compromised of the very brightest, there will be groups that are under- and over-represented compared to their numbers in the local population. I think the theory of "disparate impact" where such outcomes are regarded as inherently racist/biased is obviously silly...as is the clearly false premise of "White Privilege."
13
Admission to elite high schools like Stuyvesant is a classic zero-sum game. If you are part of a group that is winning the game - Asians, and possibly Jews (but certainly not to the extent seen in years past) - then it is in your group interest to fight for the status quo. But if you are part of a group that has been losing at the admissions game for decades - black Americans, Hispanics - then it is in your group interest to fight for racial quotas.
It really is that simple.
1
The fact that he thinks SATs are critical to college admissions shows how out of touch he is.
1
The problem is with under-performing junior high schools. Not the test. Its the same test for everybody. There many reasons to explain the lack of black/hispanic representation. Glaring is the poor level of teaching and counseling in schools in poor neighborhoods. I cringe every time I hear " I am aksing you" from the mouth of a teacher.
4
What you say may be correct. However, it is not the only possible reason. As a student in one of those underperforming middle schools in a poor neighborhood put it to me succinctly, "We ... just ... don't ... care."
3
What type of legislation is Mayor de Blasio seeking? Because if it is State legislation, we all are aware of the animus Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo have for each other.
1
YES! The mayor's plan is awful. As technically a Jew, I hate quotas, and that's what de Blasio is proposing. More than proposing-- trying to push through! This cannot happen. It would be a crime to debase these schools for the purpose of putting unprepared students into them, simply to achieve a pleasing color mix that is politically correct. Prepare students in middle school for the test and the challenges that follow. Or don't! Maybe not every student wants to go to these schools. Why don't we ask them. This plan is very poorly thought out. It's like an emergency band-aid where there is no actual emergency.
7
This article misses the ongoing, relentlessly and tiresomely never addressed question of America's relationship with its Black communities, the history of anti-Black policies that have decimated entire communities, like mass incarceration and police brutality. Increasing Black admissions to these top schools is not only about proportional representation, it's a moral necessity.
1
As a parent of a recent Bronx Sci graduate and a child of Indian immigrants, I can tell you why the Mayor's plan elicited such concern from immigrant groups:
1) "Asians" are being referred to as "one ethnic group." There is no unifying language, culture, religion, or land. Just visit one of these schools, and you'll hear 10 different languages. The Mayor's approach is insulting to those who wonder why our ethnic identities are being "yellow-washed," while others are celebrated.
2) In Bronx Sci, 50%+ were eligible for school lunch, predominantly those from "Asian" backgrounds. Why is their success considered a result of cheating or excessive test prep and not being celebrated by the Mayor?
3) Minority groups are being pitted against each other. Those of us with brown skin, but "Asian,' have been called the N-word, excluded from jobs, stopped by cops, and strip-searched by TSA enough times to wonder why we're considered privileged.
We fully acknowledge the gross inequities in NYC's school system, that the history of violence and systematic racism against Blacks exceeds that of "Asian communities," and that solutions are needed for both of these. But maybe the Mayor/Chancellor can start by acknowledging what we've suffered and earned and describe on how they're going to make sure our success is not seen as a problem to be solved? The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1924 Immigration Restriction Act, and "Muslim Ban" were all targeted at us. You can understand why we're sensitive.
16
Equality of outcomes is the opposite of equal opportunity. Just like reshaping the elite schools to achieve particular racial distributions of students is the opposite of anti-racism.
The far left are racial supremacists who feel guilty about this fact. To address their own racial prejudice they seek to "help" the racial groups they really see as inferior (this way they can stay in denial about their racism).
But in doing so, they achieve the opposite result: the talented students' education becomes devalued.
This is just one manifestation of communist anti-meritocratic ideology which ultimately results in not only destruction of science, arts, philosophy, cuisine, etc, but also in destruction of racial and ethnic tolerance and happy coexistence. Communism destroys everything that's good about our species and this mayor's plan is nothing but a version of communist oppression.
6
When one race or ethnic group is over-represented at a school for bright kids -- or under-represented -- you are left with only two choices. You can believe one group of people is smarter than another group. Or you can believe that different groups are getting different opportunities. Your choice defines you.
4
Easy solution: figure out the number of students DeBlasio and the Dept. of Education would like to feed into the "elite" schools, i.e. Stuvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, LaGuardia, etc., and instead of destroying those schools, create one or two new ones, w/ slightly lower test score requirements. If you need 800
new places for minorities and the economically disadvantaged, then create one new high school with special teachers recruited, new tech and new labs, etc., and let the next 800 kids who score right below the "elite" cutoff into this school. Avoid the whole nasty mess, just do it.
4
Well put sir. Excellence is lacking in the public school system in this country that only wants the wealthy to perpetuate their place in society and give not even a minimal chance to break through the cast-like classes that make up this so called land of opportunity. You and people you mentioned in your article (and in full disclosure my daughter who loved her education there and went on to study at Harvard and graduate with top honors) got a superb break. You all studied hard and broke through the otherwise impossible educational barrier to make it in the world in knowledge based professions. The ethnic mix is a nonsensical criteria when admission is based on a knowledge based exam and preparation for it is not offered to kids in the schools this mayor and his education czars he appoints as you correctly note. Kids have to do it in their own. If an Asian kid can do it why cannot a Hispanic kid do it, assuming their parents in similarly difficult economic situation? Let’s keep Stuy and the other schools that make up this beautiful system that produces so many Nobelists, violinists, philosophers, novelists, chess masters, mathematicians and brilliant hedge-fund traders like yourself. Thank you for taking the time to write to the Times.
2
The students at Stuyvesant got in purely on merit. If African-Amrtican and Latino children are under- represented, tht means that their education needs strengthening, long before they get to middle school. How are we going to do this, Mr. Mayor?
10
Mr. Weinstein says, “Mr. de Blasio would send the top 7 percent of students at every middle school to the specialized high schools.”
But in a contrasting op-ed, Minh-Ha T. Pham writes, "20 percent of seats at the schools would be reserved for students from under-resourced middle schools who score just below the cutoff score on a standardized test.” In that case, it seems, a middle school where no students score just below the cutoff wouldn't send anyone to the selective schools.
Which is it? I couldn’t determine clearly from this statement on the Mayor’s website:
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/281-18/mayor-de-blasio-chan...
1
"Last week Richard Carranza, the mayor’s new schools chancellor, put it this way: 'I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.'"
Asians do not "own" admission to the selective schools. Rather, they earned their admission by virtue of a test which is open to all NYC middle school students. But somehow, we confuse achievement (which we used to celebrate) with "privilege" which must be offset in the name of "social justice".
Perhaps the Chancellor should be more concerned that "at 80 middle schools — or one out of every six — not even 7 percent of seventh graders passed the state math exam." ?
7
Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Eventually, the ship of identity politics was bound to run into the rocks of genetics and IQ. That it happened this fast is kind of surprising, but it’s been in the air for a while now, fueled by advances in genetics, the stridency of progressive activists, self sorting, and the continued underperformance of certain groups.
The only question now is how this washes out politically, which will determine policy and resource allocation.
Will people of East and South Asian descent jump ship, and cozy up to Republicans? Or will they see the “logic” in DeBlasio’s proposal, and Harvard’s discriminatory admissions practices, and realize that they need to suppress their IQ privilege? And what about white progressives? Which sub-group is more numerous? The ones who test well and value merit over social justice give-aways? These are the weaker progressives in my opinion; their politics is a function of being upper class. Or the ones who probably don’t test well, and either resent standardized tests because of this or who by correlation with testing poorly, fail to see how stupid it would be to abandon standardized testing in favor of taking the “cream of the crop” from blighted fields (“just take the best performers from all schools, that’ll fix it! And be fairer!”).
I honestly have no idea. It’s basically going to be a pit fight between the smart and hard working, and the dumb, stubborn, and shrill. Both camps have their strengths.
2
If east asians and south asians have to survive and proposer, then they should very seriously look at politicians like Deblasio, who are taking the democrats into positions, where Asians will be sacrificed on the alter of diversity and identity politics. Every thinking Asian American knows this and many will have to ally with republicans.
4
"What the protesters stand for — and I stand with them — is the universal principle that talent and hard work should be rewarded. "
I apologize in advance for being rough but: this is a very conservative and Republican ideal.
We've seen this attitude with the NIMBY affordable housing opponents in Los Angeles and now we see it again.
This is why Republicans find Ivory Tower liberalism hilarious. Everyone wants poor kids to go to good schools, just not their good schools, or live in good neighborhoods, just not their neighborhoods or have access to top colleges, just not bump their kid out of the running. Once feel-good liberalism is put into practice, we find those who once preached the ideals, but are now affected by them, backpedaling away.
We've seen it time and time again play out. Anyone remember the story about moving poor kids into nice neighborhoods, and all the commentators lamenting how their property values tanks, toys in the front yard, etc?
2
Since Stuy has gone from being about 40% asian/40% caucasian/20% other in 2000, to being 70% asian/20% caucasian/10% other in 2018... the claim of the title is deeply disingenuous.
As is the claim that this is about "merit" - as if "merit" was somehow independent from and completely unshaped by circumstances, including one's racial status. Numerous studies indicate that black and latino students are routinely subjected to negative biases from their teachers, more likely to be assumed to be troublemakers, etc. than their white and asian counterparts. Bluntly, people are racist against asians, but the form of racism is not as detrimental to childhood development and educational opportunities. And asians are disproportionately wealthier. (Also, only 44% qualify for reduced lunch costs? In a public magnet school?)
And then there's the comparison with the SAT, as if the SAT was a good barometer of a merit-based test. Numerous studies have shown the SAT to suffer from racial/cultural issues in question wording, material presentation, implicit assumptions of background knowledge in reading comprehension sections and word problems, etc.
1
Parents of kids in these top schools should protest and fight this plan that will destroy these schools. I hope they win. The idea that low performing students will suddenly rise to the challenge is ludicrous. Most kids who are not doing well in school have no interest in being challenged or are doing the best they possibly can and can do no more.
13
When I went to high school (half a century ago), no one at Far Rockaway High School bothered with applying to the Specialized High Schools because Far Rock was on a par with them. And that is as it should be.
All NYC schools should be good schools. Not schools with fraudulent names, such as "Scholars Academy" or "School of Geniuses." But simply the terrific high schools of the past.
But the discussions of the SHSAT and LaGuardia auditions have highlighted the issue which the mayor ignores:
1) African-American and Hispanic ("minority") students accept positions in these schools at lower rates than others. Note: Aren't Asians "minorities"? But let's put that aside for the moment.
2) "Minority" students apply to these schools at a much lower rate.
3) "Minority" students achieve lower scores on the tests.
4) Either "minority" students are inherently less capable OR their education up to the point of taking the tests has been inferior.
Putting aside for the moment the alleged inferiority of African-Americans, how does one explain the difference in Hispanic students from Spain and South America? Clearly the issue is not the students, it is the schools.
And just as clearly, admitting students who are not prepared is not the solution, just as Open Admission was not the solution at CUNY. The problem is simple, and obvious. EVERY STUDENT ON A NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL MUST RECEIVE A DECENT EDUCATION, STARTING ON THE FIRST DAY OF ATTENDANCE.
8
Ah yes. Once again the “expedient solution” is to dumb down the standard rather than to raise the quality of the education of the potential applicant in the years leading up to taking the admissions test.
All these “social solutions” around hard standards have brought us “remedial reading” courses to first year college students because the admissions standards were dumbed down. Works great doesn’t it. The result...CCNY, once the envy of public education in the entire world, is now mediocre at best.
Nosirree! Excellence cannot be comprised by fast politics. The answer here, as it has always been, is to motivate students and their families, to strive for excellence and provide them with the tools and surroundings to achieve it!
3
That certain groups in our society value education more than others is not something we should punish, but encourage to spread. My first day on campus, another student who was to become my first debate partner shook my hand and said “Welcome to JewCLA”. His father was a marvelously funny rabbi in Boyle Heights, still a Jewish Center n L.A. then, now almost totally Latino. And UCLA was indeed predominantly Jewish. Today UCLA is, I believe, plurality Asian. This is America, where merit is supposed to matter. Californis rejected affirmative action (something I now believe I mistakenly opposed doing) because too many minority students admitted through it were unprepared to handle the work, and too many minority students who got in on the merits were stigmatized after graduation by the assumption that they were beneficiaries of affirmative action.
The solution is not dumbing down elite schools. It is fixing our K-12 public educational system which is in crisis across the country for our black and Latino populations, and getting parents in those communities to emulate groups like the Jews and Asians who understand the value and importance of education.
For the record, I am none of the above. I was a Navy brat, lower middle class at best, and neither parent was a college graduate. I was also white, a descendant of Southerners on both sides, but my parents went to great lengths to assure the best educations for me and my siblings. So I know it can be done.
6
It seems to me that the mayor would rather appease his constituents and allow unprepared students to enter the elite High Schools rather than have a conversation about why blacks and Latinos are underrepresented at these schools. He doesn't want to discuss the emphasis that many Asian families place on education, similar to that exhibited by Jewish families. He'd rather just try to make it all "fair" by copping out of these hard conversations and admitting unprepared students. I guess remedial math will have to be taught at Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Tech!
When students not capable of doing the work expected of them are admitted either the standards will have to be lowered or they will fail. As having high failure rates of blacks and Latinos would be frowned upon it is clear that the curriculum and expectations will need to be lowered.
This is so sad as these schools are open to all who are smart and work hard. The test really is color-blind.
May I suggest that instead promising students of color be found who are still in elementary school and that after-school programs that will provide extra tutoring, summer programs, test prep etc. be offered to them. This will provide additional assistance to promising students who then will still need to take the admissions test and do sufficiently well to achieve admission on par with the standards set for entry to these schools.
6
It is interesting that affirmative action that might hurt Asian-Americans is terrible, but affirmative action that might hurt whites is not even to be remotely questioned. Asian-Americans outperform whites (and therefore obviously other minorities) in many many categories that we normally look to affirmative action to alleviate. So why shouldn't it be applied in a way that is potentially disadvantageous to them?
I support the idea of affirmative action, but we are getting into some weeds that no one seems to want to deal with. I certainly have no idea what the answer is.
2
Many of my friends attended those specialzed high school in the late 80s and they are Asians. Their parents worked in restaurant or factories, they are not genius but they are in the top 5% of income bracket now. we need to guarantee equal access but not equal outcome, life is not fair, you can spend the bucks on SHSHT test prep books or buy a pair of new sneakers.
7
Really, Mr. Weinstein? I can think of no other admissions process in life - not college, not law school, not med school, and certainly not applying for a job — that relies on a single test and nothing else. Stuyvesant is a public school that all New Yorkers pay for and it should be equally available to all students. Your veiled racism, disguised as concern that the quality of the school will suffer because the top performing students from every middle school (which will inevitably make Stuyvesant browner by a hair) is appalling. All parents protesting this initiative should be ashamed of themselves. If you represent the leadership of so-called elite schools like Stuyvesant, my child won’t be applying.
3
If you walk around in Chinese neighborhoods you will see signs for test prep. Chinese.students study for years to prepare for the special high school tests. It is not a level playing field culturally.
45 year’s ago Hunter High school admitted 15 or so percent minority students to the 7th grade, chosen from the highest minority achievers. Then these students had summer school prior to the start of the school year to help them get ready for the school year. I think it worked out well.
1
How is working harder “not a level playing field”?
1
Look at the real life of de Blasio and it is easy to see just why he wants to ruin the schools in New York as well.
4
if everyone has to be pass the same unfair test, that doesnt make the system fair. come on man! this is legit nonsense. there is nothing wrong and everything right with taking the top students from every school that means that kids from even the most underfunded schools have a shot.
But what is really the issue is that EVERY SCHOOL should have the resources and access that sty has. equality of opportunity and access should be a right of every student not just those who can afford test prep classes.
1
There are ppl saying all schools should be elite schools, which in reality means all elite schools should be average schools.
In terms of racial representation, we should all draw lottery, which would almost perfectly get to that right ratio. And not just for high schools, but also for doctors, engineers, congressman, CEOs, and pop stars, all of which need the right ratio of racial representation. Lottery would solve all that.
2
En general in public institutions there should not be elite schools with more resources and the best teachers in the system; they do not exist in Spain nor in the suburbs and cities of New York and New Jersey. In the majority there is only one high School per municipality. They seem to do a good job and send a high proportion to college. Since they exist in NYC, they have to give opportunity to a wider range of students. One test should not be the sole criteria. There should be more academic high schools that have the resources and good teachers that give opportunity to all students motivated and willing to do hard work, not only based on a test. I support the Mayor. I also went to City College in the 1960's and thought that were unfair the requirements for admission.
Interestingly, University of Chicago (Ivy-caliber and moving up in the rankings) has dropped SAT/ACT testing requirements altogether in its admissions process.
1
Hate to say it but author is right. DeBlasio's plan is on right track but way too broad, & devil's in the details. A more nuanced (& yes, complicated) formula should be devised. For example, if the middle schools themselves score in top half of city schools, then DeB's formula is applied. If the ms is in lower half, only top 3% in rankings become eligible for case by case consideration.
1
As a person with a LONG history in test preparation--and who wrote a lot of the preparation SHSAT curriculum at one test prep company--allow me to weigh in here.
As tests go, the SHSAT is not a bad one--I've seen a lot worse (especially those NY state math and English exams created by a certain well known P-company). And there is a certain meritocratic aspect in having an exam score be the determining factor as to whether one gets into a Specialized High School.
The problem has always been not only that too many of the test-takers middle school curricula does not prepare them for the test, but that all focused test prep is not created equal, either.
The various test prep academies that people write about many Asian parents sending their kids to are NOT all equally effective in gaining admissions--it really does depend on the TYPE of prep. That prep cannot only be based on academic curriculum. It ALSO has to be based on techniques for handling specific types of questions. (That is what the prep we have developed over the years is designed to do--and we have considerable success with it, including among African-American and Hispanic students--I estimate we're responsible for a good fraction of students of those backgrounds who make it to these schools.)
The Dept. of Ed has offered prep for many years--but in my estimation not the right technique-based type. It can rectify this if it truly wants a specialized school population more reflective of the city's make-up.
5
I'm seeing a lot of comments saying directly or indirectly that Asian parents are better parents than black parents, and it's making me feel kind of sick.
I'm aware that many of the Asian parents who work so hard to make sure their kids get accepted at elite high schools are immigrants who are not particularly well off.
However, they are not suffering the consequences of 400 years of horrific oppression in this country. They came here as immigrants, not slaves, and while they have suffered discrimination, it can't be compared with what black people have been subjected to in this country for centuries, right up to and including today.
Black parents care as much about their kids education as Asian parents. Many of them are simply in far worse situations, and I could give a long history lecture as to why, but there's not room in the NYT comments section.
5
Wendy, I would not dream of saying that black parents care less about their kids' education as Asian parents do, but I don't know how you know that they care as much. What is your evidence for that claim?
What I do know is that not all kids themselves care equally about their education.
4
Mark, I live in a black working class neighborhood in Chicago.
Why not also make admission to Columbia,compulsory for anyone who graduates from a public high school in NY regardless of their grades or SAT scores. Grades and SAT scores are racist measures and discriminate
6
Isn’t it ironic that Asians have now become the whipping boy of the same PC culture obsessed with diversity? Are Asians no longer diverse because so many of them are successful? Do they have....Asian privilege?!?!
I don’t have a problem with racial diversity. But I have a problem with it being used as a SYSTEMATIC means to punish hard working kids by filling their classes with kids who are otherwise mediocre just for the sake of racial diversity. Let the bar stay. Don’t lower it.
Believe me, I teach 5th in NYC in a school with consistently low test cores and have a handful of smart kids, but they don’t want to do any work, thus they make very little progress. I would hate to see a kid who has earned a spot in the SHSchools by the test be passed up for a mediocre student with. A low B average (these are the muddle school kids at the “top” of schools similar to
Mine)
17
1) Nobody other than you are "vilifying" Asians.
2) The kids who don't want to do any work, aren't getting into Stuyvesant.
1
The main problem is that an equal shot at getting into the best public high schools in NYC is grounded in preparation that starts about a decade ( really, more) before the test. In most cases, it isn't possible to supplement what wasn't received - at home or in schools - without changing the focus of the high school.
By definition,this is an elite. Most of those admitted, I am fairly certain, are functioning academically at something like junior year of college level. This is their arena of achievement - let them take it as far as possible.
If there is something seriously wrong with the admissions test, and it isn't identifying the knowledge and potential of students accurately, reform that.
And focus on the rest of the system. Focus on providing the best education possible all the way through.
A decision to admit x amount of students who didn't score high enough ( I cannot even grasp how they would be selected - the intense competition for slots would not lessen) - an infinitesimal fraction of all high school students in the City - into this one high school seems to be a purely symbolic action that looks as if it signals more inclusion - but in reality does nothing to aid students across the city. Nothing to better preparation - and at the most expensive cost per student in the world.
10
In response to GLK who writes: "
I envisage something quite different, a student hungry to do better, who by being placed in a more intellectually intense environment, rises to the challenge."
Dear GLK:
A student hungry to be better will take the test, that is free.
That is free.
9
It's a good thing the Mayor doesn't control admissions to the Ivy League colleges, MIT, Stanford and other elite colleges.
Imagine if these elite colleges had to "guarantee automatic admission to" the top students at every high school, "regardless of their abilities." Such a preposterous idea!
14
I am reading a lot about how the exam process can be gamed. Grades can be gamed far more easily than exams. I don't know what the solution is here, but the end result will be an enormous amount of limited middle school resources getting shifted to managing who is in that precious top 7%.
7
As an alumna of a gifted and talented middle school in Brooklyn, I am one of the students De Blasio’s plan would have helped. Despite rigorous preparation, I missed entry into Stuy by four points. My parents were disappointed. I was devastated. Only one student in my grade “earned” entry. I, however, was chosen as class valedictorian. To my surprise, the student that scored “well”, was not even chosen to be salutatorian. One may argue that I would have received an excellent education at Bronx Science. However a nearly two-hour commute from Brooklyn for a 14 year-old would have been onerous. Fortunately for me, I received a partial scholarship to attend the best private school in the city. However, the tuition placed a financial strain on my parents. My mother worked 60 hours a week as a nurse in order to pay my tuition. I excelled at this private school, graduating near the top of my class. Did my score on the entrance exam indicate that I would not have excelled at Stuy? I doubt it. The middle school curriculum should have been of the quality and rigor that would have prepared any student with the motivation and desire to gain entry into a specialized high school. The entrance exam should not be eliminated, however other factors such as an essay or interview should be part of the assessment to determine eligibility in the specialized schools. This would level the playing field.
7
Sorry, I graduated M&A (Laguardia) in 1966, faced an "onerous" bus and subway 1 1/2 hour commute each day with no excuse during a transit strike. we attended 9 classes daily, a super long day. And my classmates were ethnically diverse, focused on success. the system is not broken, the grade schools may be. Fix them ... don't water down the quality of education in special high schools!
5
Respectfully, did you live in a transportation desert? Perhaps a two hour commute (on a good day) may not be difficult for some. In addition to the commute, my personal safety was a consideration. The decision not to commute to the Bronx in no way reflected a lack of motivation on my part. I am not sure what this comment has to do with the debate at hand.
A serious text is supposed to prove who is best or who has the right stuff, so to speak. But after all is said and done, a great education is what one gets out if it. Is not true, as the saying goes, that in academic life, “it’s not how you get in but how you get out.” The public, media, teachers, city officials, and universities know of the massive cheating going on at Stuy and others elite HIgh schools in the city, especially among 3rd year students. There was a well known and throughly investigated major cheating scandal in 2012 at Stuy, and even more cheating has been reported since, including the 2018 school year.
We should ask our good mayor, and all concerned, that why don’t we clean-up and fix this cheating mess once and for all before we move-on to the topic of reworking the admission requirements in the name of educational and social equity. Then maybe what we will get out it is truly gifted adults.
3
You don't get it: a school system's job is not to "prepare students for the test," but rather to impart knowledge and teach kids how to learn. There is more to education than standardized testing; and I say this even as one who scored high enough on my SATs--sans test-prep course--and had good enough grades to enter CUNY Brooklyn College back when it was tuition-free and academically rigorous. My husband was able to enter its Scholars' Program--and he, too, attended his neighborhood public high school. (And we both won Regents scholarships to boot). Had we gone to specialized schools--and as a result, perhaps to distant elite universities--we might never have met. We certainly would not have had exposure to diversity & tolerance.
"Teaching to the test" leads to students whose definition of success is the ability to absorb & regurgitate information without understanding its significance, much less being able to use it as a springboard for further learning and critical thinking. And when that "test" is an elite entrance exam, to artificial hothouses devoid of diversity that churn out kids unable to interact with the real world--and who go on as adults to measure a person's value by IQ and the prestige of the institutions which issued the diplomas hanging on their office walls.
5
Weinstein writes: Admission to Stuyvesant was and remains determined by a single test available to all middle school students in the city. But he seems entirely not cognizant that for almost a century there has been very vigorous debate about such testing, its' predictive significance, whether is conscionable in a republic, a democracy, that any test which measures only a very narrow aspect of human intellectual and cognitive capacity, measures not at all most aspects which are important to a "good life" as defined by the ancients, is reasonable. When a test has such astonishing limitations, I think it is not unreasonable to implement some modest measures to facilitate a more proportionate representation of students in our tax-funded institutions. BTW, Einstein might not have aced the test.
3
Oh, he's aware of it.
He just won't mention it here.
1
Why do we always put the burden on schools/children to reflect/remedy what adults don't seem capable of. Integrated housing/neighborhoods- quality early childhood and k-8 education, social support for struggling families.
I don't see de Blasio's plan as so bleak or disastrous- but I do see it as all for show, with blind faith that "diversity" in the one category of race (since Stuyvesant is already diverse) will be magic.
But have fun parsing the data- four years after the change- to try and see if it did have a measurable positive effect on the black and latino students who were accepted under the program.
12
I attended John Dewey in the seventies. We're now in Bergen County and my son attends Bergen County Academies (BCA) one of the top high schools in the nation and it's public. Like SHS, there is an entrance examination. Unlike SHS, there is an essay requirement and an interview. The claim is that the latter two elements determine if the school is a good fit for the student. They want to know that the child wants to go there and is not being forced to go. My son saw the school when we toured it for his sister who did not get in. He was in the third grade and decided that was for him. He got straight A's in middle school, did no test prep, wrote his own essay and apparently interviewed well. He is by no means a genius or gifted, it's just school work is easy for him and he wants to succeed. He enrolled into the engineering academy. Freshman year and he's getting all A's in a rigorous program with eight-hour school days. He's has bio, chem and physics--all in his freshman year.
I tell all new parents, among other things, to develop a love of numbers at a very early age. I believe confidence and success in math leads to an easier and more productive school experience.
There's more to a candidate than an exam. I think BCA's got it right.
7
A better idea is to look at the curriculum and figure out how to bring it into each classroom. That would truly make the education of all students equal.
5
Thank you Pollyanna.
Of all the opinions offered in this thread, no one is completely wrong or right. Let us not forget, however, that most students do not have access to K-8 private prep schools where one can learn the necessities required to do well on the specialized high school test. Nor do most students have access to the private test prep schools mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
The specialized high schools are still part of the NYC public school system and are paid for with the tax dollars of ALL NYC residents. Therefore the children of these residents deserve equal access, whatever has to b done to make it so.
If de Blasio really wants to make access to the specialized high schools equal for ALL students, he must first improve the ALL schools in the city so that students are passing their exams satisfactorily AND he must begin free test prep programs for ALL 7th and 8th graders who are NYC Public School Students. That way no one can say that they didn't have a chance.
12
Equal access, yes; quotas, NO.
4
I do not know about the exam for those higher schools, but know something about the only gifted and talented middle school -Mark Twain. The exam is basically an IQ test. This means that you do not have to prepare and you cannot prepare, because your parents or your creator have decided for you already. Then those who cite prep schools would say that IQ test does not really reflect who you are. I am not a genius, but I respect them. They create our world, otherwise we would still live in the stone age. I am afraid that in a real democratic society, quantity matters more than quality. The meek will inherit the world!
5
"Mr. de Blasio would send the top 7 percent of students at every middle school" - the long term result of this misguided policy will only be more Asian students attending middle schools in districts with lower academic performance where they will be at the top of their classes.
16
The specialized high schools of New York show a bitter truth to liberals, blacks and Hispanics. Culture and stable family matters. Parent sacrifices and student hard work matters. Instead of taking right lessons, they want to drag down everything to the lowest common denominator.
35
The most disturbing thing about de Blasio's statement is that when speaking about schools that are majority Asian, the word "Asian" does not appear once. Instead, the Mayor talks about "students of color" being underrepresented. Asians are certainly not white, and they apparently don't count as people of color either. To de Blasio, Asian students are...invisible?
47
I find the statement by the NY schools chancellor, that “no one ethnic group owns the admission exam” incredibly offensive and racist. He assumes that everybody who happens to trace their origins to Asia is part of the same group, ready to unite to somehow defraud the system. Just imagine that something similar would have been said about Hispanics or African-Americans.
But these are the miracles of the inter-sectionalism. The “right” minorities have the right to say anything; Asians are too self-reliant for the “progressive” universe, so they get limited rights only. Whites are worthless, you can insult them in an which way, they only have the right to listen and repent.
36
Thank you Boaz for writing such a great op-ed. What can one possibly save to defend this insane plan concocted by de Blasio and the lackluster Carranza?
Shame on you Bill de Blasio. You are like a caricature of an Ayn Rand villain. Clearly you despise intelligence and hard work. Layer in unbridled political ambition, and you have a toxic cocktail.
Like Trump who fools blue collar people with his populist venom only to grant tax cuts to the rich, de Blasio is the demagogue pulling a bait and switch on Latinos and Blacks. If Stuy takes the top 7% of all middle schools, it will be filled with average and below average academic performers. The curriculum will quickly be dismantled. (There's no need for MIT level advanced math when your students can barely break 550 on the Math SAT).The extracurriculars, which today reflect the vibrancy and entrepreneurial nature of Stuy students, will wither away. And college exmissions will plummet.
So what will these kids be left with? de Blasio thinks he can steal the "brand" and anoint another set of kids as Stuy graduates but these kids won't be attending Stuy of course. Stuy will be long gone. What will he say to their parents when they can't get into top colleges I wonder? Or when they don't win any Intel prizes? Or when they can't get a coveted tech job?
At a time where gaps in STEM talent in the workforce have reached crisis levels, it would be criminal to destroy the premier math schools in the nation. We must stop him.
36
deBlasio won, get over it
He speaks for the people of NY, not the elitists who post on these articles.
Sorry, but the people who are whining that they aren't getting their ticket punched at 12 years old wouldn't trade their situation with the people OUR Mayor are trying to assist.
Not a single one of them.
Since age 3 vocabulary already correlates strongly with success*, we are once again face up against the problem of entrenched "auto"-failure. Admitting the less qualified to elite schools is a cop out and essentially whacking highly motivated families to pretend that home environments are "inherently equal". Reversing the educational deficits of specific cultural groups must begin with pre-K not high school.
*http://www.stanleyteacherprep.org/uploads/2/3/3/0/23305258/soh_the_early...
17
This makes as much sense as suggesting there is a disproportionate number of Blacks playing high school basketball in NYC and therefore, teams need to ensure a certain number of positions for Asians! And if need be necessary, to help accommodate this effort, a review of the games rules can be undertaken.
41
As a non native New Yorker who had the good fortune to meet a number of Stuyvesant graduates at the university level, I can tell you that DeBlasio is full of it. There are precious few places in the world where a bright child of a single mom immigrant seamstress can be given a chance to shine
35
Totally biased, as I am the parent of a Stuyvesant alum, but I still believe that we need to level the playing field, on our dime, so that all children, get enrichment from the start. Like: starting in pre-K, after-school, vacation school, summer school, skills training and intellectual training. We, the people of New York City, need to raise our taxes to support these programs. Then, the children who have educated in this environment will be better represented in the specialized high schools. (By the way, this is what student-athletes do.)
One fear that I have is that if large numbers of children of great but unproven potential are given places in the specialized high schools, the very classes that make those schools so special will be undersubscribed and will be dropped. That would be tragic. My son entered college with more computer science and math than most of his age cohort has when they graduate from college. He has a job that uses those skills, which his college continued to develop. Stuyvesant prepared him for college and the work world because it provided a college-level curriculum. We need to develop all students more to ensure that all who can benefit from that kind of high school have access. But taking a promising 14 year old with limited background and putting them in a Stuy or Science? That is a recipe for failure. Change the students' preparation, not the high school.
17
Why should middle class tax payers in NYC who are already heavily taxed pay even higher taxes to make up for what lower income black and hispanic parents should be doing with their children? No. I am taxed enough.
4
When I got into Stuy in the 1980s, I didn’t study before taking the test, nor did my friends. We just walked in and took it. The entrance exam was a much closer approximation of what we were learning in junior high school, and so it really didn’t require a lot of additional preparation. This is hardly the case today, when many of the kids spend literally years preparing for the test. This has only exacerbated the appalling lack of racial diversity at the specialized high schools.
It’s clear that this current testing system is broken. The entrance exam today is only ntesting students’ ability to take this one test, not real intelligence, drive, or critical thinking skills. But the mayor’s plan won’t really fix things.
I personally would like to see a two-tiered system. Let the test stay, but let it be closer to what is taught in the middle school curriculum in New York city. Offer some free test prep to those who can’t afford it privately. And then don’t allocate all the seats based on the test, but create a new second path for highly qualified students coming out of city public middle school’s. Give 10 or 20 or 30% of the seats to the valedictorians andsalutatorians and other highly qualified students from city middle school, based on their GPA and state test scores.
The long-term solution is to improve the public schools. But in the meantime, this kind of two-path system could lead to a more diverse student body at the specialized schools while keeping them meritocracies.
5
The problem is that education standards in our public schools are hardly rigorous. Compared to other first world countries, our elementary schools, middle schools, and even most high schools are woefully lacking. If you bring the SHSAT test to be in line with what is taught in middle schools, the test will be laughably easy and will cease to be an indicator of anything remotely useful.
That being said, I do think other factors should be taken into account. Keep the test the same, but add an essay and an interview as some have suggested. Make it less about just doing well on the test, and more about being a well rounded student.
2
People need to read David Reich's article about how genetics is redefining race. Populations are not necessarily going to have an identical distribution of traits. It's already been found that the gene variants linked to height vary across North and South Europeans. What if it turns out that gene variants linked to educational attainment are unequally distributed across populations?
Maybe the best thing to do is accept people as individuals with equal rights rather than treating them as members of groups.
14
Parenting and values still makes a difference after all, it would seem. Legislate for equal access to good parenting and values. That should fix everything.
13
The issue here is what is the best way to measure who are the smartest students. The students who are at the top of their classes are learning everything that their schools have to offer. Two students who are equally intelligent and hard-working will get radically different test scores if one of them went to a better school. A mediocre student will learn more at a good school than a good student at mediocre school. Consequently, if you want to select the smartest students for the elite schools, choosing the top of each class is not just fairer to the underprivileged. It is also much more likely to select the best students.
4
New Yorkers, wake-up. Another fuzzy-headed, do-good politician is about to destroy another of your trademark identities - i.e, you are smart and tough. Stuyvesant and the other specialty schools are for those smart enough to get in. And you achieve that by serious study. That is being tough in the right way. Now another pin-head politician wants to do to the specialty schools what the politicians did in the 60s to the city college system with open enrollment in order to help the minorities because they simply are not good enough because their grade school education is so very poor. Stop the simple-minded foolishness. Do the smart thing and get better teachers and better preparation in grade school and middle school. Don't destroy the specialty schools. That is unbelievably self-destructive and flat-out stupid
18
If and when this doesn't work out, progressives will blame "racism". This is what they do. Mess things up and then blame everyone else. Merit should not be a lost art.
17
Since Elmont Memorial High School just over the Queens border in Nassau County is doing great work achieving academic success with a 76% African-American student body, why not copy their example?
7
There's nothing wrong with Stuyvesant's example. You have to pass the test to get in, that's all. Do you think young musicians get into Juilliard without an audition? Do you think 18 year olds get into medical school without taking the exam? Do you think lawyers get to practice without taking the bar exam?
4
ER,
Where in my post does it state anything about the test? I passed the test. The one thing I remeber about it was the phrase; "The tired mind reaches quickly for the cliche."
- DT
The hidden racism of the NY elite really comes out in arguments like this. Some believe that Stuyvesant and other special public schools will be ruined if more Black and Latino kids are admitted. It's a new twist on the old "there goes the neighborhood!" cliche.
The Chancellor is not proposing to let everyone in, but rather the top performers in the schools. Smart kids who because of their family situation or whatever do not score the very highest grade on the test. They deserve a chance. Most will rise to the challenge. Let's stop being so racist about who should be allowed to attend good public schools. Smart Latino and Black kids are not going to "ruin" Stuyvesant. Get a grip.
3
Isn't the real issue how to tell the difference between "smart kids who because of their family situation or whatever do not score the very highest grade on the test" and those kids who really are not as smart or dedicated?
People from Asia are a single ethnic group? My god.
26
Instead of making adjustments for students who are from schools that are "under resourced", why isn't your solution to STOP UNDER RESOURCING THEM! Seriously. De Blasio you are world class full of bologna.
15
DiBlasio and progressives are racists.
The new schools Chancellor is a racist.
Admission to public high schools should not be based on race.
Richard Carranza, the mayor’s new schools chancellor, put it this way: “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.”
Is simply an explicit racist slight against Asians.
So he must be removed from office. immediately.
Racism has no place in America. Certainly not in New York and certainly not for well paid public servants (Carranza is paid $345,000 a year) who are supposed to administer the education of the city's kids! We must not fund racists who detest the hardest working of our kids because of their race
26
The Left's solution to unequal education, tear down the best school by cramming non-achievers into them, that way all schools will all be equal. Brilliant.
20
Sink or swim. The heck with your self esteem. Life's tough. You might be surprised who succeeds. Seriously. Remove all identifying markers on all students- everybody gets a number- and that's how you sign in for tests, etc. Less pre-judging that way. Put 'em ALL in the water.
10
NY Times readers love diversity unless it adversely affects them. Hypocrites one and all. What is that you say, "50% of the U.S. population is women so 50% of CEOs should be women?" Oh, but when 10% of the city is Asian and 75% of a school is Asian you do not like diversity so much anymore?
The extreme left makes its bed of hypocrisy and then sleeps in it. Its amazing to watch hypocrites squirm to find their way of of their own internal conflicts.
19
Well written, Mr. Weinstein.
David Brooks had a column about merit admissions to the Ivies a few weeks ago. He lauded our meritorious standards of determining who gets in. I wasn't convinced he knew what he was talking about...
In the Ivies, legacies matter. In the Ivies, hard-luck stories predominate: I was homeless; I had to watch my younger siblings; I come from a broken family, etc. etc. All of these factors leap-frog an "underprivileged" applicant over someone with stronger test scores.
It is possible to achieve the highest score on the standardized tests (SAT and ACT) and still be bypassed in favor of an athlete, a legacy, or a hard-luck story who did not have the same academic credentials.
What does this teach today's children about merit and working hard to achieve one's goals? It tells them that the system is rigged, and that today's Ivies do not support merit achievement.
I hope the same fate does not befall Stuyvesant. I too went to college with grads from there: they were well prepared for university from Day One, and there was no academic coddling or hand-holding or favoritism or sob stories needed.
20
I went to Stuyvesant 55 years ago. In 1961 the most popular last name of the students in the school was "Levy". Today it is "Lee".
Students from other minority groups (non-Jewish or Asian) need to be given better educational opportunities from pre-school on. Until the system improves and adjusts (which may take many years), create a new specialized high school for the minority students who 'just missed' passing the Stuyvesant entrance exam.
Maintaining the standard of excellence at SHS and providing a similar opportunity for the just-missed students would be great for the city school system and the students who attend these schools.
8
The great thing, Robby-Bobby, would be to observe the rivalry between two such schools; if the Mayor's theory is correct, there would be a rollicking competition between their math and chess teams, and for who could collect the most Westinghouse prizes, and a mutual respect between them, all of which would benefit the students of both (perhaps a bit like the relationship between Hunter and Stuyvesant).
If the Mayor were wrong, of course, there would be no contest at all.
5
The mission of specialized high schools is to select the best students and give them the best education.
This proven and time honored process should not be tampered with to pick winners, enforce quotas or forward racial gerrymandering. The role of education is NOT diversity.
The current single test gives no advantage to race, ethnicity or gender. It was purposely designed to be meritocratic.
Meritocracy rewards hard work, sacrifice, delayed gratification and a culture that values education. "Progressives" are on the wrong side of history and need to realize that the system should guarantee equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome.
DeBlasio has been mayor for 5 years. He has no one to blame but his own administration for propping up so many failing elementary and middle schools. Rather than change the admissions criteria, he should be held accountable.
23
A single written test one completes sitting at a desk for 2-4 hours is, by itself, a useless guage of student ability in the 21st century. America's medical schools are full of students with perfect SAT/ACT scores, an unmatched ability to memorize facts, and exceptional technical/computer skills.
As physicians in the real world, though, they all too often provide substandard patient care because they lack interpersonal skills, sound judgement, emotional intelligence, and the ability to manage or collaborate with staff. If your only criteria is a written test, you will (predictably) end up with the best test-takers and memorizers --not the most capable or deserving students.
1
... you will (predictably) end up with the best test-takers and memorizers --not the most capable or deserving students.
------
or the ones who have most mastered the test material and can effectively apply that information to the materials -- or materiel in the real world -- at hand.
We'd never insist that an underrepresented minority who did not meet the performance standards necessary to play ball in the Big Leagues deserves an equal rotation on the court -- why would you want lesser qualified people (when measured at Game Time/test time) chosen when they are not best for the team? In the end, it will show in their (lack of) performance. See the Obama ex(ecutive) action presidency...
*And it has nothing to do with size factor. If a little guy can achieve the performance, he plays. Or she.
I sympathize with those who can't/couldn't get into Stuy and the other elite high schools - i.e. those with single-parent households, without access to quality test prep and/or are socio-economically disadvantaged.
How about the following:
1. If you sign your name and swear under oath on your test form that you have never taken test prep = +x points to your SHSAT score.
2. If you are from a single-parent household = +x points.
3. If you are below a certain threshold in income = +x points.
4. If English is not your first language = +x points.
Do we think the above will "even the playing field"? Will such boosts radically change the current composition of the elite schools?
do you think those are positive qualifications for academic success you have listed? if you are biracial, do you get a leg up? if your father left, is that a bonus? if you didn't work a summer job and save for a test prep class, should you be rewarded with bonus test points on the material?
are these students suddenly going to learn the discipline and necessary habits to focus their concentration on academic subjects once they gain admittance?
Once they're in, does your pity end or do you follow up to see how they are faring, and if they find employment and advance in life post-graduation?
Maybe extra points for extraneous lifestyle issues (not subject driven test material) are not the answer?
The city has literally several hundred high schools. Why are they eternally obsessed with these eight schools?
Improve the other schools.
24
I believe intelligence is uniformly distributed but what circumstances you're born into is random. If that's true then the brighter kids from the weaker middle schools / environment should have the same opportunity to benefit from Stuyvesant. Any given test just tests the knowledge to do well on that test and the preparation resources available to you, it doesn't necessarily test your intelligence, abilities and potential. Boaz, I suggest you DK that trade!
1
The special high schools will be condemned to suffer the fate of CUNY. There has to be a better way. This is not the way.
16
Indeed - how short memories are of the debacle that "open admissions" made of the once fantastic education that places like CCNY offered. They used to call it the Harvard of the Poor.
Not any more.
14
deBlasio's ultimate destructive goal appears to be the elimination of the successful Specialized High Schools. S.I. Tech is a few blocks from my house. It's frequently ranked in the top 20 schools in the USA. Most mayors would be proud to have a school like that in their school system. I think deBlasio really is appealing to certain Black and Hispanic voters. It's just my opinion but I also think that deBlasio would be very happy if the White and Asian middle class left NYC.
17
As a 1947 graduate of Brooklyn Tech, I say: leave it alone! Those schools have served the city well for eons; don't muck it up.
19
All the test prep in the world isn't going to make an average IQ student into one of the gifted (I am one of the average). How about another gifted school for that 20% below the cutoff? What's so terrible about that? Why break what is far from broken, and instead create some new gifted programs?
14
"How about another gifted school for that 20% below the cutoff?"
It's called "Brooklyn Tech."
2
Here's what the plan will do. First, many of the teachers that teach the toughest most academically challenging courses will begin to look elsewhere. Suddenly you will have students that can do the work sitting next to students with no clue. Discipline problems will increase. Those parents that put every penny into their child's education will look elsewhere. The schools will decline and lose their once shining reputations. The taint of favoritism will further erode America's image as a 'meritocracy' and you will grow a whole new generation of conservative voters born from seeing their hard work and academic achievements shrugged off by politicians via having less talented students take their place.
17
My neighborhood high school included well off white kids with high ambitions and abilities and mostly Hispanic kids from the projects. I chose the school when I moved to Phoenix for its diversity and its academics. A lot of extraordinary teachers chose the school for the same reason. I don't think there is another like it in the city.
My son ended up at Pomona and my daughter at Wesleyan. There were always Ivy Leaguers among the class. My son's girl friend joined the Israeli army. My daughter's swim team, which included many projects kids, was always top 5 in the state. And Sarah Brown from the projects was the funniest of all my kids' friends. Not all the whites and Hispanics got along, but most did.
My kids are doing better than most Stuyvetant grads. My son works for Google and my daughter works at a cutting edge medical research company. If it's vital for you that your kids keep company with the academic elite, only, I feel sorry for you. There are so many more interesting ways to get to the promised land.
3
So - you're saying that your kids made free choices without the various levels of government inserting their social engineering mores into their lives.
Sounds exactly like what most of the folks in the comments are suggesting.
2
I hope the tone deaf Democrats in City Hall, Albany and indeed at the Federal level take heed of the balance of opinions presented here, or the Democratic "wave" will transform into a reckoning. As a Democrat all my life, I now have no intention of voting for a Democrat at the local or state level in the next election.
10
A similar principle is used for admissions at the University of Texas at Austin. It lets more Hispanics and Blacks in than a standard test. Similar claims of "reverse racism" have been made, including one that made it to the supreme court. UT Austin's academic level has not declined, on the contrary. It is a gross lie that talent and smarts alone will get a student to success. Cultural and community mechanisms must be in place to nurture that talent. Students who do their best at a mediocre middle school and whose parents will not pay for extra test prep cannot compete.
Come med school admissions after college and all they want to see in the applications is "well- rounded" human beings instead of the robots with straight As that apply aplenty. So students not only have to get extraordinary test scores, but pad their CV with volunteering, extracurricular activities, and "leadership." A good 20% of my students at a fancy private college break down by senior year. Such are our demands for excellence, talent, and smarts, and the insistence that only the best should get a chance.
1
Having worked with smart people for most of my career, there is one thing I have learned. Don’t break up an A team!
The conventional wisdom is that one can move individuals from an A team to create several A teams.
It doesn’t work because an A team feeds off the energy, talent, work ethic of each member of the team, creating the “Flow”.
Elite schools, colleges, work places, Military units are such places.
When did you hear the Navy Seals commander say “well, he didn’t make the cut but let’s get him on the team anyway!”
24
How about considering another route to helping kids get into these schools. Maybe each incoming Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc class should "adopt" and mentor a class of students from an elementary or middle school that needs help. Make working on the mentoring program a condition of graduation. It couldn't hurt and it might reap rewards, it will take time but could be well worth the results. As to the current Asian dominance at the schools, it should be celebrated. Asians aren't the only group to dominate, over the years the groups have changed. We should figure out what they are doing right and try to replicate it city wide.
2
Bill de Blasio's proposal is nothing more than the basest of pandering from the most incompetent Mayor in the history of the city of New York, who has done more to ruin our schools than all other mayors combined. First he permitted students to bring cell phones into schools and classrooms. Why? Because his son Dante, who attended an elite high school, could bring a phone into his school, and he wanted to treat all schools equally. Not every school is Brooklyn Tech, Mr. Mayor. The result: chaos in the classrooms. Then he weakened the discipline code and created even more chaos with his misguided plan for "restorative justice." His motto is now "Equality and Excellence." So how does he achieve equality? By lowering standards at our top high schools, which makes about as much sense as the other two misguided schemes from this phony liberal who has never seen a standard he didn't want lowered.
18
So I graduated Stuyvesant in 1965. Our family’s friend graduated in 1939. Yes it was a male only school until maybe the late 1960’s (early 1970’s?). Bronx Science was co-ed.
The racial complexion varied over time. It wasn’t so Asian dominated when I attended. I saw it change to reflect many Asians as I noted the Westinghouse (then Intel) Science Fair finalists.
I don’t know if racial records were kept over time, but others’ testimony will confirm my observations.
Black students? Not so much, unfortunately. I had several black friends at SHS, though.
I think that the then-current recent immigrant group tries harder. First generation tries VERY hard. By third generation there is not a burning desire to break through barriers, and just live comfortably, on average... Black accomplishment and striving to break through system constraints has had such a troublesome history, much more challenging than any of us who identify as “non-black” can imagine.
I am a lifetime “computer guy”, although I’ve been exposed to political science, economics etc. Not a “sociologist”.
Solve the root cause of the diversity short comings, not mask them by changing the meaning of a SHS acceptance.
8
This all boils down to a relatively simple question of what our elite public high schools should be.
Should these schools be places where the best and the brightest kids are driven to excel, or should they be places that turn away otherwise-eligible students in favor of students who fit some racial or socio-economic quota - and who we hope can excel despite the fact that they couldn't otherwise meet the same scores/standards?
Uber-liberal politicians, like our Mayor, have given their answer. Don't be surprised. After all, teachers vote - school kids don't.
11
Good piece. Ignored in this debate is the role played by Prep for Prep and similar organizations. Starting in fifth grade, they select the best black and Latino students (Asian youngsters are seldom accepted, because they’ll usually drop Prep for Prep if they get into a specialized high school) and groom them for over a year for admission to New York’s fancy private schools (in seventh grade); then they’ll repeat the process for seventh graders to get them into boarding schools in ninth grade. So by the time of the SSHSAT, hundreds of the city’s best black and Latino students are already attending or have won admission to some of the country’s best, most exclusive private schools.
16
Exactly. The only way to get the true percentage of black and hispanic minorities at question here is by counting those in private schools. Many URM who are eligible to attend SHS by test scores (whether or not they take the test) chose to attend private schools, Regis, or other schools with a different environment and better resources.
As a former teacher, I can attest to the power of putting bright kids into the same group and letting everything even out. I came from an inner city middle school and moved to Mountain View, CA. By the end of the four years I went from being behind in everything (despite being at the top of the class in my middle school) to being near the top of the class in Mountain View. Children have a wonderful ability to learn from their peers and adjust to rigor. Continually segregating Black and Latino students amplifies class and language based differences in acheivement, and robs extremely bright students of the opportunity to adapt to the high standards set by Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc. To think that Asian students can't benefit from being around ethnically and linguistically diverse populations is ridiculous. I knew tons of kids who grew up in ethnic enclaves like Socal's SGV or went to majority Asian test-in schools like San Fransisco's Lowell High. Many lacked the ability to comfortably interact with people of other races. Then these kids grow up and wonder why they keep getting passed up for management positions. Some of it is racism, some of it is that they only know how to function and interact with other Asians or Asian Americans. (For what it's worth, I'm Asian-American.) I'm sure their test scores were stellar though...
4
I see this as an interesting twist on NIMBY logic. It seems the author lauds racial diversity as a worthwhile goal, acknowledges it doesn't exist, wishes that it did - and then...that's it.
Mr. Weinstein offers absolutely nothing about the fact that black and brown students are 65% of the school population but only 15% of the student body at specialized schools.
I assume he is too polite to express what he outlines, that black and brown students must not be talented and/or hardworking enough - and that this can be definitely measured by one test in middle school.
"What the protesters stand for — and I stand with them — is the universal principle that talent and hard work should be rewarded. "
3
Jose, H
I don't think Boas Weinstein's editorial was not meant to address the marked under representation of blacks and Hispanics in the specialized high schools. This is an indisputable fact.
I personally know Boas and as he has founded and personally helped fund two Success Academy schools. I can tell you he has done more to help poor minority students than almost all the writers on this board combined.
Blacks and Hispanics are grossly underrepresented at Stuyvesant because of terrible elementary and middle schools. Everyone values success, but make no mistake about it, not all cultures equally value education, hard work, sacrifice and delayed gratification.
Asians, like Jews have very intact families. No study has ever shown that single parent families are better, yet in many communities, 70% to 80% are born to single mothers.
3
I see the price of tutoring for SHSAT tests from $1,200 for a small class to $60/hr. for one-on-one tutoring. The average score increase from this type of study is reported as 170 points.
If you want a test to be halfway fair, all students should have access to this type of preparation--then nobody could claim the process is biased.
Instead of saying that ideally everyone should have this type of access, don't leave it as an ideal, make it the law. SHSAT prep could be offered in every middle school in NYC, using available dollars and the reserve pool of teachers know as the Absent Teacher Reserve. Mandate that the test be given at every middle school, not just a few hand-picked schools to which students have to travel.
This would make the playing field more equal. (Of course, it wouldn't totally level the playing field, because we'd have to get rid of ALL discrimination against blacks and Hispanics in housing, employment, etc. to make it level). And we'd know that the ATR had a guaranteed job to do every day of the week and was being paid to do regular jobs.
An opinion from someone who was successful like Mr. Weinstein in the current system of testing naturally seems like a biased opinion. Perhaps the Times should allow a contrary opinion from 1 of the tens of thousands of students annually who are marginalized by unfair, discriminatory, standardized tests--like I was.
1
There are multiple studies that custom test prep does not significantly change the performance of the students that it tutors versus getting the freely available material and working through it on your own - or heaven forbid - with an actual parent.
12
You have some good ideas like giving the test at every middle school. Making students more aware of the exam will go far in giving more kids access to prep work and making these schools more diverse in an organic way.
But I do disagree with you fundamentally on something else - there are many free prep programs for the SHSAT for low income students. Many of my friends at one of these schools attended this program. I'll fill you in on another dirty little secret - the majority of the kids in these programs were from the underrepresented minorities that de Blasio so wants to empower. They received the same preparation that many of my friends did.
The problem with the media surrounding this controversy is that de Blasio and his ilk are intentionally misleading people on the extent of free programs out there. There are many! I can even find a multitude of free online programs from literally thirty seconds of googling. But you wouldn't know it based on his rhetoric.
1
Mr. Weinstein, if your concern is a diminution in the quality of the student body admitted to Stuyvesant under the mayor's plan, now you have a sake in raising quality at ALL the feeder schools, not just those closest to you and yours. Get to work and stop abusing the notion of meritocracy to perpetuate systemic inequities. In a properly run school system, attending one school rather than another would never be a make or break difference for superior students nor, for that matter, students of any ability.
1
Does anyone know the percentages of female and financially disadvantaged students who are admitted? The author and others who perform well on standardized tests see them as unbiased, a level playing field. I believe that a single criterion system such as the sole use of a standardized test is inherently biased toward those who have “broken the code.” Deblasio’s plan sounds like an improvement, similar to using class rank as a criterion. Ultimately every smart student should have a shot.
1
Many of those commenting seem confused. They seem to think that admission should be based on some criterion other than merit. Raw test scores are the only measure that determines admission; those with the highest scores gain admission The color of one's skin, gender, race, religion, sexual preference all doe not enter into the decision to admit. Apologies to all who misunderstood. Here are the instructions for admission lest anyone remain confused: Study hard, take the test, perform at the best of your own personal ability. Your test scores, and not your race, gender, religion, sexual preference or zip code, will be the ONLY determinant of your admission.
15
If you add 20% students who do not meet the standard, you will destroy the entire class, because you lower the standard. Imagine you added 20% average players to the NBA, you would destroy the NBA. Even more important, those 20% will not be happy. They will feel really bad about themselves.
13
Nonsense.
The NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL have ALL undergone expansion, diluting the talent pool.
NONE have failed.
Exactly right: “Instead of complaining, as he has, that the admissions test invites so-called gaming in the form of preparing for it after school and during summers, we should be demanding answers from him as to why middle schools themselves are not teaching the basic math and reading skills that are its subject.”
10
20% of all varsity sports teams should be reserved for students who want to be good players but don't really exercise or spend much time practicing. Also all NYC public school basketball teams will now be limited to 28 feet combined total height of all players on the court. We need to let the short players get some game time too.
17
Steps of the Scientific Method
1.) Make an Observation: Applicants with test prep have an unfair advantage.
2.) Form a Question: What would happen if all applicants had test prep?
3.) Form a Hypothesis: I think if all applicants had test prep it would be more fair and balanced to all students who apply.
4.) Conduct an Experiment: Offer free test prep to all applicants who cannot afford it. Donors will cover the cost.
5.) Analyze the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
7
Since we need more spaces for talented kids, let's invest in additional high quality high schools with the admissions criteria de Blasio outlined
But since Bx Science and Stuyvesant are succeeding in their mission of giving a top-quality education to highly motivated low income students, don't mess with their formula.
6
I am 54 and living in the midwest and when I meet a New Yorker I am still proud to tell them how my father who was born in 1927 got into Stuyvesant. It is an immediate recognition that he was one of the special few that got that opportunity. He went onto a career as a plant pathologist at Purdue and I credit Stuveysant to helping him along.
9
As a voter for Obama and Bill Clinton, who is now independent, this article epitomizes the alienation of the rational moderates.
Hard work and skill have lost any meaning with the new progressive movement, in exchange for identity politics and socialism. Dilution of talent and innovation is coming at the sake of diversity. Stuyvesant is similar to the immigration issue, wherein most people believe in some underlying merit, such as being a tax paying US citizen with immigration and objective test scores with the NY public schools.
The push for diversity cannot come at the cost of objective data and need to satisfy irrational guilt.
13
Interesting and valid points,
BUT
I remember coming as an immigrant and being tracked into the "accelerated" group at my school. Consisting of students who had been put in the group based on early grade IQ tests, the group had an enormous percentage of those who could only be described as "duds" at least so far as academics went.
However other tracks had plenty of hard working well rounded kids who were so much better and more effective than many of the kids in my group (myself included).
While competitive entrance exams to high school are not IQ tests in early grades, the value of hard work and achievement of success and excellence in the environment one is put in, merits very strong attention.
It is arrogant to assume that those who excel in poor schools will invariably flounder at "elite" public schools if they test lower. Maybe they will need additional support. But the skills and dedication they have shown that allowed them to excel for years, will undoubtedly enable many/most of them to eventually excel at elite schools. Certainly they deserve the chance to show they can do it. We are supposed to be a country of opportunity. Let us give it to those who show themselves willing to put in the work and produce results, and give them a chance to prove themselves on the tough stages of life/school.
3
I graduated from Stuyvesant 18 years ago. I was one of the few black students in my class, even back then. While I will argue all day that the mechanics of how the admissions test is administered and scored is largely responsible for the dearth of black and latino students, the proposed plan really would effectively mean the end of the specialized schools.
I would love if we could change things so that every well-prepared hard-working kid could get a shot at attending these great schools, but dropping a bunch of kids who haven't mastered the requisite material into a high-pressure sink-or-swim academic environment isn't really going to help anyone.
We need a plan that only admits students who are at the academic level required. Change the test, don't get rid of it.
11
Although there are many good arguments on both sides of this divide, the real issue is that the capacity to provide high quality education seems to be too small for the demand. If the number of students that could attend elite level schools were increased 5 fold many of these problems would disappear.
I am the parent of two children who went through specialized NYC public high schools and my younger child is still in one. I would like to make three points. First, to keep up with the intense work, a child would have had to prepare from a very young age. Primary and most certainly in middle school, kids need to learn how to study, stay organized and multi-task to be able to handle the specialized high schools as well as many other excellent NYC public high schools. Second, it is essential that middle school administration does an excellent job informing both students and parents about the choices of high schools and what they require and how the entrance process works. (Of course it helps if they also prep them for this process and the exam.) Third, students rank which specialized high schools they want if they want them at all as there are many other excellent options for hard working students. All three elements have to come together for any student to go to the specialized high schools. It is not the test that is the problem, it is the combination of the three points I made.
3
In the 1990's my service manager set up a basketball game between sales and service to be played at the Stuyvesant High School gym. The condition of the school was immaculate, the gym spotless, the hallways pristine.
I had never heard of the school before that and was surprised to say the least that it was a part of the NYC Board of Education. After reading up about the school, I felt a sense of pride that the city that I grew up in could provide a private school quality education free to any NYC kid that earns it.
Any attempts at lowering the admission standards to this or any of the other specialized schools is criminal.
12
One problem with the current system is that it rewards the same people for the same reasons, and it is compounded by the fact the financial rewards accorded to these elite schools only continues to separate the haves and have nots further.
A still bigger problem is that all of NYC public schools are overcrowded making admittance to the few available 'elite schools' that much more 'important.'
Every student deserves to be challenged everyday regardless of test scores.
I celebrate our differences of peoples but not the differences in the treatments our students get depending on their zip code .
What are you talking about?
The schools in question aren't "elite". The students who excel and get in are.
What financial rewards accorded to these elite schools are you talking about?? If anything, they get LESS funding than other NYC high schools.
There is nothing magical about these schools. They just put the hardest working kids together in one spot so they can focus on hard work and not be bored to tears in classes where kids and parents don't want to invest inordinate effort in studying.
12
The 'haves' have brains and work ethic. The test does not discriminate based on family assets, in fact, the student bodies of Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, and Bronx Science are mostly middle class or lower. So, it is the 'have nots' who populate these elite schools.
1
I support the Mayor’s plan to an extent. It is not wise to change the admission process so drastically. A better plan is to have, say, 50% of the admission continue as before and the rest admitted from various middle schools in accordance with the Mayor’s new plan. This will go some way towards maintaining standards while giving opportunities to students who may not have received in before. Parental influence can have a big impact on student performance and prospective students cannot choose their parents, obviously. One thing I can confidently predict is that academic standards will fall when any criteria apart from merit is used for admission. The question is how much of a compromise can we tolerate while still maintaining, for the most part, the high academic standards.
Why can't all NYC public high schools be as good as Stuyvesant? It seems to me that is what is needed.
2
The Mayor's proposal, the protest, and this discussion will likely have little impact on the lives of disadvantaged communities or the future of all kids in these schools. Strong kids will be tested in life and survive well in the end, especially in a place abound with opportunity such as NYC. But the issue really shines light on the deep seated privilege, racism, and condescension rife in this country towards blacks and latinos (by liberal and conservatives alike). If we wish for a positive outcome for all, the discussion should focus on the fundamental issue at stake and elephant in the room. Otherwise the polarization continues, and no matter how one group does better, it will be eventually be a zero sum game for all.
1
If the mayor's idea is indeed implemented, in a couple of years we will be seeing proposals from the same loud anti-excellence voices, advocating programs to help rescue the unqualified students who were admitted and now are lagging farther and farther behind their qualified classmates. You may be sure that those proposals will be as absurd as the current one.
13
People who do well on standardized tests love them and feel that fine performance on them reveals intelligence and measures the ability to learn. And if the institution they are applying to bases and its faculty bases its education on prepping people for such assessments, then you have even more evidence--for those folks and their teachers--that they are correct in their beliefs.
3
They idea that a high-stakes test is objective, while other criteria are not, is one of those that has entered our common sense for no other reason than that those who are heard in our society tend to be those that previously succeeded at high-stakes tests. It used to be that in many places you couldn't get a law degree without Latin proficiency, and it was just common sense that a person who hadn't read Horace couldn't understand the law. We've moved on from that over ferocious resistance from legal scholars proficient in Latin. Let's also move on from the testing regime, a machine designed to reproduce a certain kind of person who is good at performing just well and fast enough under pressure to be marked well. Let's most definitely move on from a testing regime that sorts children into the good ones and the bad ones at young age.
1
I'm in favor of De Blasio's plan. And all this test-prep mania is really unhealthy. Let kids have lives outside of school and homework!
1
Where is the so-called test-prep mania? If you ask me to work 24 hours a day, I will not become a math genius. Many people just do not know some people are smart and other are not so smart. We should respect and protect those smart people, because they will benefit all of us as a whole and in the long run.
18
I went to Stuyvesant (had no test prep). Stuyvesant is for kids who study a lot. What is wrong with that?
The world needs scholars as well as "balanced" kids.
There is nothing unhealthy about pursuing your passion.
11
You haven't seen it? I have and it ain't pretty. These kids have no lives outside studying.
By the way, I was accepted at Bronx Science without any test prep, and I had a life outside studying.
Nice to move problems, by creating new ones. Instead of fixing the problems, of the New York City, or other large city school systems, they take the brightest, move them to a special place, and dump the rest. What is even worse, taxes are very high, the teachers are paid well, and the outcomes keep getting worse. And, the overpaid administrators get their six digit salaries overseeing mediocrity.
This is not just a New York City problem, but a national one. All you hear is, the schools need money, build more charter schools, test and test some more and we get excuses. The kids are not learning, because there is not enough money.
Like most taxpayers, the biggest chunk of my property taxes to schools. I never had a child in school, but I paid my taxes. But, I expect that my tax money be used wisely and for its purpose; teaching children. And not see it used for a bloated administration (free benefits, multiple HR people paid over 100k, free insurance (not for the teachers though), etc.). Not used for iPADs for each pupil, for electronic blackboards, tor replacing a security camera system (three times in 20 years). Yes, all of this happened in my semi-rural district, and test scores still remain static, and the teachers are underpaid.
So, again, to fix a broken education system, break what works, and not fix what is broken. Why aren't there are scorecards for administrators? Right now most would get an F.
8
I graduated from a special public high school for gifted students. It wasn't overseen by the NY Board of Ed. My school was confronted by the same topic in the late '60's.
The solution was as follows. After taking the entrance exam, students were admitted into the seventh, eighth and ninth grades. My school added two additional homerooms to each of those grades. Students who would diversify the school's population, but who may not have passed the test, were considered & admitted based upon their school's earnest recommendations, attested to by their teacher's belief that these particular students had the ability to catch-up & perform at a level equal to those who had passed the exam. All the entering students were blended together without labels or seperate rooms. We did not have any diminishment in the school's quality or any failing drop-outs. Everyone went on to fine colleges, including the top ivy league schools, mostly dependent upon their family's budget.
This issue can be solved with moderation and reason. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water.
1
As a retired professor, this situation reminds me of what colleges have been facing for a long time. Public policy has forced the admission of ill-prepared students (in my experience, of all ethnic groups) who are lost in the academic demands of more rigorous programs and, therefore, miserable. Colleges have remedial programs for these students, but it is usually too little too late. Either they drop out or professors will continue to pass them along with the result that they arrive in the workplace as unprepared for that situation as they were when they were admitted to college. Will some unprepared students rise to the occasion and find success? Yes, they will, and that is a wonderful thing. What is less wonderful is when students, through no fault of their own, are made to see themselves as failures.
I agree that admission to these high schools should be determined by more than a grade on a single test. That is problematic. But I also agree with the writer that the real solution is to improve public education overall. All students should be given the skills to succeed. No student should be forced into failure.
5
Obviously its not a level playing field where standardized testing is concerned, not only in terms of the resources and parental drive thats needed to get extra prep, but also in terms of the literacy levels of your parents and their family.
But, having said that, the Mayor's solution is a non solution. How many Nobel Prize winners have come out of CCNY since the 60's changed the admissions criteria?
The solution is to improve the public schools, and radically. Offer free test taking skills courses if you want, and the extra test prep stuff that normally costs money.
But don't dumb down the specialized high schools that were and remain the envy of any smart kid growing up in NYC, this one included.
14
When forced busing in Nashville forced the top performing schools to accept children bused across town who had low academic ability and poor behavior, parents who could afford it quickly pulled their students out of public school and enrolled them in private schools -- some of which were created to cater to this need. The result has been that tax support for public schools has plummeted and minority representation has skyrocketed. Private schools expand and flourish. Be careful: The same thing will happen in New York.
18
To me, the only issue with the current situation is the ability of some students -- and the willingness of their parents -- to buy prep courses in advance of the test. This tips the scales in favor of students whose middle schools/junior highs are excellent, or whose parents are pushing academic excellence.
My own sons did not take the test -- the youngest auditioned for LaGuardia, got in, and loved it there.
1
As a teacher, I've watched many promising young people--of all races and ethnicities--lose interest in school because the curriculum doesn't challenge them or because the teacher spends so much time catching other students up. When will we stop talking down to these kids? Why would a city want to flatten out excellence in a school? Why not bring the standards of the others up? I hope the mayor is persuaded to change his mind.
This "democratic" lowering of standards pervades the US in most areas and has led to a society that is increasingly uneducated and at the same time feels entitled. "Elite"--when it comes as a result of hard work and high achievement--is not the negative word into which it's been transformed.
28
I'm wondering when my fellow Stuyvesant faculty members will weigh in. I've taught there for nearly 20 years, and went to St. Ann's in the 70's. There is something TO gifted people, and gifted kids really do exist, in all shapes, colors, and sizes. They need to be nurtured and put together to teach themselves, and they do it. It is excruciating to see the numbers of Black and Latino children at near-zero levels, and not every Asian/South Asian/UWS kid who beats the test belongs at Stuyvesant. But the majority do; and brilliant, highly motivated children create their own vortex--and those of us who teach there (we are, many of us, also gifted people, BTW), know how to spread those wings and fly with these kids. The Mayor is dead wrong about how to fix it this problem.
There needs to be major re-investment in working with Middle Schools (and Primary schools) throughout the City to help kids develop the skills that will show whether they are gifted and talented enough to make it at Stuyvesant once they get in. This is not a school for the faint of heart. Most of us teachers would not have made it there--not because we're not smart, but because the school requires excellence in EVERYTHING. And that is just hard, and it takes hard work. Right now, the Asian community is putting in the time. They have earned those spots. Let's help other kids--not blame the ones who've made it.
31
This argument sorely needs some data. In the abstract, I see plausible merit in both sides. Absolutely, it's not a special school if it isn't full of special kids. Also absolutely, everyone should have an equal shot at it. A third side not mentioned in the op-eds: If Stuyvesant is turning away great kids, build "Stuyvesant II" and increase the number of slots. (I mean a whole other school, not adding on to the existing one.) That way, you can admit more black kids without taking a slot away from Mr. Weinstein's kid.
There are statistics about how many of what kind of kid fail the exam, but that's not what we really need. Use the per-middle-school plan for a while and collect data on the success rates per middle school. Develop more interventions like the summer program one op-ed mentions, and collect data on how much different ones help. Establish magnet middle schools with Stuyvesant-prep curricula in currently-ill-served neighborhoods.
It's not fair to keep black kids out of the good schools, and it's not fair to admit them and then have them flunk out because they're not prepared. The solution can't be either of those outcomes. The city has to integrate the special schools /and make it work!/
4
Having spent 28 years of my life teaching in an inner city school district I find Mayor de Blasio’s initiative the height of political correctness. If a student can't make the grade then we simply need to lower the bar.
19
Thank you for this article. Bright kids have needs too. In regular schools they float through with little help and no challenge. They are a resource that should not be squandered.
Unless the mayor can devise a way to find the genuinely brightest and best from unrepresented groups in order to bring them on board, he should not destroy these gems of national public education.
14
I attended Hunter College High School when it was still on 68th Street and Lexington, girls only. My brother attended Stuyvesant, boys only. We grew up in Washington Heights in a low income family. Ours was the first generation to attend college. We studied hard, encouraged by our parents, who never finished high school. We took the exam like everyone else who wanted to get in. Apart from being Caucasian, we had zero advantages....no tutoring, no special school, just hard work and ambition. The schools were tough and an excellent preparation for college. The class body was a picture of New York City at the time. From my perspective, though these schools are highly selective and certainly there are serious issues with the quality of education in NY public schools, it would be a shame to alter the admission criteria. This may seem undemocratic and unfair, but I believe the answer lies in correcting the problems in public elementary schools such that a more diverse student body achieves the necessary skills for admission.
26
It's really sad that we've turned a small handful of fantastic schools, educating just a minute fraction of the overall high school population, into a battleground for these issues.
They may very well be the only schools in the entire system that don't need fixing.
21
There's no question that poor-quality K-8 school is the major issue, and that all children deserve high quality educational environments.
The point is, in my estimation - statistics tell us 50% of children are below average, 50% are above. Out of the 50% who are above average, my guess would be only the top 5th percentile qualify for the SHSs. It's one very small, select group. Why can't liberals see that it's human nature? The lack of the draw? Equality of opportunity is essential. Equality of outcome is a pipe dream. We're not robots.
1
We need rigorous studies to solve this puzzle. Is society better off when smart students are allowed to congregate at a few top performing schools? Or when they're spread across the system? Where is the empirical evidence favoring one or the other?
1
The history of human civilization tells us that individual achievement drives progress for masses. It is in best interests of society to culture talent and merit for the greater good. Dragging down quality to meet feel good diversity goals will ultimately be very damaging.
18
As usual, the assumption is that standardized tests predict success in schools. That is not the case, either with the high school tests or the SATs. In Texas,the top ten percent from the state's high schools are offered admission to the flagship campus in Austin, and that has helped maintain diversity there, a system that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The same could be true at Stuyvesant--that members of the top 7 percent are admitted and a more diverse student body has access to this excellent education. Waiting for the problems of NYC public schools to be solved does not mean that this solution should not be tried.
3
Fine.Then Stuyvesant is now a school for kids who do well on exams. Whatever.
Create another school for the top 7% of their graduating middle school. But leave Stuyvesant alone
7
I agree with the author. DeBlasio's proposal is unfair and the wrong solution. Earlier intervention is needed to help black and Hispanic kids. DeBlasio would be better off examing poor-performing neighborhoods and trying to understand what measures would lead to the kids eventually scoring high enough on the test. What might make a difference are things like better pre-school (which might mean more funding for lower performing schools), parenting classes or the wonderful European custom of visiting nurses who give all kinds of advice and support to new mothers and fathers. They not only give the baby a check up in the home, but can discuss things like the importance of reading to kids, getting a library card, avoiding sugar, appropriate ways of disciplining kids, etc, etc, etc, etc. Leveling the playing field for kids requires real effort and a lot of funding chanelled in particular toward troubled communities. Changing the admissions requirements is a lazy, cheap, ineffecive way to address the problem and could lead to the destruction of those qualities that make these elite school so very special.
18
Left unmentioned is he impact this proposal will have on middle schools.
Per the article there are a number of middle schools sending no, or few kids to Stuyvesant and the other test-in schools. That suggests that there are some middle schools that send a lot. (Per their website, Mark Twain Gifted and Talented sent 158 of 400 graduates to Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Technical HS; about 40%).
Yet under the plan, only the top 7% will be eligible to move on. A successful middle school that currently sends, e.g., 15% or 20% of its kids to the Stuyvesant schools will have a logjam at the top. Will parents move their kids into less successful middle schools for the eighth grade test-taking year?
Well. DeBlasio may be able to crush both the top high schools AND the top middle schools.
14
Richard Carranza was superintendent of San Francisco Unified District Schools when they made the decision to no longer offer Algebra 1 in middle school. That means that children who want to be able to take Calculus BC by the time they graduate high school need to pay for (and find time for) external math instruction in order to stay on the same math curriculum path as students in virtually every other district in California.
When the decision was made, the opinion of the SFUSD officials was: "...the controversial practice of tracking students -- or separating them based on talent and ability -- is simply wrong."
https://www.kqed.org/news/10610214/san-francisco-middle-schools-no-longe...
The change in math policy was one of the factors that drove many families I know out of San Francisco public schools.
18
Given the author's proposals, we should allow the displaced asians to be on the varsity basketball and football teams of their schools, since they are underrepresented. Merit based system, which are grounded by objective fair tests, are the best way to breed innovation, the growth engine of the USA. Forcing diversity quotas is a mission for failure.
As a practicing physician of 2 decades, give me the most highly skilled and intelligent surgeon any day of the week, rather than those who certain members of society are underrepresented. Skill matters.
18
The Affirmative Action debate is alive and well!
One's position on the Stuyvesant dilemma likely reflects how "progressive" one is. I always liked to think I was a progressive, but the movement's radical left is more frequently trashing not only high earners but high achievers. This is most disturbing. Dragging down others because of their achievements is not only against all our best interests, it's disgusting at an individual level.
The school problem has a lot to do with outdated elementary and middle school structures and attitudes. Is early adolescence the right time to shift young people from a single classroom with the stability of one teacher and a small cohort of classmates, to a frenzy of middle school class changes? Low income youth of all backgrounds, but particularly those of color, need schools to be safe places they feel comfortable in, where they have some agency, and where they know people care about them. Anyone has a great shot at thriving in such a place. Add more mentoring, tutors where needed, exercise opportunities, it can be done!
Just don't lower the bar at the top end of "achievable."
10
I think the central issue is the format and content the SHSAT itself. It is a long multiple choice test that covers a lot of material that most public middle schoolers haven't seem. The format favors test-taking and guessing strategies taught by prep companies and tutors. The content favors people exposed to this content outside of school.
As a result, it screens out a great many very smart kids benefit from going to school with other very smart kids.
And denies the students who pass the screens exposure to very smart kids of backgrounds other than their own.
This is not meritocracy. Rather, it is a system to tilted toward people with certain endowments, such as
- Parents who have can provide extracurricular educational and cultural enrichment not available to most public school students.
- Families that can afford expensive tutors and commercial test prep classes.
- Communities where test prep is endemic to the culture and starts in early childhood.
Children from backgrounds that lack this financial and/or cultural capital are at a significant disadvantage. The demographics of the SHSAT schools make this clear. To some extent, these dynamic have always been in play. But the growth of test prep in general over the last couple of generations, and the influx of people from Asia with in some cases centuries-long high-school, university, and civil service test-cram traditions have exaggerated it dramatically.
5
OK, if the admission criteria is so great at specialized New York City high school then why not extend that to college admission as well? Imagine if college admissions was based solely on the outcome of one standardize test.
3
One standardize test for college? Hm. Not a bad idea. Instead of legacy admissions? Rich parents sending kids abroad so they can write wonderful essays for their application packets? Going to enrichment activities throughout high school that require money and parent involvement? I think one standard test might actually level the playing field and relieve some of the stress high school students are now put through competing for top schools and scholarships.
11
My late father was a 1936 graduate of Stuyvesant; I still have his yearbook. It was always a difficult school to get into and admission should remain a merit based system, regardless of race, ethnicity, economic class and so forth. When something is difficult, it is valued that much more. I once complained to my son that playing a musical instrument was difficult. His retort was that if it was easy, anyone could do it.
Please do not change the admission process!
14
Here's a thought: have more high schools for high-achieving kids.
After all, if competition to get into Stuyvesant et.al. is so tough, that tells us some (large, it appears) number of NYC kids are not getting the right education. Change THAT.
Education shouldn't be a zero-sum game.
14
As I taught ESL as a volunteer with the Houston Read Commission, I learned through experience that the various subcultures in Houston have varying degrees of respect for and trust in education. That in turn affects their study effort. You know where they fall on the spectrum.
With respect to fairness. It is grossly unfair to turn away a child who scores well in order to accept a child who scores poorly. That is by any measure. We owe them both the same effort and the same lessons. Lesson number one: work hard and you will do better than if you are slothful. Lesson two: there are those amongst us who are gifted. It may not be fair but it is reality. The only way to overcome one who is gifted is through effort - sheer effort.
16
The Mayor’s plan wouldn’t destroy Stuyvesant. His plan would just make this resource available to more of the city’s students. At a time when many of the best colleges and universities are making standardized admission test scores optional, the city should follow their lead. Standardized test scores relate more closely to income and neighborhood then they do to ability. Many of the students who don’t do as well on the test could do extremely well in the school if they’re given a chance. This is after all a NYC public school, not a restricted school for the privileged of the city.
The students admitted under his plan would still be hard workers who just did slightly less well on tests that are already being question for their predictive value.
They are NOT privileged -- they are mostly POOR Asian kids, from immigrant families that don't speak English -- most are on "free lunch" programs.
3
I was shocked to learn that a majority of NY HS students dont have access to advanced placement courses (noted in an earlier article this week). This is absurd. It seems that schools are failing the students throughout the city.
5
If only a small percentage of students are passing states tests, AP classes won't work.
The author states, but most people miss, that it is the students, not the teachers, that make Stuyvesant great. There's no magical curriculum nor anything special about the building. It is the high self-expectations that each student has. It doesn't originate from the adults in the building--the kids have it the first day that they walk in the door, and they have it in every class they attend for the next four years.
Stuyvesant has 3300 students. Insert just one lower-performing 9th grader to Stuyvesant and they will get a fine education. Put 1000 to the school and everyone will get something very ordinary. Every parent wants their child to be the single one who gets to go, but not among the thousand.
The best way to ensure the equity that everyone, the mayor included, seeks, is to improve the education of all New York City students starting in pre-K. The demographics of the Stuyvesant students are a symptom of a decade's worth of inequality experienced by each 13 year old applicant.
12
Yes, the mayor's goal should be to help more kids *earn* their way into Stuyvesant. This is backwards.
1
Since admission is determined solely from the results of a single written classroom test, the Stuyvesant demographics are a symptom of the misguided belief that such a test reliably identifies anything more than the most capable and best-prepared test-takers.
Imagine hiring everyone in a company based solely on a written test, without ever interviewing them!
1
The true issue here lies with parents, not their children. It is almost impossible for these kids to do better than parents when their parents do not know the value of academic achievment. The parents must be first educated about the incredible value of education so they can help their children. I don't believe anything can change if parents do not stress the importance of education to their children. Parents must then make necessary sacrifices in this endeavor. Yes, having money makes this easier, but as the article points out, 44% come from poor families. The difference is that these parents see education as the key that will bring them out of poverty. So lets educate the parents first for their kids sake. They can then teach their kids to make education their first priority, not sports or social media; trust me they will have time for this after homework. Teach them to make the effort to ensure studying takes precedent over everything else and I will guarantee a brighter future for everyone. This is the only solution, not guaranteed seats. Trust me, I have rarely seen anyone do well without parents who did not show them the value of education.
11
I'd love to hear more about your plan for "educating" NYC parents and obliging them to make sacrifices.
Texas did something similar at UT, mandating that top graduates of all the state’s high schools, even its terrible minority ones, be granted admission. It worked out very well. The kids with help stepped up and diversify blossomed. Mr. Weinstein thinks one test is the objective and fair arbitrator. Studies suggest that it’s not which is why so many colleges are eliminating the SAT which Mr Weinstein tellingly compares it to.
3
Mr. Weinstein fails to address the central question here - whether or not the test is in fact a perfect reflection of a child's potential/ability.
He seems to want it both ways. Despite conceding that many schools inadequately prepare their students for the exam, and acknowledging the importance of certain environments in achieving excellence, such as having parents that support and encourage their children, and being surrounded by other driven, brilliant students, he nonetheless is not willing to make any concessions that take environment into account when admitting students.
Surely students who have excelled academically in tough environments - whether it is their home, neighborhood or school environment have shown a level of ability that the test might not measure.
For a kid who is intelligent, and willing to work, high school is not too late to make the change to a more challenging environment.
Instead of predicting disaster, why not give it a try for a certain number of years and see what happens? A test can always be reinstituted.
Of course it's entirely possible and probable that some neighborhoods and schools are highly represented in Stuyvesant because families are attracted to those schools. One result of taking the top students from each middle school might be to encourage more gifted students to attend schools they would otherwise not go to.
3
This article raises important questions. #1 - is a single exam a suitable or fair way to allocate these coveted spots? It may not be (but it may be easier & cheaper than the individualized applicant examinations that private colleges undertake). But that question leads naturally to another. #2 - why aren't all public school kids prepared by their schools (assuming all schools have similar facilities and teachers as asserted by the author) to take the exam? It is true a great many kids applying to these schools (notwithstanding immigrant heritage or low economic status) have private tutors, or attend test prep/cram schools (commonplace in many Asian countries even for poorer people) before/after school and on weekends but in NY this mostly remediates the failure of the public schools to teach this material in the first place. The elephant in the room may be culture (not race). All parents (& children) presumably value education but it seems that even poor immigrant Asian parents will scrimp/save/borrow etc. to pay for tutors & classes to supplement what their kids aren't getting from public schools & the poor immigrant kids willingly (or unwillingly) sacrifice their free time to achieve this goal. While this shouldn't be necessary, one wonders why more parents (and kids) aren't going to extraordinary lengths (like these poor immigrants) to secure a spot in these schools (or merely ensure a great education, recognizing the failure of the school system to do its job)?
2
It's a tough call. I'm a BHSS alum, and it was the best school I ever attended (which include some very prestigious universities). Of course we had some superb teachers, but I believe you learn more from your classmates, from interacting with them, than you do from the teachers. And if we water down the quality of the student body, we destroy that experience. That makes me very skeptical of the DeBlasio plan.
On the other hand, we should have more diversity in our elite schools. Not just to be fair to minorities, but because it will enhance the experience for everyone. Surely there is a way of doing that without watering down standards. I will leave it to education experts to devise the right metrics, but just lowering the bar for disadvantaged students will hurt everyone involved.
7
I have been teaching at an urban school in New Haven for 20 years that is almost evenly split between lower-income African Americans and Hispanics. I have a suggestion: Why not enact the plan to accept the middle school kids with the highest scores as a trial run? If the mayor is truly behind this program, he will expand the specialized schools to accommodate them. If they succeed, it might be a real eye-opener for many people. If they struggle, they should be helped, with the cause of their struggles carefully noted. Then, perhaps, real help can be crafted for students who might not have test-taking skills. I know that many of my students are very bright, creative and articulate. Why are they not doing well on standardized exams? Beats me. Here's a good opportunity perhaps to get to the root of it.
I know that a lot of students' academic courage and willingness to strive academically is shaped by their peers and their environment. Since I've been teaching, I have been doing my level best to move promising students to an honors level at my school. Frequently, not only does this simple challenge score a difference in their education, it scores an enormous difference in their lives. The difference might not only be life-changing, but perhaps, life-saving.
Why not take this chance? A story that ran on April 26th on NPR by Claudio Sanchez reported that lot of colleges that experimenting with SAT-free admissions are having success.
2
Seeing some actual metrics on how many slots are open in these elite school and the test scores and backgrounds of applicants would be useful in assessing the dilemma presented here. Just taking the absolute top scorers is not always necessary or desirable, especially if one group is so focused on the test to the point of neglecting other important aspects of teenage life. For example, if we could agree that the top 10% would excel at these schools, but only the top 5% actually get in, could we not use a lottery to pick from the 10%? This not only would get us some of the diversity we are looking for, but also take some of the pressure off of these poor kids who, as someone pointed out here, are going to 24/7 test prep schools. The bar needs to be set high, but does it really need to be only the very highest? (Of course, the real solution lies in improving the course of study for everyone but that it is a long term solution.)
1
De Blasio should leave these schools alone and build his own dream school. It would named after him (obviously) and he could go around spewing on about how it is the most progressive school in the nation. Admissions would be based on perfectly matching the demographics of the school to demographics of NYC. Students would be forbidden from studying more than other students in order to promote fairness. Exams would consist of 95% super easy questions to prohibit too much variation in test scores. Any ranking system would be eliminated. Any school fees would be based on a sliding scale to ensure that poor parents wouldn't have to unfairly pay more than the percentage of their income. And of course, everyone is required to wear a uniform with a DeBlasio logo.
15
I never tried to get into Stuyvesant, nor Brooklyn Tech.
Both were all boys schools back in the sixties.
Bronx High School of Science may as well have been on the moon.
I wanted girls !
1
I am a retired CEO of a Wall Street firm. For 20 years, I mentored seniors from one nearby elite school mentioned. Over the period, the majority student body changed from American Jewish, to Russian Jewish to now Asian. I tried unsuccessfully to recruit African Americans.
My experience leads me to conclude that Mayor de Blasio is right. All students were highly motivated, competitive and well trained in their course materials. Very few were truly brilliant; they simply were well trained to take the test. Most lacked skills required outside the classroom: interpersonal, creativity, effective communication, and an understanding of other cultures that exist within the city. They were not being trained to be citizens; they were being groomed for corporate life or entrepreneurship.
Most Asian students that worked for me resented their life style as they felt unduly pressured by parents to achieve in areas which they had little interest. Is this how we wish to educate our most talented?
Maybe by redefining "education" "citizenship" and "community" we can help to minimize the causes that led to the significant diminution of the Wall Street financial services industry, which triggered the world financial debacle in 2008.
14
thank you for this clear and excellent defense of the specialized schools.
Like Churchill said about democracy...testing is the worst form of admissions except for all those other forms that have been tried.
Those with privilege will find a way to game any other system.
10
Thank you sir, you are spot on. De Blasio's penchant towards mediocrity is only a poorly veiled attempt to appeal to potential voters in what he thinks [with great delusion} is a platform for national office. Stop trying to take away the rewards for hard work and diligent study. We need a populace that is willing to sacrifice to get ahead. How about focusing on bringing this City's third world subway system into the 21st century.
16
This debate conflates equality in access to Stuyvesant with equality in access to education. Students want to go to Stuyvesant for the superior educational opportunities it offers (high quality teachers, AP classes, strong college office, etc.). Stuyvesant's selectiveness itself is not necessarily a good thing for its students. If a less selective school offered the same educational oportunity, many of these students would be better off - they would be bigger fish in a much smaller pond - when it comes time to apply to college.
Stuyvesant (and its ilk) becoming less selective, does little to fix overall inequality in access to education. The solution is to make less selective schools better. Great teachers, AP classes, modern facilities and strong college support. This will cost money - maybe a lot. AP classes might only have ten kids at first; college counselers would work with small groups, instead of hundreds; labs may be under-utlized. But if there are 100 public high schools that offer a full, high quality college prep program, Stuyvesant will slowly lose its relevance, and many more students will gain access to educational opportunity.
Stuyvesant '88
13
Even if poor kids could somehow attend the best schools, the achievement gap would still be massive. Rich kids have stay at home mothers and private ACT/SAT tutors come test time (I used to tutor some). It's a massive help for average students. Taking a kid from ACT 22 to 27 means (some) scholarship money at public University. I saw it happen over and over. Lowering standards or diversifying schools may look good (and help a little) but socioeconomics play a massive role - more than some like to admit.
7
Well said. As the Talmud states: without wisdom, how can one differentiate? And a world without proper differentiations can't work.
4
In Hawaii, the premier school is Punahou, founded in 1841 by missionaries. It is a private school with admission based on merit, for the most part. Diversity is also a factor. The recently retired headmaster has said publicly, "We have to include diversity, otherwise it would be an all Chinese girl's school." He didn't mean that sarcastically, he meant it truthfully.
6
So he admits they have established criteria specifically to discriminate against Asian-American females?
Sounds damning to me.
4
I grew up as one of the few students of color in my small town in California. I tested 3-4 grade levels higher in English,and science, and 2 grades higher in math. Yet I was discouraged from applying to any of the gifted students schools in my area.(not that there were many) I kept being told by school authorities that 'I would be frustrated" and "fail" if I was pushed to compete with white students. Instead I was told that if I applied myself I could be a bank teller or even a secretary. The test should not be thrown away to please ethnic poiticians/activists; students should be given the resources to test well, even if they are attending a poor school.
10
I'm sorry you were discouraged from applying to the gifted schools. You would have been a great addition to any gifted glass.
1
A classic example of government enforcing mediocrity to achieve the liberal pipe dream of a society of equals .Where ever inequality is seen ,some thing must be wrong . Some one must be gaming the system . So , under the banner of " Diversity" , standards must be lowered . After a while those schools will be just like every other high school in the NYC public system. Only the mediocre are always at there best.
17
Change! What are you afraid of! Why are you so afraid of a classroom dominated by Black and Hispanic students? If the administrators of Stuyvesant can't rise to the challenge of recruiting a student body representative of the population of New York City, they shouldn't be in the business of public education.
4
Why not take the high achievers from underperforming (black, Latino-dominated) schools and provide them with free prepping that will give them more equal footing at the entrance exams?
17
I 1963, I somehow passed the test and was admitted to Stuyvesant as a 12 year old. I had performed well at PS108 and even though all my freinds went to Jnearby John Adams, I got on the subway each morning for the one hour trip to East 15th St. It seemed almost everyone was Jewish and the even though I loved baseball, I found most of the kids in love with chess. I graduated at the bottom of the class and was in college at 16. Even though I have had a terrific career as a school administrator, I alwasy felt that if I went to my local school, I would have been at the top of the graduating class and who knows where I would have ended up. My point is, it was a sacrifice to go to Stuyveant for me. I lost out on what I loved to do, spent hours every day on the subway, when I could have enjoyed my HS career locally. There are opportunities for those bright kids who don't pass the test. Embrace them and enjoy your HS days being very succesful at your local school.
14
We need to put our resources and energy into educating the best and the brightest. Dumbing down their schools to make less talented students feel better is, indeed, dumb.
21
In my area many students are failing to achieve passing grades on tests. There seem to be two solutions - #1 being to improve the quality of education so that more kids pass the test, and #2 being to reduce the score required to achieve a passing grade so that more kids pass the test. Needless to say, solution #2 was implemented. The NY Mayor's plan sounds like a different version of solution #2 which is unfortunate.
12
What is the evidence that this single test is an adequate indicator of a "bright" student? Standardized tests are simply the cheapest means of creating a ranking. It is in the interests of those who do well in this particular testing game to extol its virtues rather than question its validity.
3
Have you ever taken (let alone passed) the test for Stuyvesant?
Get back to us when you have (a practice test from a prep book would suffice).
1
Indeed I have. And I have seen the challenges overcome by students in poor middle schools. Get back to use when you have done the same.
It's no favor to lower-performing students to be placed in a highly competitive school. Better to focus on improving performance where they are.
9
Changing the entrance reqs for Stuyvesant, et.al., is a feel-good balm that will do NOTHING to address the underlying inequality and poverty that fuels low academic performance among NYC's majority black and hispanic student population.
This plan means: NYC will cease to have a handful of specialized high schools that serve a few thousand of the highest performing students (top 1-ish%) in a million+ student population. If that's the plan, fine, let's say it out loud. Accept that there will be zero NYC high schools to serve that small sliver of students; I suspect they will be fine. It's bad policy but no tragedy.
But let's not pretend this plan this does anything to address real issues and better serve all students, many of whom are not getting the education they deserve. They are decidedly not fine and that is the tragedy.
It's a stunt.
17
Much of students success comes from hard work and not innate ability. Having 2 parent families, with educated parents, who encourage or demand that children do their best will of course generally produce children who work harder at school. Parents arethe most important resource for success and students can't get new parents. So there will always be inequality of students because there is always inequality of parents and innate ability. Schools can only very partially remedy this. If students aren't getting in because their parents can't afford tutoring then this would be clearly unfair and relatively easily remediable. The fact that75% of the students are asian suggests to me that access to tutoring is not the main cause as certainly asians are not that mucher richer than the rest of new yorkers. I'm not sure how much 3 years of high school can remedy 9 years of poor prior schooling so maybe the earlier years are more important. In education. There will never be a substitute for hard working fully motivated students and the fact that asians make up 75% of the students suggest that overall they are more motivated unless we want to postulate that they are innately smarter than other groups.
11
Ability and achievement are the criteria here. Not race. Not religion. Not social class. Not residence. Not privilege. ABILITY. That's what makes the schools special. Ability. Not everyone is able to be a CEO. Not everyone is able to attend a special school.
The issue is access to good education, beginning with pre-kindergarten so that children have opportunity to do their best, whatever that best may be. The issue is not "fairness" based on criteria which has nothing to do with ability. The Mayor doesn't know what he's talking about and should leave education to educators.
14
I agree with Mayor DeBlassio. The field should be leveled for all kids. A single exam as a criteria for admission will benefit the students who have the resources to prepare for the exams. Testing is not perfect. There might be some students who do not do well in the exam but are as capable of succeeding in a demanding education system as the ones who do well. Testing does not test creativity. The idea of selecting the top in their classes in middle school is good. If their middle school does not prepare them well, they will have ample opportunity to make up during high school.
2
Testing is never perfect. But talking about 'creativity' is nonsensical when you deal with kids who come to study math and sciences and don't know the hard stuff they are supposed to know. And no, most of such kids won't make it up during high school. They will either drop out or become a nuisance and drag for everybody else.
9
Chicago has outstanding selective admission high schools (the best public schools in the state). But admission to these schools is not based solely on a single test. While there is an admissions test, grades, where you live in the city, and standardized test scores are also factors. The quality of the schools is still outstanding even though more than 1 test is considered in the admissions process.
4
The test is still front and center in the admissions process. You can't be a selective high school only on grades because grade inflation is rampant and entirely inconsistent.
12
This is a very complicated issue. On one hand, I get that... we don't want to be sending 'whomever are considered the best' students from what may be low-performing schools, on to Stuyvesant, only to see them struggling and ultimately failing or dropping out. It's also not fair to penalize those other students who may have worked so hard to do well in school, only to not gain entrance into Stuyvesant, due to 'quotas'.
At the same time however, we must turn the tide and help improve the overall educational levels, and ultimately the job prospects and economic levels, of blacks and latinos. It seems to me that at low-performing schools, and where the students understand that 'the best of them' have a higher probability of being accepted into Stuy, that this fact alone is going to make them work harder in school, if only because they understand that it may not take as much for them to 'stand out' as compared to their classmates, and ultimately gain acceptance into Stuy (whereas at other schools and where the bulk of the student body typically excel, it's much harder for any one student to stand-out from their fellow classmates).
Even IF some of these other (low-performing) students find it difficult once they gain entrance into Stuy, it still seems to me that being in this environment, surrounded by smart, motivated students and teachers, is going to change them for the better, even if they ultimately fail or drop out. But let's hope that doesn't end up being the case.
1
"[W]e don't want to be sending 'whomever are considered the best' students from what may be low-performing schools, on to Stuyvesant."
It's "whoever is considered the best" students.
I am considered. He is considered. Who is considered? Whoever is considered.
And where did you ever get the idea that being allowed into a place like Stuyvesant, watching other kids get good grades, and then failing or dropping out, does anyone any good?
4
What needs to be focused one and worked on is providing all elementary school and middle school students the same strong foundation in reading, comprehension, math and all the things one is supposed to master before going on to higher education.
When I taught college, I had students who graduated from NYC high schools who could not structure a sentence, let alone a paragraph or write a proper paper. They were not dumb nor stupid, they have never been given an opportunity to access a solid education.
Clear up and strengthen K-6 and everyone will start on a more level field. Besides, dolt all of our children deserve a solid education?
10
New York City seems to be creating new high schools almost every month.
Instead of changing the admission requirements of Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech and Bronx Science to meet his goal of having an elite high school whose students are reflective of the city's student population by admitting the top students of each middle school, why does Mayor de Blasio not create a new 'elite' high school and use his criteria for admissions.
This would allow the existing schools to remain as they are and will allow future mayors to compare the results and use them to make changes to the NYC school system's admissions process, if necessary, using tested criteria rather than by untested predictions.
13
I can share the Indian experience in education. Indian Institutes of Technology are one of the best schools in India. India has a constitutional mandate to help its minorities. Hence implemented a quota system throughout all educational institutes except these elite institutes. Eventually in the 80s they changed course and implemented a quota system for these institutes. After a decade they realized it was a failure. They reversed course and instead of lowering testing standards they just allowed students belonging to minorities to take an extra year to graduate after they enter these schools. It seem to be working well. Perhaps we can do a mix here. Have a small quota and give minorities extra time in case they fail or struggle. It is a worthy experiment.
5
Some kids just don’t take tests well and can be just as hard working as the ones who are accepted into Stuyvesant and the other elite schools.
I’m all for letting these kids in.
And how, exactly, do you distinguish the poor test takers from the dullards?
3
I agree. But how can you be sure that these students are Black and Latino only? There are Asian kids, White kids and other kids who don't handle tests well either. This plan is essentially a racial quota, nothing else.
2
There are over 230,000 high school students in NYC but only 8 great high schools? Seems like the Mayor and the DOE are failing basic math.
15
Stuyvesant High School is not the end all and be all. I attended a regular, normal, neighborhood public high school and went on to an Ivy League college.
Maybe when the parents calm down, they'll realize what a huge favor the Mayor and the new Chancellor are doing for them. None of the super selective universities select on the basis of one single test. Parents who send their kids to Trinity, Dalton, Milton Academy, etc. etc. already know this.
4
Trinity, Dalton, and the like, can't compare with Stuyvesant and Bronx Science.
Especially since private schools are taking their cues from schools of education, who have for years been dumbing down curricula in an attempt to deny the effects of irresponsible parenting.
5
Good point! I do not like the plan, but wonder why some want to go there. Smart students there study hard, but have worse chance than expected to go to top colleges. Ivies already set quota for certain group already.
1
Disclaimer: I went to Stuyvesant a year after landing on the shores of America from old Soviet Union.
This whole discussion has an emotional and societal component that makes it hard to analyze rationally. Let me offer a parallel example from the world of sports.
There is a tennis academy in Florida formerly known as the Nick Bolletiery Tennis Academy. It has trained countless tennis stars. Admission to it is very selective making Stuyvesant look like the McDonalds of education. Important to note is that Bolletiery often admits very poor players but who have great promise. Now imagine that somebody were to spot the "injustice" of Bolletiery and decides that other young tennis players deserve the chance to attend it. So the "top" tennis players from all tennis programs over the country can now attend. So what would be the result of such generosity? Well, the local high school heroes will soon enough find out what it is like to be blasted off the court by Agassi’s and Courier's. Bolletiery will then have a choice to make -- segregate the kids into two levels -- elite and "regular" or train them all and then go out of business because elite prospects stop coming to train.
As can be seen, the inadequacy of this situation is easy to perceive when it deals with athletic prowess. However our logic gets cloudy when matters of intelligence and mental ability are involved.
11
I lived within four blocks of Stuyvesant in 1970 and passed the entrance exam. My admission was denied because the NYC school system raised the test threshold for Catholic students. Its explanation was disingenuous - Catholic kids had their own Catholic high schools to attend.
During 11th grade, a good classmate told me about a summer operations research program at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute (now Polytechnic U of NY) called Polytech for short. The program based on math and computers convinced me to skip senior year of high school and attend Polytech. Engineering jobs were very scarce, so, I transferred to one of the best engineering schools and secured an excellent job.
My point is that the student is more important than the school. No matter what the school system does the student will end up in the same place because of her innate abilities and hard work to overcome unfairness like I did.
3
I agree with the author, that talent and hard work should be rewarded, not punished just because you may belong to a high-achieving ethnic group.
A much better strategy would be to ask, "Why do members of this group achieve so highly?" Could it be because they study harder and are more dedicated in their efforts? If these in fact do play a major part, why can't we be honest and adult enough to admit it and champion these noble traits without being called names?
How discouraging and unjust to any child whose sacrifices and hard work have merited placement but whose placement is taken away and handed to someone less qualified.
system by filling them with students not qualified to be there and will either fail or be left behind, their confidence destroyed.
If others are falling short, give them the extra help they need to compete fairly before the test, just as we do in sports and other areas of life. It's the only just and honest way.
7
Thank you, Boaz Weinstein for a calm and succinct opinion piece. My blood boils at at a temperature that makes it impossible for me to respond to Richard Carranza's illogical and racist retort. Shall we just create a test that asks simple questions: "What is your skin color?" and "Find teachers who likes you". Perhaps this skin-color-blind, knowledge-based test reveals the misguided priorities in one's life, that one is unable to accept? (So let's blame the Asians.)
9
The author of the counterpart article to this article argues that the purpose of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan is not to achieve racial and ethnic quotas but to “give kids from a wider variety of backgrounds access to a public resource.” However if one can pretend the purpose of the plan is not to achieve racial and ethnic quotas, one could just as easily pretend that there is no difference between New York City’s elite schools and other public schools.
6
Having attended and graduated from one of the specialized schools in question, I am shocked that elimination of the admissions test is being considered for no reason other than some misguided attempt to fix a non-existant problem. The admissions test is the same for all the specialized schools, and is open to absolutely any NYC student who wants to take it, regardless of ethnicity or any other such consideration. I am not white, and never once did I think that the admissions test was unfair. All it demanded of you was that you could read and do math. The local high school in my area was nothing more than a clubhouse for local gang members, and had I been forced to go to that school my life would have been different. Instead, NYC gave me the chance to go to a very special school which did a wonderful job preparing its students for the challenges they will face later in life, something for which I have always been grateful. The student body was diverse, with all ethnic groups well represented. However we were all united because we all knew that we belonged there. Every student in that school was above average and deserved to be there. Elimination of the entrance exam for this sham reason will destroy the educational standards these schools maintain. It is nothing more than a path to mediocrity.
17
The kids who are succeeding at the elite schools are likely doing so due to their effort and motivation. Shame on the mayor for social engineering and eliminating admission tests. Instead he should focus on fixing poor performing schools. NYC needs to elect mayors that are not racist, bigoted or misguided like Bill de Blasio. He is in line to follow Giuliani as another mayor that went astray.
8
White segregationists in the South made the same arguments in defense of “separate but equal” public schools in the 1950s.
Interesting.
1
I always thought just reward for hard work at the high school level was education, self respect, options for the future. Not, go to the line, forever.
My son took the SHSAT and did well on it. We looked into prep programs and tried a few practice tests, but his innate abilities and his previous schooling were really enough to allow him to score well, and he elected to attend Bronx Science.
It was a wonderful experience for him. His classmates were a diverse group of very smart, very decent kids with excellent senses of humor and the ambition to do something interesting and cool with their training.
While some think that the SHSAT alone is not an appropriate way to choose students for the specialized schools, it's actually a very good method of deciding who attends schools like Bronx Science. The curriculum is very test-oriented. If you're not good at taking tests, even if you're very smart, you will not do well in one of these schools.
The time to deal with the problems mentioned by critics of the current system is not when the tests are administered, but in very early childhood, when the inequalities in our educational and economic systems start taking their tolls on our kids. The goal should be to raise the standards for everyone from the get-go. Mr. de Blasio's plan - devising a system to essentially allow under-prepared students into very demanding environments for political gain - would be painful and counterproductive for the kids who can't handle the material, and would result in the watering-down of the qualities that make the specialized schools the jewels of the system.
12
Mayor de Blasio is implementing plan that will certainly motivate people to move to Republicanism. To get more Hispanic and Black kids into such schools, he needs to beef up the primary s hook system, Most importantly parents must take very active role in motivating and inspiring their children to pay attention to academic pursuit as the Asian parents do.
Though I haven’t been a Trump supporter in most cases, but I must agree that this is an act that will destroy Stuyvesant as we know it.
I have been an educator in university setting and served as a school board member in northern New Jersey. My comments are based on my experience.
7
Wait a second: this author asserts that the issue is racial diversity (and quotas for Asian students), and most of the top-rated commenters seem to simply take him at his word. Most of the commenters also seem to swallow the author's premise that a single high-stakes test is the best measure of "talent" (that's the term he uses in the article--not mine).
But there are many reasons why it could be a good idea to admit students who represent a greater socioeconomic and geographical diversity (and yes, "geography" does correlate to ethnic populations in most cities). Let's say you follow the interim plan and reserve 20% of the places for students from the lowest income areas. Sure, you could argue that you've now "diluted" the population of previously high-achieving students at the best public schools. But you've also created an opportunity for those 20% to have access to what the author himself acknowledges is the most vital resource: motivated peers. Even if that group never fully catches up, they're still so much better off.
The answer all of you seem to favor is to just let those kids wither away in sub-par schools, because after all, it's too late to do anything about them, right? Sure, no ethnic group "owns" particular schools. But no individual student "deserves" opportunity more than another--unless you're as selfish as so many of you seem to be.
1
A student who works harder than another doesn't deserve anything?
1
The mayor and his henchman have a plan to reduce NYC to its lowest possible common denominator. If everyone is not excellent, he would destroy excellence or else make everyone excellent. Good effort in trying to turn the city into the class-less society.
10
The question I have is:
When a "weaker" student from a "weaker" school attends the very-well-regarded Stuyvesant High School, what does the data say about that child's experience?
These would be some of the issues:
Some of these students, I would think, would feel the energy & enjoy the diversity & latch onto the power of being among so many intelligent & sharp compatriots. In that case, they should blossom and shine.
A caveat: There are two very different ways to assess this "blossoming:"
1. The percentage change in the student's improvement &
2. How close to the top of the class the student reached.
And - on the other hand - how often does the experience affect the student in a negative way? Feeling ignored. Or feeling left behind.
And - as to this poor result - what is being done to assist each of those students to cross that bridge into acceptance and to find the path to growth?
2
The money would be better spent by providing these 6th and 7th graders with the kind of tutoring, after school programs, and summer boot camps that so many stuyvesant students have participated in, albeit privately.
Lowering the bar doesn't help anyone. Raising the bar, with lots of assistance and guidance in place, will help these "minority" students so much more. Mayor de Blasio needs to get parents on board as well to help them understand what a rigorous program can do to help their kids.
4
I went to what at the time was considered one of the best public high schools in the country. The students were mostly upper-middle class, had private tutors, were rewarded with cashmere sweaters and other goodies for high grades. It's the students without those advantages that are the really hard workers. They deserve a place at the table.
1
My sense is that much of the racial discrepancies described are connected to cultural differences with long and deep histories. Many East Asian cultures have for centuries, and millenia, been strongly influenced by Confucianism in which meritocracy based on test-taking is a defining characteristic. That same tradition did not arise in Europe, Africa, or the Americas. On top of lacking this deeply-rooted cultural norm, those of African and Hispanic descent have obviously faced centuries of slavery and/or enormous discrimination. Culture normally doesn't turn on a dime, particularly when those with the most power feel ambivalent, at best, about those cultures. I think it is this intersection of long cultural traditions and America's on-going resistance to coming to terms with its racism, that explains the Stuyvesant predicament.
3
I've been training physicians, nurses and health care technicians (including in NYC) for over 30 years. My contemporaries and I noticed a disturbing trend among med school students and young physicians over the past two decades: a massive influx of overachieving residents who possess stellar academic credentials but are seriously deficient in essential interpersonal and real-world problem solving skills, emotional intelligence, and professional judgement. The biggest complaint I hear from patients is that the newer doctors don't understand them or are incapable of relating to their needs; that they treat patients hastily, ineffectively and impersonally, like "tasks".
These same doctors emerged from the "most qualified" students after years of supposedly rigorous, impartial screening in high school, college and medical school. Unfortunately --like the Stuyvesant entrance exam-- screening consists overwhelmingly of test scores, desktop research and classroom exercises that, by themselves, cannot measure one's capacity to perform with real people in the real world. It's been shocking the number of times I've observed a high-pedigree resident --Stanford, Dartmouth, Duke, Michigan, etc, who everyone insists is a genius-- prove utterly incapable of handling a situation or delivering effective patient care. Let's use Stuyvesant as an opportunity to modernize education and talent development starting with a more accurate and comprehensive admissions process.
7
Who are these kids who are naturally better at emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills in White Anglo-Saxon American society? Would they happen to be native English speakers? Kids whose parents send them to summer camp? Kids who grow up hanging out with adults at dinner parties? I tested into Stuy as a fresh off the boat immigrant. If there had been an interview in the admissions process I would have had no chance. What chance does any immigrant child have under your rubric?
2
If a kid can demonstrate on a written test his ability to flawlessly memorize the correct spelling of dozens of words, maths formulae and historical names and dates, it tells you nothing of his ability to work with peers, persist with a long-term challenge, communicate abstract ideas, think critically, or interpret complex social situations.
None of the latter depend upon a particular language or social status. 20-30 years ago, there were plenty of capable, proficient 1st gen immigrant medical students from all over the world (at least in the NY-NE area) who were far more than just great test-takers. The newer students today seem to be disproportionately book smart yet not real-world intelligent. Unsurprising given the selection methods.
1
Interesting. What we are missing, and badly, is a better equality in opportunity, for which the poor and segregated by Housing and jobs and neighborhood are unable to compete, reason you see the very low percentage of blacks and latinos. Universal Pre-K may help eventually. The question is, what now, how to better prepare those left behind so to have a real chance. Education remains the big equalizer. We are just not seeing it.
Some people think only conservatives are racist. The fact that the vast majority of commenters seem to agree with this author’s opinions highlight the nature of true racism, which infects many “liberals” as well. Standardized tests have been scientifically proven time and time again to be tools of racial and class discrimination.
3
My late husband attended Stuyvesant and had great pride in this. Myself, a native of NC , had not heard of this school until I met him. He went on afterwards to a business degree from NYU and became a Seton Hall Law School Drop Out who signed up for the military and was sent to Iraq at age 28 after witnessing some of his high school classmates die in 9/11. On his obituary I added the name of his beloved high school that he worked very hard , despite a diagnosis of dyslexia to gain entrance. My sweet Irish husband would not be pleased with this news.
10
I'm so very sorry for your loss. Your late husband sounds like a brilliant and patriotic American. Indeed, his loss is our country's loss, and I will include him in my prayers.
I am Hispanic, born and raised in NYC, and I truly hope de Blasio's silly plan does not come to pass.
Here is the million dollar question for those advocating the abolition of the test:
What happens when black and Latino kids are not able to keep up with the rigor of Stuyvesant and Bronx Science?
Are we now going to either lower standards so they can stay or throw them out?
18
The real gaming happens when the school district tweaks its standards to "show" higher outcomes for student achievement. I strongly suspect that's what is going on at one of my local school district's high schools. Last year, 3/4 of my eldest child's graduating class received some sort of honors award. The school has an 89% graduation rate. Unfortunately, the school is below the state average on the standard math and English tests and just 2% of the graduates meet the State University admission requirements -- which have not changed in a half century.
8
In 1973 during the cultural revolution in China, there was this guy named Zhang Tiesheng who took the college entrance exam (the official college entrance exam is scratched in 1966, this is a water down one for the kids of industrial workers/peasants/soldiers) and hand out blank exam paper claiming exam is useless. He became a national hero. The cultural revolution in USA has been happening for a long time, just in slow motion
3
"Already, according to the Department of Education’s own measure of poverty, 44 percent of Stuyvesant students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced lunch or are eligible for Human Resources Administration benefits."
Well that should settle it. The school is economically diverse, which means kids from poor schools are indeed getting in at a high rate. It's fair. Why pit races against one another, seriously. Let's remember that there used to be regular race riots in Harlem, Irish and Italians killing each other, Orthodox Jews clashing with blacks in Brooklyn, and on and on. Mayor De Blasio, why would you undo all the racial progress New York has made to ignite a new race war, using our hardest working students as the pawns?
11
This is an important topic of discussion for NYC, but also for every city the USA. Why do students in Stuyvesant do so well? Is it because they're more intelligent, or because they are given more opportunities to excel?
I went to Catholic elementary school in Flushing, NY, and then on to a two year old Catholic High School in Bayside/Flushing. My favorite teacher was a coach, Mr. Connors, who was also my algebra teacher. I liked him because he was so enthusiastic about what he was doing, and never looked down on students who made mistakes. The next year many of my classmates were put in something called "math for life", while I was put in advanced algebra with ten or so students. We also had a class in chemistry, taught by the father of one of the students, and we talked about things like what we ate for breakfast. I hated it and school after this. To my great surprise, I got into Cooper Union School of Engineering, as elite as Stuyvesant, evn though I had never taken physics or calculus. My first year was a nightmare. I never failed a subject, and I never got above a C, but I made a lot of friends. In the first week of sophomore year, my friends decided to tell me how to learn. They took me for a walk after school and told me that I was just as smart as they were, but I hadn't learned how to work hard in my high school, but they had in theirs.
Stuyvesant is great because it demands a lot of ALL. Other schools aren't because they demand a lot of only a FEW.
6
This actually annoyed me so much I had to make an account to post. Is there an issue that there are a ton of sub-par schools not educating their students properly? Absolutely. But somehow, De Blasio's way of addressing this is to dumb-down the few schools that DO have a high standard of education? How about he focuses on raising the standard at those schools and across the board, rather than lowering it.
Race should not matter in this discussion. I have friends who couldn't afford test prep, but they studied their butts off and worked through the SHSAT books that they could afford, and were able to succeed. Why are we punishing those who have worked hard?
18
Is it fair that performance on a competitive exam determines who goes to the top school, even when this results in a student body 75% Asian? Yes, you are damn right it is. The social desirability of any other system that attempts to produce ethnic diversity in the school may be debatable, but any such system is certainly less fair.
11
Look, it's a lot easier for Bill de Blasio to pick on an admissions test than to admit that not all kids will make the grade, and that that's a natural thing. Or that while black kids do attend our best public schools, far too many black kids have been stymied by poor parenting and can never hope to make it even in our regular high schools.
(And that's true also of white kids in rural areas. You think their pappies would actually like them to be scholars?)
But even white kids from middle-class, two-parent families don't always get into Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, even when they have parents who have instilled in them a love of learning and the perseverance and tolerance for hard work that any real success requires.
And not every Asian who wants to, gets in either.
There's no such thing as equality except under the law -- where it belongs.
8
Implementation of the mayor's plan would inevitably diminish the accomplishment of any minority student who was accepted; i.e., "Am I in because I am smart or because I am a minority?". That question would never go away. The problem is not the exam, but the education (or lack thereof) in the NYC public schools. If you want to fix the problem, fix the schools, starting with pre-K.
7
My son goes to Brooklyn Tech. Prior to that he went Dr. Gladstone Atwell MS 61. We did not send him to a prep school. We simply did what we could at home to prepare him for the test. Given that I feel very informed in my opinion on this subject.
The SHSAT isn't the problem to the underrepresentation of black and Latinx students. The problem is that schools with predominantly black and Latinx students receive less money and support than students who live in wealthier neighborhoods. What they do get is threats to close schools who do not return the results that schools that the city invest more in. Rather than lowering the bar for the sake of diversity, the mayor should ensure that elementary and middle schools provide an environment and staff who can ensure that students are capable of competing on a level playing no matter what neighborhood those schools reside in. Parents and educators also need to partner and prepare those students who have the capability and drive to succeed in the specialized high schools. Eliminating the SHSAT will not solve the real problem which is that the NYC schools system is grossly unbalanced in the quality of schools between neighborhoods.
10
Dumbing down is not the answer, but it will be the inevitable result at the worst possible time. The latest redesign of higher ed, "acceleration," is closing the doors on students unprepared for the rigors of college. Students will no longer find remediation in college. None. If they are not prepared for the new normal, they will fail. NY would do better to prepare ALL middle school students for high school. And ALL high schools must do better preparing students for college.
5
"Dumbing down" = soft racism. Congratulations.
2
No it's not, period.
If Richard Carranza were chancellor when I went to Stuyvesant (class of "66), he would have been referring to us Jewish students when he stated that our school didn't belong to "any one ethnic group". Maybe he needs education on how quotas have limited college admissions of the years for Asian and Jewish students.
16
As long as there are ‘quotas’ there will be no racial equality. Why is it so difficult for some folks to understand this? No, it simply is not fair nor democratic to allow a student of a particular ethnic group into a school just because of their ethnicity. But that is exactly what a school quota system does. All things being equal, the quota system will allow the ethnic student first solely because of their race. That’s just plain wrong and the longer it continues then the longer it will take for us to be rid of racism once and for all. Merit is the only measure they should be used.
5
One of the arguments in favor of the mayor's plan is that by relying on a single test for admission to schools as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant gives an unfair advantage to families who can afford to pay tutors or for special classes geared to improve performance on the admission test. Do these tutorials improve the chances of admission regardless of ethnic background? If yes, the next question is: What percentage of Black and Latino students who take the admission exam (the 44% stated in the article) also take these tutorials? If that is a critical variable correlated with the difference in admission rate, then tutorials that improve performance on a single test become a major criteria for admission. That is not a meritocratic system! Clearly doing well in your schoolwork and state exams on specific subjects (math and language) would be a better filter of those attempting to gain admission to the prestigious schools. The answers to the questions posed above are needed for this debate to move forward.
Hi Sam,
I went to a (value laden term) lousy high school in New England in the 1970s. Doing well on school work was simple- very little homework and very little expectations. I don't think it would be a good measure of my abilities to cope in a select school. The average combined SAT scores for the high school were about 550.
2
"Average combined score" means an average score of 275 in math and 275 in language. I think you meant an average score of 550 on each topic. Of course average means the actual scores were variable, for example some as high as 800 per subject.
Your comment also suggested that SAT scores are predictive of performance in college. While true at the extremes (below 550 and above 700 on each subject) scores in between are not. Yet those scores are not sufficient to be accepted at the more elite schools.
Rigorous courses requiring hard work to do well should be the major screening, not some test where performance can be purchased with tutors.
No, I meant combined SAT scores. And by-the-way, I scored about 550 on my first math SAT. And I was in the top 1% of my class.
But you may be right. A comparative high school in my native city has a COMBINED 2017 SAT score of 817- better than 550 for sure!
There is often some loss of academic competitiveness with successive generations of Asian kids. Also, many successful Asians leave the city and the affluent seek out swanky private schools like everybody else. So, many of those Asians at Stuy are immigrants or first generation. They are not children of privilege. Many are quite poor. Their parents are often illiterate in English and working brutal hours. Their greatest resource is a cultural work ethic. The special sauce is hard work, nothing more, nothing less. Even prep classes don't prepare you if you don't put in the work to learn the material.
Guess this is the *real* problem. Those Asians don't seem to know their place as dirty, poor, nonwhite people. They aspire beyond their station. On commenter even characterized this aspiration as "un-American".
Thanks Bill, for helping to put them in their place.
35
When I attended Bx Science in the 60's the majority of the students (as I recall) were Jewish. Would that offend the Mayor if it were true today? When I later attended Hunter College, Open Admissions was instituted during my college years. It immediately destroyed the quality of education at the City universities. I hope no educated, intelligent NYC resident will put this mayor back in office. His intent is to destroy the crown jewels of NYC education, all to somehow atone for the inexcusable and deplorable conditions of NYC public high schools.
13
They sky is falling! Maybe destroying the schools is only allowing people in who can "game" a test to get in?
students who have a real shot or just miss the threshold for admissions also have a good chance of getting into the other 'good' schools in the non specialized group. Yes, test prep is not equitable and that needs to change, but what also needs to change is the navigation of the High School Process - the process itself is stacked against low income and ESL groups. I went through that process twice with my sons and it takes a lot of work, organization and time away from my job to do it right.
3
Great job, De Blasio! You are giving people bread by taking away other people's bread. Now you are turning minority groups against each other. What a thoughtful plan you have!
14
Some ethnic groups are not on average talented at this type of test. We need to acknowledge that and work within the world as it exists, not be bound by outdated blank slate theories.
1
I sort of assume the presence of this article in the Times means that the Success middle schools are frantically prepping their kids for the SHSAT. Of course they are.
I'm a specialized high school parent and a huge believer in the SHSAT as a fair admissions process, but I wish the Times had chosen someone to defend the SHSAT who is not part of a charter school chain that's doing its best to destroy public schools, especially at the elementary school level.
6
Mayor deBlasio is pushing the middle-class out of NYC. Stuyvesant, and the other schools that require an entrance exam make it possible to remain in NYC. If you want to help minorities in education, you must start long before they enter school. It must begin with prenatal care and nutrition, and infant care, teaching mothers about the importance of reading to their children, etc.
6
In 2005 the NYTs ran an article by David Herszenhorn describing the "quirks" in the utilization of the SHSAT test for admission to these schools, "Admission Test's Scoring Quirk Throws Balance Into Question" (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/12/nyregion/admission-tests-scoring-quir....
Here is Herszenhorn's lead to the story: "For weeks, Joshua N. Feinman had graded practice tests to help his daughter prepare for New York City's specialized high school exam. Then one day, he took a hard look at the scoring chart from her private test-prep class and was stunned by how the verbal and math scores added up. "I took a look and said, 'Wow, this thing is really nonlinear,' " said Mr. Feinman, the chief economist of Deutsche Asset Management. " 'Wow, it's much better to score high in one and low in the other than to score good in both.' ""
The result of that "quirk" has profoundly biased admission to the specialized high schools in favor of Asian students many of whom can and do obtain nearly perfect scores in mathematics while having much, much poorer scores on the verbal part of the SHSAT. Today roughly 2/3's of the students (apologies for not knowing the exact percentage) in specialized school such as Stuyvesant are Asian while other minorities are excluded.
In other words while the SHSAT test may be a good measure of academic potential, how it is used for decision-making has been profoundly corrupted.
Do you have a basis for asserting that Asian students taking the test have perfect math scores and poor verbal scores? The assertion suggests a stereotype that does not hold true in my experience with Asian-American (or other) students at the exam schools. (Though Bronx Science students of all racial backgrounds do skew more toward the math and away from the verbal side by comparison to Stuy students.)
3
All New York evidently does not own Styvesant. Just the ones who get in. Maybe the problem is also a lack of spaces at schools which demand and reward the work of being in a Ny selective high school. In addition to tending tothe middle schools of the city the incredible wealth stockpiled by our own gilded age of Ny should assist with opening 3-4 new schools that offer the same rigor and offer different path to entrance. There is not enough room for the top students of the city in the small number of test schools.
4
I'm Asian and went to one of the "elite" high schools here in NYC. I was an immigrant with immigrant parents who lived below the poverty line. I went to public city schools all through my childhood. I never received any tutoring, never got any special consideration, never had any privileges granted to me. My family struggled financially day to day. Yet, I still managed to make it into one of these "elite" high schools. I don't know where DeBlasio or Carranza get their idea that only Blacks and Hispanics are disenfranchised and don't have the advantages of rich, white people. I got in to one of these schools without any advantage at all. A lot of my fellow students did, as well. Being Asian, you already are competing against two groups of people in the race up the social ladder-- white people AND the super-intelligent, super qualified Asians. If you happen to be Asian and not one of these wonder kids, you already have two strikes against you. If you're now saying that if you're Asian, then to get into Stuy, Bronx Science, or Brooklyn Tech, you'd better score a perfect or near perfect score -- just passing the test won't be enough -- I don't know how this is supposed to be meritocracy. I don't see how this could be construed as being anything other than unfair and punitive. Blacks and Hispanics have many obstacles that are near implacable. Let's not forget that Asians are among the poorest ethnic groups in this country. Does just being Asian makes us inherently home free?
36
No, but there is such a thing as affirmative action. A small number of seats are set aside to help others... some immigrant parents cant wrap their head around the concept.
1
Mr. Weinstein (the author here) is a charter school advocate, having founded two of them. Charter school proponents argue for testing both in the true-public and privately-run-public schools. Testing helps them to create bubbles of students that perform well on tests, can be measured and produce data that attracts investment. This argument against Mayor de Blasio's proposal is simply based on the philosophy that more testing and metrics are good for students.
Charter schools are bad for democracy, they isolate students from their own communities and promote corporate learning styles. Let's make sure our public schools like Stuyvesant, stay open to all students.
4
In the charter school context, testing produces data on whether innovations are working or failing. That is hardly a bad thing.
In the completely different context of the SHSAT, testing is not being touted as "good for students" in some abstract sense. It is being defended as a meritocratic way to assemble a group of the highest-achieving students. You can disagree with that goal if you like, but your reductive treatment of the arguments for this particular test fails to advance the discussion.
1
Yes, the focus on testing that charter school advocates promote, is indeed a bad thing because students spend their entire year preparing for tests that only measure skills that can be assessed by a computer. This leaves out much of what we need to be teaching children, including much of the layered thinking and writing skills that will be needed in a future that is dominated by AI.
To point out that the author is an investor in privatized modes of education that encourage this type of learning gives us a greater context to his argument for maintaining these modes in public schools.
If Stuyvesant enacts the mayor's suggestion, this is what will happen: It will be almost immediately apparent to everyone involved with the school--students, teachers and administrators--which students got into the school because of brains and which got in because of fulfilling diversity requirements. After that, standards will be lowered to ensure the school can announce that the new standards haven't lowered Stuyvesant student quality one little bit. We live in an age of equality, everyone, and it has impact on everything.
6
Non doubt it's a difficult situation where such a small percentage of minority students make their way into the Stuyvesants, Bronx Science and the other top public schools in NYC. But the solution should not be to relax admission standards so that a more "balanced" group of students, reflecting NYC's diversity, make their way into these schools. It should be, instead, a developed mechanism to offer students without sufficient skills at present the ability to score high enough to gain access to these schools, which may be after school programs, enhanced in-school programs, and to bring their families into the mix to help achieve them succeed. Applying a sort of quota process undermines not only the excellence of these schools but the value of the hard work students have achieved who do make it in.
Everyone wants the opportunity for exposure to the best education possible, so let's make it happen by offering the tools needed, not a sort of open door to students who would not otherwise make the grade and so lessen the integrity of the admissions process.
3
What astonishes me most is that it is immigrant parents whining the most, when through the gift of the U.S. immigration policies they were allowed to come here. These schools will still be 70-75% Asian no matter what happens and yet you still complain if others are given a small slice of the pie. It is amazing how quickly immigrant parents adopt the ugly victim stance of America.
3
How can the percentage of black and Hispanic students increase unless some other groups lose seats? Maybe you should explain.
4
Wow, so your theory is "you're lucky just to be here; why should your kids get an equal shot at the top schools"? Maybe look in the mirror before calling other people's stances "ugly."
8
That is life. People lose a few seats. Time for people to grow up for the benefit of society.
Glad that a Success Academy board founder is advocating for a single test that recognizes the "universal" traits of talent and hard work. De Blasio is responding to the rather outdated idea that a single admissions test is the marker of a child's worthiness. Weinstein equates the outcome of the test with a kid's ability to do rigorous academic work--however, time and again, the only thing test scores reliably indicate about a kid is their socioeconomic status.
Weinstein is being specious when he talks about his own modest background. Growing up lower-middle class is not the same as being impoverished. The city, like the US, has a poverty problem, which is reflected in the academic achievement of its students. I'm glad de Blasio sees that expanding opportunity is more complex than just one litmus test.
1
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Never forget that maxim. Well I supposed Blacks and Latinos are over represented in sports and we'll need to eliminate a percentage of them from participating to guarantee room for the other ethnicities whether they're any good at sports, much less if they even want to play, or not.
Jesus, imagine if the world actually worked like that. Your heart surgeon was only passed because of Affirmative Action. Your pilot isn't really qualified to fly a 747 but hell quotas are quotas!
Hey Blas, guess what, the world needs ditch diggers too.
9
Any competition that relies entirely upon one's ability to do excel in a written test clearly favours those who excel in written tests above every one else - for example those whose education and parents prepared them most thoroughly and effectively for the pressures and peculiar demands inherent in sitting for a written test. There are myriad reasons why, for some students, having to sit for a crucially important written test practically amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. More test averse but otherwise well rounded and very fine intellects are probably being callously turned aside every day of the year as not up to snuff than will ever by encountered at Stuyvesant by bright light wizards of the test like Boaz Weinstein.
1
The admissions process needs more opportunity for favoritism, gaming and political pressure. Using a single test impedes these worthy goals.
2
Well, to be fair, written tests are a pretty standard way of judging excellence in academia -- so if you are trying to identify a group who will be strong academic performers, picking good test-takers is not a terrible place to start...
2
1. There should be equality of opportunity.
2. If there is equality of opportunity, inequality of outcome is generally fair.
3. In the absence of equality of opportunity, inequality of outcome is (or more accurately, may) be unfair.
Everyone agrees to some degree that 1. is a problem.
But
Attempting to fix a problem caused by (1) by enforcing equality of outcome (3) which is at best proxied by the school quotas as established by DeBlasio will yield a 'solution' -- and that final solution will then be everyone is equal because they meet the bar. But that bar will be low, reached as the quality craters while kids will suffer from being pushed past their skill levels.
DeBlasio, do you job, fix 1 for everyone. If you can't, at least don't make it worse for the fraction that manage to escape.
5
Mr Weinstein fails to note the flip-side of the elite educational coin. Yes, it is probably true that at Stuyvesant (and at elite colleges), the high level of performance and motivation of fellow students is likely what makes those places great. Yet -- as Mr Weinstein notes -- access to other high-caliber students is key to a great education. But why should such access be so limited? Surely, if his argument is correct, one reason some students can't get into Stuyvesant is precisely because of the very lack of such access to other motivated students at middle schools -- despite what might be high potential. Success on a single test, while admirable, is not the whole story. A top-performing student and a poor middle school might indeed thrive at a place like Stuyvesant, even if some catch-up is required. What folks on both sides of this debate need to rally behind is more equitable, mixed and improved elementary and middle schools for all. It is actually shocking that a public school system provides a rarefied public resource in the form of specialized high schools, to so few students. The issue here may not be class or race, but rather intellectual snobbery, and the desire to be part of club at the exclusion of the vast majority of others. That Mr. Weinstein declares that Styuvesant might be "destroyed" is the hyperbole that signals his sense of entitlement.
5
What a privileged commentary. As someone who attended court-ordered desegregated schools, I can attest that the system has long been skewed toward the advantaged (of which I was one). It's arrogant of the writer to assume that top graduates cannot do the work, or benefit from this specialized education until and unless they achieve a certain score on an entrance exam.
3
There are different rates of admission to Stuyvesant and other magnet schools in part because some families and the students are willing to devote much more time and energies to study and prepare for the exam, and they should not be punished for their willingness to trade-off for time spent on sports and other extra-curricular activities to study.
Instead of imposing quota and in the process lowering the quality and standards of these nationally known public schools, Mayor De Blasio should consider raising funds to provide additional support for low income students who may not be able to afford additional preparation to improve the chance of getting into these schools.
8
As a Stuyvesant grad, I found the place more challenging than undergraduate studies and at least as hard as medical school.
Lessening the quality of the student - intelligence, diligence, whatever - will ultimately cause students to either fail out, or the standards to be lowered.
This plan is a race to the bottom in the name of votes.
Our Mayor needs to focus on actually funding elementary schools. Then focus on middles schools as a step to a variety of high schools. Then actually go into high schools and ask why they are failing.
More often than not, families that prize education and hard work produce the types of children who will end up succeeding. If a child does not come from that home, it falls on the education system to provide that structure - unfair, but reality is never equanimous.
17
The NYT's mostly liberal readers show concern to defend meritocracy in school admissions, but in economic matters where hard work and native intelligence also win the day they hate it. Does this debate come uncomfortably close to a topic no one dares to touch because the political implications of 'wrong' answers are so dire?
9
In the example of school entrance exams those that don't pass the test still are guaranteed a place at another public high school, which in an ideal world wouldn't be too much worse than the other one. The job market isn't a meritocracy where everyone takes a test and the smartest people get the most money, access to jobs are dictated by family connections, fraternity connections, charisma, "looking the part", etc. The problem in our economy is that those that don't make it to the upper ring don't have something basic to fall back on like lower tiered public schools in your analogy. Every day our government is dissolving the social safety net and more and more people are destitute from health conditions, layoffs, etc. Your analogy would only hold if there were a universal basic income in this country just as there's a universal guarantee of access to public education.
1
This is yet another push by a "liberal" entity to push for equality of outcome based on racial quotas. Nonsensically, the quota has to represent the proportion of the population, which in the popular parlance means "bias free." This notion has no scientific backing, and is applied without any evidence. Who cares if the school is 75% Asian. What matters is that the admissions test is fair. This is creating a problem where there isn't one.
10
Sorry. It's not New York's "best" high school if access to it is distorted in favor of elite students with the advantages of prep and a lifelong background of training to take a certain kind of exam.
Best is not to be found only in test scores, admission to Ivy League colleges, and a lot of valuable skills. A best education includes knowing how to live together with--and make room for--one's fellow citizens.
De Blasio is right: in the last 2 decades New York's elite public schools have become the personal property of New York's wealthiest and most privileged. That is not what made New York public education great, back in the days when it *was* great. New York sent the children of uneducated families through the public system up through college and graduate school. Generations of illustrious Americans came from the most disadvantaged backgrounds through New York City. The same cannot be said today.
Thank you, Mr. De Blasio, for paying attention to an issue that will garner you little praise and much ranting, but that needs to be addressed before we have utterly lost sight of our greatest values.
1
These elite schools are still largely immigrant and first generation students, many from poor families; families that value education and believe that it can be a way for upward social and economic mobility. They are hardly the wealthiest and most privileged; those students prefer private schools as a way to get to top colleges. I suggest you read https://thereadzone.com/2014/12/04/do-not-abolish-the-shsat-a-proposed-c... which helps address your claims.
13
"Today, 39 percent of the city’s high schools do not offer a standard college-prep curriculum in math and science, that is, algebra 2, physics and chemistry."
I would imagine that the children who will attend such schools - which are mostly poor and majority-minority - have lacking middle school preparation as well. Sending them to a "top" high school will not fix this, it will simply result in them being placed in remedial classes.
It seems as if de Blasio is attempting to alter the Stuyvesant admission process in hopes that we focus on the reform and forget about the much larger number of of other New Yorker children who are left to suffer in underfunded schools that don't prepare children for higher ed. A better way of ensuring more minority admissions to magnet schools would be to improve the quality of education in majority-minority/poor schools, which would not only benefit the children who end up testing in but the children who would otherwise be left behind.
(From the 2015 report https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ee4f0be4b015b9c3690d84/t/55c413...
3
Until 2015, Asians were New York City’s poorest demographic groups, but Hispanics became the poorest demographic group in 2015 due to an influx of undocumented immigrants.
In 2015, the poverty ranking by demographic groups were whites (13.3%), blacks (21.2%), Asians (23.4%) and Hispanics (24.6%). However, Asians academically outperformed all other demographic groups while they were the poorest demographic group instead of the next-to-poorest demographic group.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/NYCgovPovMeas2017-WEB.pdf
12
Who cares about achievement?
5
Stuyvesant is in Battery Park City and across the highway from TriBeCa. I live down here. This is the wealthiest area in Manhattan and, arguably, the wealthiest urban neighborhood in the USA. Price per sq ft is closing in on 2500. Therefore, a 2000 sq ft apartment would cost 5 million. A cheap one will cost 3.5 million. The people who live here will not be excited about having more black and Latino teenagers around. Asian teens are innocuous. They tend to be quiet and self-contained. I am still shocked that BMCC is still located here. It's almost surreal to see poor BMCC kids walking past hedge fund guys wearing 15,000 dollar watches. Parked around the corner from BMCC, you will see Ferarris, Bentleys, and Lamborghinis. TriBeCa is getting richer and richer. Now, you need an income over 450k/yr to own a home here. Property owners and real estate interests will resist any influx of black and Latino teenagers. It's TriBeCa and not Prospect heights.
2
Good lord, folks. Its not that 75% of the kids are Asian.
Its that 100% of the kids are unique individuals worked their butts off to achieve the required scores.
Is the solution to go to a kid and say "Too bad, you are more than qualified but, see kid, its your race. There is nothing else wrong with what you did. You studied hard. You achieved and, if you had different color skin, you would be in. The way you look now? That's a problem. And because it, you can't go"
Now, of course, politicians will pretty up the language and put in words like equity and privilege and diversity, but at the end of the day, it still is "we have to use racism to fight racism."
20
The ideas and arguments here are compelling and strong. Sadly, though, this debate isn't about ideas. Decisions on this subject will be made through appeals to emotion and tribalism, and the unique magic of these schools will eventually be lost.
3
The should be a very simple problem to solve. Change the test every year and publish the results. If the test percentages turn out to be primarily high one ethic group over the others so be it. Study harder next time. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal results. If the opportunity to take the test was based on some ethic, religious, financials or other grounds then maybe de Blasio would have a case, but if its a results based criterion then what de Blasio wants to do is anti-American and prejudicial.
2
Among all the others worhtwhile points in this piece there is a really important point made in that a lot of people miss. "Asians" are not a monolithic group. (This non too bright assumption is yet another failure of our educational system. ) Statistically, scholastically the over achievers are North Asians (Chinese anc Koreans) along with some South Asian groups. Vietnamese, Filipinos along with Cambodians and many other "Asian" peoples have historically sometimes struggled to mimic the academic achievements of some fellow "Asians". So all this parsing by by global region and race in the end will end up penalising a lot of kids who come from environments every bit as deprived as African American and/or Latino children. The only difference will be once again the "Asians" will have to achieve and work at least twice as hard as everbody else to get the same academic opportunites. Oh well. The social engineers already set up a system to choke off "Asian" achievement at the college level by setting dramatically higher standards for Asians. This is just more of the same.
6
Mr. Weinstein is absolutely right. The entrance exam is everything that civil rights leaders always sought: an equal opportunity, race-blind, completely objective test that allows for no favoritism.
13
I believe human beings are all remarkably similar; if subject to the same exact set of circumstances, they will do the same exact things. We all have the capacity to put our intelligence on display if given the opportunity. Certain groups of people like to entertain the thought that they are simply “better”, and they frame their arguments highlighting their “efforts”, how they simply made it because of their hard work (as this gentleman does when he highlights putting fliers on car windows). I agree that success comes from hard work for some people. However, in our broken society, not all “efforts” result in the same proportion of success. This is a sad fact that is usually demonstrated along racial lines. These same individuals should be more upset that there are some people who work hard and never see a return on their investment in terms of opportunity. Hardworking students at any middle school will do well, or even better at Stuyvesant, but certain groups don’t want to see more minorities from less “acceptable” groups succeed alongside them. I remember, in high school many years ago, doing a paper on the inequalities in education, and I highlighted the inequity of a public school like Stuyvesant even existing. Many commenters are saying that this will be the end of Stuyvesant as it currently is. I hope this is exactly the case. To them I say, sorry that you might have to see other people, who don’t look like you, succeeding in ways you thought only you were capable of.
2
Guarantying equality opportunity works.. equality of outcome is simply Marxism.. ask former Soviet Union citizens how well the latter worked..
6
If the test overwhelmingly rewards white and Asian kids, the test itself is as flawed as the failed public education system propping it up.
I support the Mayor. The top performers in all schools, not just the rich ones, should be admitted into these schools.
If these schools can't succeed with the best brown and black children, they weren't worth venerating to begin with.
Your comment is excellent. If you only admit top test performers, how does that make you a great school? It seems to me that that accolade should be reserved for the schools that educate students who are average or low performers in middle school to become top performers in high school. No?
If we truly want to combat inequality in our education system, high school is not the place to begin.
13
I'm a Stuyvesant grad (1983), and here's what I'm wondering: how many high-performing black and Latino kids are offered scholarships to NYC private schools? Also, ho many enroll in Prep-for Pep and other similar programs? Also, how many took the test, passed it, but decided not to attend? I have no idea if its a significant number, but I think it would be enlightening to know. Maybe some of them would have attended the specialized high schools if they didn't have other options.
10
When I went to Stuyvesant in the 1960's it was largely White but still had many immigrants and children of immigrants. The purpose of the school was never to represent the "diversity of NYC" but to bring together the best students in the five boroughs where they would support each other to excel in the classroom, be taught by the best teachers and prepare for the best colleges and professional careers. For over 100 years, Stuyvesant and its fellow elite schools provided educational opportunities to immigrants and first generation New Yorkers to improve their lives. Now that deBlasio's son has graduated from Brooklyn Tech and is headed to Yale, the Mayor is free to attack these elite schools. Moreover, as a shrewd politician who is powerless to impact segregation across the entire five boroughs, he attacks the so called elite schools hoping that this effort will get him votes from the Blacks and Hispanics especially since most Asian are quiet about such matters. His efforts will lower the standards of these schools akin to the "Open Admissions" policy at CUNY in the 1970's; a policy that forced professors to lower standards, forced schools to give remedial courses, and damaged the reputations of Brooklyn College, Queens College and CCNY. Why don't we just give everyone a diploma from Stuyvesant or Bronx High School of Science? What next? Participation trophies for graduating kindergarten?
9
I am an alumni and I think the system needs to be revised. The test prep industry that allows families that prioritize their kids education disadvantages students who might be willing to take those classes because getting into Stuyvesant matters, but who families either cannot or will not support their aspirations. My mother did not want to let me attend Stuvyesant and did everything she could to stop me. If I had to compete against all these prepped kids, I might not have gotten in but that industry did not exist when I was in high school. So maybe it's keep the test but change everything about it from year to year, make it something you can't study or prep for. Personally, I think an interview system would be even better but what do I know? Most alumni I know want to keep it the same, are afraid of the program being diluted. I remember the students who came in mid-semester when I was a student, selected from the local hs to fill the slots of those who washed out of the program. They worked as hard and did as well.
3
Based on your comments an alternative to changing the current testing system is to give low income children access to the same types of test preparation course that middle and upper income children receive.
1
The author attributes the underrepresentation of very large groups in the city to a failing primary and middle school system.
Is this not the same system that educates the children who get in? Why doesn’t it fail them? More importantly, why has it failed the same groups (160 years in the case of free African Americans) and elevated the same groups for generations (120 years for the Jewish diaspora)? Surely the quant geniuses in the hedge fund world can spot these trends?
The author says the test is not biased, so the only explanation he is left with is that somehow the underrepresented groups are culturally or biologically unable to compete.
Or that the test is biased, because the system is biased, because the culture is biased. It is, rank with corruption, from thieving school administrators to tax cheats to business executives who hire their friends’ kids for internships instead of kids who never had a chance because the laws of our nation make poverty a near-criminal state and impose racist penalties on victimless crimes of some cultures while ignoring them in others (how many of the author’s college friends went to jail for pot possession)?
It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to call the disparity in admission “heartbreaking” while simultaneously swinging a machete to chop off the arms of the successful students in the vast majority of our schools who are striving to succeed.
Remember that the kids who would be admitted under the mayor's plan would be at an academic and social disadvantage. Because they are ill-prepared for the especially rigorous academic programs at NYC's magnet schools, they would likely fall to the bottom of the class, maybe not pass, and internalize a life-long sense of failure during their important developmental years. Then the schools will be pressured to lower their high standards for excellence or requirements for passing the grade -- and that is how you destroy schools we are proud of as well as destroy kids we want to socially boost up and prepare for life.
15
the mayor is working hard to water down the school and bring down it's academics to the lowest denominator rather than working to bring up the people who lag behind
8
There is so much ignorant in artfuldodger's comment. Like this quote: "Asians are very good test takers, but even they should realize taking up 75 percent of elite seats is more than greedy. I know they love their children but they are trying to position their children above the children of others in a very cynical and un-American way"
-Is this a joke? They are trying to do the best possible for their kids in the system, which is what ALL Parents are trying to do (including white, black latino etc). What's greedy about taking a test to get a better education than other schools offer?
-We all encourage our kids to do the best they can do, and that is a big part of being American. It's not cynical.
- This is trump speak - saying that people (races) we do not like are "un-American" and should step back. Horrible.
22
Though a classmate of Mr Weinstein, I cannot disagree more. Now I live in San Francisco, with a child about to attend HS, where the elite public high school, Lowell, offers more pathways for students to attend. It still offers opportunities for the best test takers, but it also allows for top students for the various middle schools to attend, as well. And it includes ways for students who show promise but whose family circumstances preclude them achieving the highest scores on tests or grades. This does not seem to hinder the high level of academics of the school. However, both Stuyvesant and Lowell, as magnets for the top students of a city, create environments where teachers don't need to teach. These schools rest on the natural abilities of the students, and cater to a proclivity for grade grubbing, rather than offer intellectual challenge and risk taking. In considering options for my bright child, I have learned that schools which value risk-taking, a growth mindset, creativity, diversity (ethnic, intellectual and socio-economic), and a commitment to equity--were worth far more than being among high scorers.
5
I was hoping de Blasio has outgrown liberal's past tendency to dumb down standards if their favorite ethnic group does not do well. It is an easy solution, just blame the test. Basic math and English test somehow discriminates against anyone? The only test takers it discriminates against are those that are ill prepared academically. De Blasio and his chancellor should demand that all public middle schools in the city have high standards and provide all the help they need for the students to meet them. But that means tedious, time consuming work with often unspectacular results. It is far easier to blame the test, lower standards and proclaim victory.
And of course the administration blames Asians for succeeding and working hard. There are apparently too many successful Asian students that are academically prepared and do well. But the solution of lowering standards and using affirmative action will just destroy a great school. They will not improve education.
Let's just empl
13
Dear Artfuldodger,
You write, "they(Asians) are trying to position their children above the children of others in a very cynical and un-American way".
First of all, while we all look alike to you, "Asians" are a diverse group in every respect. So there no yellow peril conspiracy. Though *sigh*, perhaps you are right that families that promote hard work are decidedly "un-American".
Now, I expect you to join me in protesting the lack of leading Asian men in Hollywood - I have always wanted to be an action hero. It is "simply not right".
And the African American basketball conspiracy, talk about "cynical and un-American"!
28
Great idea, Your Honor. Then, when these undeserving students can't make the grade, you will start crying that: (1) the teachers are biased; (2) that students don't do well because the curriculum is not of current interest to them, and (3) that not enough teachers reflect the racial make-up of the students, and the poor dears just can't relate to them.
Why not just give the aggrieved a high school diploma along with their birth certificates and save the taxpayers the burden of trying to educate them. Just respell the names of the schools, e.g., Styvesant, Brooklyn Teck, Bronx Sience. It won't matter to the recipients because they can't read.
18
They're not undeserving, just unprepared.
This statement from the author is completely unfounded:
"Not even the school’s biggest critics can seriously allege that the admissions test is racially or ethnically biased, or that it calls for special knowledge better known to some groups."
Many studies have shown that standardized test scores are strongly dependent on demographic factors including race, income, and others. Please read the corresponding article by Minh-Ha T. Pham:
"Standardized tests aren’t race- and class-neutral... The myth that the entrance exam identifies the most-deserving students for these top schools denies all the inequalities in resources, treatment and service based on race, gender, class, sexuality, ability and so on that present varying barriers to success for different individuals."
Meritocracy is valuable, but on its own it does nothing to combat entrenched inequalities in our country. In fact, without some kind of diversity program, elite schools exacerbate inequality by pushing the most fortunate families further ahead and leaving the disenfranchised behind. Some intervention is needed to prevent this natural societal trend toward the haves and have-nots.
Any selection process is going to favor one or another group. For example, not too many Chinese kids are tall enough for competitive basketball. So, there nothing wrong with academic schools using academic criteria.
And "fortunate families"? Yes, my parents were great and in that I am fortunate. We also lived in below the poverty line in a 300 or so square foot railroad apartment. I was privileged to have my parents, but hardly a child of privilege. But yes, I made it to Hunter, "leaving the disenfranchised behind". Guess it would be more equitable and fair if I spat in my parents' faces and joined a Chinatown gang.
7
If taking a test is the only criterion for admission to this high school then those who are good at taking the test will be successful. If this does not reflect diversity (something that is an asset) then use other criteria. If I want representation from multiple areas of the creative arts, then I won't use a painting test as my criteria for admission. Figure out what you want in terms of selection and design a test to achieve that selection.
1
"In 2016 black and Latino students constituted 44 percent of the kids who took the test (and 65 percent of the New York City school population). Yet they make up just 4 percent of Stuyvesant students and 15 percent of students at the specialized high schools overall."
No one asks the question why? Why didn't the black and Latino students pass the test? Is it just poverty? Lots of Asian students come from low income homes. They attend the same middle schools with the same teachers as the black and Latino students. Is it racism?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114327591
Facing Identity Conflicts, Black Students Fall Behind
October 31, 20092:50 PM ET
Nancy Solomon
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114298676
Racial Achievement Gap Still Plagues Schools
October 31, 200912:52 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
Nancy Solomon
6
I'm Asian (South Asian to be exact). I got into Bronx Science and would have been in the class of 1990 . . . but I failed out. Everything worked out in the end thanks to the wonderful alternative high school where I wound up (Urban Academy).
Surely there was some hard working, highly intelligent black student that was denied entrance simply because he or she could not "beat the test," whereas I could. I didn't take any prep course or even study for the test. Didn't study for the bar either, but I passed that exam too, and I'm a successful public interest lawyer. I guess I'm just good at tests.
If you reduce merit to a single factor--being good at tests--you wind up with the results we presently have. New York City has rates of income inequality on par with most of the developing world. That isn't the future I want. I think we can imagine a better future for ourselves and for all of the City's children.
3
This is exactly the same argument used to change the City College of New York from admission based on high-school excellence to 'open admission'. The College, which had an international reputation, where many Nobel prize winners taught, fell out of awareness. It was no longer the poor man's Harvard. It was the poor man's City College. The students admitted on this new basis could not do the work and had to take special courses to achieve the necessary level. It is so easy to ruin a great system. It's happening to the nation. I guess it's happening to the City's educational system.
40
I think it is a misconception to think that a standardized test is devoid of its 'soft' selectiveness and its privileging of certain racial/social groups and classes. Just looking at the history of the IQ test or contemporary debates about college/law school admissions and the movements against standardized testing is reflective of the fact that these exams are riddled with problematic histories and unfair valuations of skills, abilities, and academic fitness. I went to middle school and high school in Brooklyn, in a private Jewish school with a student body consisting of primarily Arab-Jewish students and administrators. Unfortunately, though I was at the very top of my class, there were no support outlets in place at my school to even inform me about my options for high school, let alone prepare me for this sort of exam. Though my private NYState Regents education might not speak for the whole NY State Education System, I think this take is reflective of the disparities in institutional support in place at schools across the state. Examples cited below about Jewish, Asian, etc. students whose communities informed their aspirations reveal that one's home so expressly defines one's opportunities and that I feel is a true disservice to those who come from places that don't support or can'f afford to value education above all else. I wish my Arab Jewish family shared the same educational values that I do now, but today I still regret not knowing any better at 14 y/o.
2
I agree that the mayor should be doing more to improve the preparedness and outcomes of the students throughout the city. However, I think Stuyvesant is great because of its teachers, not only because of its committed students. Move the Stuyvesant teachers to other schools and let them work their magic there. Let them inspire other students who at first may not be as interested in science and math. I took a test for HS, tool, back in the 1970s and got in. I was pushed by some of my peers to do better. That's great. However, a great set of teachers who never gave up on us was as important.
1
How about we instead raise the caliber of all teachers to the level of Stuyvesant teachers, and do the same for all schools?
That would work a lot better.
2
I do not understand why NYC is not offering tutoring to all children who are eligible to take the Specialized High Schools Admission Tests. To me, this would even out the opportunity for admission to all students, regardless of parental resources.
The current plan for the specialized high schools will ultimately destroy them, further lowering the overall quality of New York City Public Schools.
4
Having taught in the specialized high schools for almost two decades, and more than a decade in non-selective schools, and having had this debate with colleagues, administrators, and students, I must commend the mayor for finally having the courage to begin a move in the direction of reforming the admissions criteria to the specialized high schools. A process that since its inception has failed to bring the population in these schools more in line with the overall population of the students in the system overall cannot continue to be held sacrosanct and immune from reform. A one-shot multiple-choice exam taken at age 12 or 13 that prioritizes mathematical and linguistic skills is no sane way to winnow out the best and the brightest. It perpetuates an elitist mentality and marginalizes the vast majority to inferior status. The mayor needs to hold firm and resist the pressures to maintain the status quo. The needs of an entire society must outweigh the demands of a vocal minority.
3
The author is correct. This will either reduce the rigor and reputation of Stuyvesant or produce a lot of drop-outs.
15
The author is wrong, 100%. If a high school admits 100 students, the next 5000 might have excelled as well. The whole notion that the next group that does not get in is beyond racist.
1
The mayor's approach is misguided and hopefully it doesn't come to pass. At the same time 75% isn't cool.
No doubt the student's who've been admitted earned their way, but don't assume that everyone had an equal educational opportunity leading up to the test. It appears like strong advocates for these kids supplemented the learning experience outside of the normal public education curriculum. Not everyone has those advocates.
It’s the city’s responsibility to find out what’s going on outside of the classroom and provide the same learning experience to those in need. Provide that experience and don't go with a mandate.
1
I graduated from Stuyvesant in 1960 and have been following this debate with interest.
Although the admissions test may have it's flaws (perhaps well enunciated by the Mayor and Chancellor), I think it is akin to democracy- the worst political system......except for all the others.
What I like about the admission test is that it is both objective and uniform. I think it is also like the Olympics in that each athlete gets their opportunity to excel. A tiny flaw can take them out of medal contention. But, fairly or not, there are no mulligans.
I think it better to deal with the admissions process as it is, rather than as some might like it to be. I also think the admission test, whether it is a bug or a feature is, via its history, baked into the embryo and DNA of Stuyvesant. The structural inequalities do exist and hopefully will be addressed. But the admissions test itself is neither the cause nor the effect of these inequalities.
Trying to right wrongs is a good thing- if you can clearly identify what is wrong and what would be right in righting the wrong. I don't feel we have clarity on either.
10
I graduated from Stuy in 1983, and I agree with you. Although flawed, I think the admission test should remain.
6
Since he was elected Mayor - and probably before then as an elected official - the Mayor has been simply unable or unwilling to wrap his head around the concept of the lower income immigrant who comes to NYC with little resources, invested time and money into their kids' academic enrichment often at the expense of many many other things, and whose kids then end up succeeding in these specialized high schools. This does not fit his campaign or political narrative about "The Tale of Two Cities" and so he just ignores it or and sometimes even disparages it. That there is a segment of this City's population that travels between these "two cities" in increasing numbers - Flushing to Columbia Uv or Sheepshead Bay to NYU or Richmond Hill to Bard College - is a concept that he selectively chooses to ignore. Instead, in his and the new Chancellor's narrative about the SHSAT, these folks have gamed the system or simply paid to excel at a multiple choice test. The way he has approached discussion around these issues is so polarizing and "shove it down NY's throat," that he has basically helped no one in the process. There is a meaningful conversation to be had about why the racial diversity numbers are so low in the specialized HSs but it's not the one the Mayor is having and it's a much harder conversation to have. I think the first step to implementing any change is just to make every middle school take the test!
23
I am curious as to where the kids who are admitted to Stuyvesant attended elementary and middle school. At least some of them must have gone to NYC schools? If so, and if the NYC schools are so deficit, how did those kids manage to do well enough on the admissions test to gain admittance? Academic success is achieved through hard work. No amount of cram school can make up for that. Why penalize excellence?
15
My son tested into gifted programs in the public schools. Most kids who go to Stuy do the same.
I agree with everything in this article except declaring Stuyvesant as the "best" high school in New York City. As a 1965 graduate of the Bronx High School of Science, I object to that characterization of Stuyvesant. Surely Stuyvesant is one of the best, but I am prepared to argue that Bronx Science can hold its head as high as Stuyvesant. I might also parse my statement to suggest that while both schools are truly excellent, one -- Stuyvesant -- might have a slight edge in the humanities, and other -- Bronx Science -- in math and the sciences. I rest my case.
9
The core of this piece is that "elite" students deserve to be segregated from "low achieving" students. How wrong could anyone be. The competitive paradigm of public education has failed. As a high-achieving student who did spectacularly well on tests, I sensed the resentment of students who were not favored by that measure of success. More importantly, I know that they were dispirited and discouraged, which no student should feel. Further, teachers and the rest of the educational system treated them as less deserving and as candidates for lowered expectations. Is it any wonder that these phenomena translated into a wider gap between high and low achievers? How dysfunctional. Even my high school salutatorian was heartbroken that she didn't take first place.
2
Allowing top students from each middle school, is the right idea and the right choice. However, I would suggest adding a lower cutoff test score calculated for each school to alleviate the critics and validate each student. Math deficiency for those students can easily be remedied by a summer course, with options of online or classroom.
Also, I found that the teachers of honor courses are much, much better than average. I assume magnet school teachers are also better than average. This is definitely true of Lane Tech in Chicago, where my nephew just had his graduation yesterday. I also do not trust charter school's statistics. My niece graduated from the number one HS in the country among all types, as rated by US news. The school is a charter school in Scottsdale funded by the public, whose senior class is one third the size of the freshmen class. While by law they initially must allow all students equal access regardless of academic performance, they then purge students each year to get the high ranking.
Punish the bright, industrious and successful. Good plan, Mayor!
33
Is there anything more disheartening and hypocritical than liberals pushing for quota systems? The hard working Asian community earned every seat in these specialized schools, and the solution isn't to ban their clearly qualified children; it's to build more specialized schools.
www.newyorkgritty.net
20
Mayor de Blasio has to educate himself. Go to CCNY and stand in the hallway near the offices. Note how the Nobel Prizes stopped when open enrollement started. The school took a nose dive to mediocrity.
When you take opportunity away from hard working and motivated students who cannot afford private schools, you create a serious brain drain for our society and force many families to mortgage their lives to pay for the education that their children deserve.
Merit based admissions are the only fair criteria. If Mayor de Blasio is so concerned with the lack of diversity I strongly suggest he read the comments to this article which are full of practical alternatives to a racial quota against Asians. How truly vile to use one group against another.
17
Education in the era of diversity and our mayor just dumbs down everything and everyone. Next, he will gut the Bronx High School of Science to show the world that being smarter is not a good thing in our society. There is no trickle down in education. Either kids have it or they don't. And thanks to the parents of Stuyvesant students, their kids have been stoked to learn and to succeed from a very early age.
7
Merits and hard work should be the balance bar instead of some obvious political ploy to certain select minority groups. Poor move Mayor de Blasio.
18
This article makes far too much sense to be published in the NYTimes. Did the usual gatekeepers take the day off?
Sending an unprepared child to Stuyvesant is the worst idea ever. You are setting that child up for failure. He or she will not be able to compete, but won't understand why. It is unjust to deprive the qualified student of a seat, but it's even worse when one understands that no one's life will be improved by this wrong-headed policy.
23
You assumption is that all students that dont meet the cut off are "unprepared." Sounds a bit racist to me. Just because you do not make the normal cutoff doesnt mean you are "unprepared." Just because a student doesnt get into Harvard doesnt mean they would not have done well at the school.
3
If you think that "unprepared" means "racist" you should check the TIMES archives for the articles of how many "unprepared" kids drop out of elites schools after getting in because of "special" admissions procedures.
You can also find reports on this from Newsweek, NPR, the Brookings Institution, and diverseeducation.com. The problem of a subset of students let into tough academic environments at lower standards dropping out without finishing has been widely noted and discussed and isn't a product of a bunch of Stormfront loonies.
I'm shocked, offended, and angered by your comment. I also doubt very much that you didn't already believe that "the left ruins everything" BEFORE you read the book, given where you're from. But I'm glad you don't live near me, where your ideology - and your vote - might "ruin everything" (see, Kansas).
1
All I need to know is that Mr. Weinstein founded two charter schools. Nothing is more detrimental to the public school system than this.
All this from a man who starts for-profit charter schools.
What you have to say about public education must be filtered through that lens.
In case any of you still buy into the neo-liberal charter school myth check out Diane Ravich's blog and her writing on this topic.
Alternatively google her review in the NYRB on waiting for superman.
3
And whose son graduated from an exam school! But now it's time for a change....
2
It’s hilarious seeing white people defend modern ”separate but equal” segregation, then swear they’re not racist because “they would’ve voted for Obama a third time if they could” *
*Get Out
2
There is no ban on non-Asian students to Stuyvesant, Chris. The only qualification needed is to pass the test.
3
Wow! Have you mischaracterized the issue. This is not about "separate but equal". This is about either not setting up unqualified students to fail or not turning the top school in NYC into just another mediocre institution. The better way of making the system "fairer" is perhaps revising the exam or adding additional criteria to the application process.
2
It's hilarious* to see people equating a meritocratic admissions process -- in which the overwhelming majority (75-80%+) of exam-school admits are from racial minorities -- with de jure segregation.
*No, actually, it's not.
4
Because DeBlasio and his administration are abject failures in helping the NYC schools in raising the levels of learning of the students that can't pass the test and taking the blame and putting it on Stuyvesant for giving an admission test that these kids can't pass because of the poor education they get in the NYC school system is typical of a liberal leveling (lowering) the playing field, to make it more diverse.
Stuyvesant was a difficult to get into when I was in school in the fifties. It should remain so whether or not it has a diverse population of students or not which seems to be the criteria of liberals...who wont care if the end result is lowering the end results of the intelligence IQ.
10
It's comical how the liberals in New York City reverse their vocal and sanctimonious support for social engineering devices such as affirmative action, diversity initiatives and the like they routinely prescribe for the yahoos in the hinterlands. Naturally, they draw the line when their own kids are in danger of becoming sacrificial lambs in the name of achieving diversity. Not in your backyard. Got it.
10
The author founded two charter schools (Success academies!) so I think his bias around educational values and philosophy are clear.
4
Yes, definitely, because every charter school is like every other one -- that is in fact the whole point of charter schools, to have one single, nationwide educational philosophy.
Dumbing down or increasing access; take your pick. Mr. Drachir’s comment, below, is not only unambiguous, but practical. There are many more students in the system, the majority of schools have serious problems, and, good god, Asians have supplanted Jews in the achievement business. Drachir suggests that it may be time to add some premier schools. Set them up according to DeBlasio’s criteria, opening them to top, but undereducated students. See what happens in ten years or so. My guess is that everyone will be proven right, but we would not have to experiment with potentially screwing up our best schools.
I graduated from a really good high school, went to MIT. Even back in the ‘60s, the standardized tests carried more weight than my high school grades, which were not great. What helped me find work later in life: the college I got into. Flat out name recognition. I can see an immediate effect of the mayor’s proposal on college admissions vastly larger than any change in education.
2
The predictable (translation: easy) response of dumbing down to correct inequities that often exist when excellence is the only measure, never works. This has been shown over and over again. The culture at large is the loser.
Hizzoner is doing easy pandering to avoid responsibility for the poor quality of public schools overall, penalizes the successful (who are by no means the most privileged - I knew at least five kids from ordinary Bronx families when I was growing up there in the 1960s who went to Stuyvesant, kids whose parents had barely made it into the lower middle-classes after WWII), and addresses the outcome rather than the cause.
My late mother taught at a ghetto high school in the Bronx for most of her working life. She had lots of kids of Vietnamese refugees whose parents were working in sweat shops and restaurants. They were motivated, their parents knew what was at stake if getting into the US was to mean anything, they worked hard. The black and Latino students resented them.
About half of what we understand as intelligence is due to heritability, something increasingly confirmed as the human genome is decoded. The other half is nurture and access to decent schooling in the early, most important years. The Mayor's easy out by addressing the problem at the wrong end of a student's schooling ignores the unforgiving world kids will find outside school. Long-term, dumbing down isn't in anyone's interest. Except the Mayor's re-election campaign, of course.
20
Affirmative action type plans have been around for decades and whites/Jewish students have had to give up spots in schools for the greater good of society. The Asian American community has to grow up and stop complaining if 5-10% of an incoming class of elite schools are set aside for culturally less fortunate kids.
I have a coworker who is Asian American and he complained loudly that "Asian Americans never get help" all the while he was getting health insurance subsidies for his children paid for by tax payers of all races. Time to grow up people. Stop being so selfish and see how your family benefits from American societal benefits...(ie, grandparents of Chinese American kids who receive Medicaid or other social services paid for by people of all races). Give back to the country that helps you and your relatives.
2
"Selfish." Incredible.
You seem to not recognize that the "5 - 10%" are made up of real, live, individual human beings who have worked harder, studied longer, and are more prepared for a slot at Stuyvesant, not check boxes on a race/ethnicity survey. They have to sacrifice their real, live actual futures in order to play some diversity game?
Incredible.
2
Yes, selfish. Ah yes, how very American. You only like diversity when it doesnt adversely effect you. That is the very definition of selfishness.
In Chicago, we have a similar setup where spots are allocated to selective High Schools based on socio-economic tiers. There's a test, but there's a lot more, to ensure diversity. Did it "destroy" the selective high schools? Not hardly. In fact, Payton outranks Stuyvesant in many of the rankings of top american high schools. So try to get some perspective. Your privilege being threatened isn't the end of the world.
What you're describing is very different than de Blasio's proposal, which is actually not designed to ensure diversity at the exam schools -- the only diversity it ensures there is including students who have gone to really bad middle schools. What de Blasio's plan might actually accomplish is to increase diversity of student backgrounds at the less successful middle schools, because being a big fish in a small pond will become much more attractive.
2
If we can't bring all the kids to Stuyvesant, then why not bring Stuyvesant to all the kids? Can satellite e-learning options be created, so that as much as possible, the Stuyvesant experience can be spread to more schools? You may not be able to get the sheer mass of motivated students you get at Stuyvesant, but each satellite school could probably assemble and concentrate at least a small group of students with the same level of motivation generating much the same kind of frisson that Mr. Weinstein remembers. You might not get the same Stuyvesant cachet. But in STEM, much of that cachet becomes secondary if you can demonstrate what you know. You could even consider a soft requirement for Stuyvesant students to spend some teaching time at the satellite schools (good teaching, collaboration and managerial experience).
The common theme here is not to think of the elite schools as brass rings or goodies to be rationed, but at centers of excellence, with, among other things, a responsibility (of both the staff and the students) to spread that excellence. The best long term solution to scarcity is not any particular rationing system, but turning the scarcity into plenty.
Yes, all easy to say. Hard, and perhaps expensive, to do in full. But you don't have to do it all at once. Just getting the lectures, lesson plans and materials online through any number of channels (like Khan Academy) should be possible relatively quickly and inexpensively.
This would be an interesting idea if Stuyvesant had better teachers than other schools. It doesn't. What makes it a center of excellence is the concentration of excellent students. If you water down the latter, you water down the former -- which isn't to say you can't decide that's worth doing, but we shouldn't mince words about what is being done.
5
Hi Matt. I agree that the students are a large part of what make the excellence. What I don't know is how much of the student excellence is due just being in a big mass of elite students, and how much is due to intense working relationships in small circles of elite students (any research on this?). If the latter is more important, then my proposal to assemble small groups of motivated students (think Homebrew Computer Club) at the satellite schools might still get you much of the same results as putting hundreds of motivated students in the same building.
Schools like Stuyvesant (and Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, Brooklyn Latin, ...) are where they are because of their student body. Sure, the teachers are probably better than at other schools but better students leads to better teachers. Take away these top performing, highly motivated students, and these schools will no longer be what they are today and rewriting the admission criteria, will merely create a different sort of school that happens to carry the same name. That is not necessarily a bad thing - after all, schools like Beacon, Bard, Columbia Secondary, Eleanor Roosevelt) seem to do just fine without admission tests - but I just hope that the Mayor and the Chancellor realize that you can't change one thing (the student body) and expect everything else to remain the same.
To put it rather bluntly, changing the admission process for Stuyvesant etc. will not result in an increase in African American and Latino students at Stuyvesant (as an example) because Stuyvesant will no longer be Stuyvesant. On the plus side, more of these students will have access to better schools because these schools will still be good. On the minus side, fewer of our city's most passionate children will have access to schools that will cater to their passion for math and science.
(My kids do not, and will not, attend any of the specialized public high schools.)
1
So the argument is that the racial make up of Stuyvesant is due to cultural differences. And the Mayor and supporters for a different admission process will somehow transcend these differences into a positive schooling experience simply by inclusion. I think the more obvious conclusion would be akin to a sinking boat.
8
My son got into Stuyvesant despite a very poor middle school education, typical of the poor curriculum in New York City, State, and even Country-wide.
Nevertheless, the brilliance of the diversity that is New York should be represented and tests are often very poor indicators of intelligence, often failing to gauge the creativity and leadership needed to succeed in the new entrepreneurial environment of our time.
Obviously, the answer is to provide equal education in all schools in the system, where teachers are often vastly underpaid and underqualified (why not teach in Long Island where income is so much greater?).
But that will never happen.
Meanwhile, let us democratize the process and have more equal representation in the best schools. We are not trying to produce "worker-bees" from cram schools, but well-rounded citizens who represent and will take our country forward as a representation of the population.
Still, better education, the rejection of the inferior Common Core, is critical for us to succeed as a community, city, country, and as part of global advances.
The measure of a man is surely not a single written exam. However, and this may be news, getting into a ‘good’ college, getting past an indifferent HR person for a job interview, achieving much or inheriting much are often based on name recognition, status of parents, warm details at the bottom of a resume, or, sadly, ethnicity. Kids who excel at test-taking are not always best at drive, imagination, creativity or contribution to humankind, and the handful of high schools with nationally-recognized names are not responsible for the attributes of their graduates. But.... throwing the unprepared in with the prepared in order to equalize opportunity does nothing good for either population. The issue here is education: if we believe that it’s a good thing, we should not expect that reducing the competitive aspect for both students and teachers can be anything but a dilution.
I remember taking this exam when I was in middle school - I did not make the cut. Instead, I ended up going to a public school that selected students based on merit. While all these standardized test are set to measure intellect, it also measures how well you can take an exam. As a graduate student that has taken the GRE twice, I can tell you that taking a Kaplan course dramatically changed my GRE score the second time. Kaplan courses are not always affordable. Graduate school is slightly different in that it takes the overall package and does not solely rely on the GRE score, however, it is still a major factor for admissions. Although, I agree we have to measure potential, the sad reality is that exams are not an indicator of true potential.
I taught school for thirty-three years. I have a saying: "When all else fails, TEACH!" I worked with disadvantaged children in several places in the country. Have ungraded K-2 and have kids stay there until they can function at a second grade level. This is not "repeating" it is "progressing" and some kids need more time with this. As kids progress in school, have after school study halls for kids who need to get their work done before they go home.
Yes, this does cost more. But it pays off for the kids and society. Do Not bring down the standards, bring the kids up to the standards.
4
I am Latino, grew up in the South Bronx, and came from a family of modest means. I’ve gone on to earn a Ph.D. I am now a professor at a large university. I credit my success to many things and one of the most important was my education at The Bronx High School of Science. It was top rate, highly stimulating, and motivated my desire for life-long learning. What made my high school education great was the quality of instruction and my high-performing classmates.
I generally like Mayor de Blasio and strongly share his concerns regarding diversity, educational opportunity for all, inequality, and upward mobility. I sympathize with his concerns regarding the current underrepresentation of blacks and Latinos at the specialized high schools. But I HATE his approach to dealing with the issue. LEAVE THE ADMISSION CRITERIA IN PLACE. LEAVE THE TEST IN PLACE. Mayor de Blasio’s solution is wrong and will ultimately damage the specialized schools.
Dealing with the problem of underrepresentation will be extremely challenging, expensive, time-consuming, and require manifold solutions. Ultimately, it has to focus on getting middle school students sufficiently prepared to succeed on the entrance exams and do well once they’re admitted. That requires a better middle school education, test prep, time management skills, and good study habits. It may mean helping students deal with social issues. I don’t have all the answers, but changing the test requirements isn’t one of them.
18
Our local Flushing High School, the first free public institution of its kind established in present day NYC, gives a sad example of what happens with changing demographics. Up until the 1990s, it was routinely considered one of the very best of the non entrance exams schools. The student body was then largely Jewish and Asian. Then things changed. Black and Hispanic students, often from areas outside of Flushing, began to enroll and matters quickly took a plunge even with much of the same faculty. Flushing High was closed several years back as a "failing school." Recently, all the faculty had to reapply for their positions. We like to believe that schools can lift children up, but it seems more likely that schools sink to the level of their students. The same will happen if the mayor's plan is enacted.
16
The students who meet the standards for admission to Stuyvesant do so because they are curious, hard-working, and intelligent. Such qualities are not exclusive to any ethnic group, but they do reflect a respect for education, a desire to succeed, and a thirst for knowledge that seems to be the result of a culture of learning fostered by their parents.
15
Sadly, the mayor's response seems all too reminiscent -- though in mirror image -- of what I saw when I lived in Alabama, which is the LAST place anyone should want to emulate in terms of education policy. The shared mistaken notion is the belief that a test, or lack thereof, is an answer to education problems.
In Alabama it was abundantly clear that the school system utterly failed to teach students what they should have learned, and the legislature's response was to impose a state-wide exit exam: students would not be permitted to graduate from high school without passing it, and never mind that their schools for 12 years had been failing to teach them what they were being tested on.
As the writer points out, it is clear that the NY public schools are not teaching students anywhere close to what they should learn by the time they go INTO high school, and the mayor's response is "eliminate the test."
Tests only (and often they don't do so well at that) diagnose educational quality, they don't improve or harm it.
3
What many people don't want to face IMO is if these selective high schools and universities become completely test-based, the white student population will shrink along with the black/Hispanic. A recent NYT article notes the NYC school system is 15% white/16% Asian - but based on test scores, about 27% of students offered seats at specialized schools were white while about 52% had an Asian/Asian-American background.
I'm sure some white parents/students aren't happy that there's just a few more Asian students in the NYC system-yet they got twice the offers of white students. But some white & Asian people IMO prefer to focus on black/Hispanic admissions rather than face each other. But that's coming.
"Study finds that when white people are told of the success of Asian applicants, their commitment to basing admissions on grades and test scores drops"
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/13/white-definitions-merit-a...
"...in a survey of white California adults...Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.
When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions."
5
Anyone who is truly concerned about the welfare of African-American and Hispanic-American youth would help to establish better preparation classes after school and on weekends for the purpose of these young people scoring high on the Stuyvesant admissions' test.
I reject the humiliating and degrading notion that these youth can’t make it in a meritocracy.
It is downright Orwellian to eliminate the color-blind testing which is the sole basis for admission.
7
Mr. Weinstein, like every Stuy alum I've ever met, is an elitist that fears any changes to what he and his fellow alums consider the defining marker of their elitism. They achieved this elitism at the ripe old age of 13 and have reinforced it in the decades since as Stuyvesant has continued its prominence among NYC high schools. The fact is, inequity is at an all time high in the city, state, and country. Granted, Mr. Weinstein makes good points that our public school system is woefully inadequate, but change takes time. Perhaps lifting this glass ceiling will encourage public schoolers to strive for that top 7% and achieve more in the process. Maybe those fringe students who just barely miss out on being top 7% will carry a chip on their shoulders to study more, achieve more, albeit at a school other than Stuyvesant. To neglect all the positives that could systematically arise from legislation such as what Mr. De Blasio is proposing, Mr. Weinstein marks himself as ignorant at best, an elitist as a close second, and a racist at worst. I'd love to say I expect better from a Stuyvesant graduate, but in my experience, this is more of the same.
4
My kid hates school. He always did. Maybe he always will, but maybe not once he's free from the constraints of secondary school. This hatred did mean that no extra resources came his way. Not once, not ever.
Letting in the "top" students from every school does exactly what we don't want to do - it helps us find the "best" at a very narrow set of criteria largely predicated on good executive function skills, a love of pleasing teachers, and a lack of dissent.
Having admissions be guided by a single test also selects in a narrow way, but it won't be the same set.
How about making test prep more widely available?
How about finding creative ways to seek out the truly gifted and not just those with test chops?
How about making sure that all schools get reasonable resources?
Give Blassio his way and 10 years from now we will have a student body that is 70% female, has awesome handwriting, and no longer kills at the science competitions.
1
The article sites that in 2016 "black and Latino students constituted 44 percent of the kids who took the test" but only make up 4% of Stuyvesant students - to me this says there might be a problem with the Middle School Curriculum or there might be a problem hooking up these kids to test prep (which does seem to make a difference) - or there might be a problem with the particular schools they are coming from. These are probably the issues that need addressing rather than the test itself. However, I guess it's easier to do away with a test in the name of equality - than insure all students are taught equally well.
4
We must strive for equality of opportunity- not the equality of outcomes.
I am disheartened that so many in our society believe that racism is the cause for the disparity in outcomes. It has always been, and will always be, the case that people who work hard achieve greater success than those that do not work hard.
It is a form of bigotry to reward people based on non-performance related criteria- even if we are trying to 'right a wrong.'
This country must become a meritocracy. We must strive to value people based on the content of their character and the quality of their work instead of the color of their skin.
6
Basing admission to an elite rare commodity like the specialized high schools on one single test should alert you to a problem. This is how it's done in places like China. It all comes down to one test.
How is that an accurate measure of the whole child? It foregrounds and privileges those who can take this test well. Not anyone else. Aren't there other ways to demonstrate ability and intelligence?
If you didn't see a single test as a problem then you might step back and consider if a school that is three quarters any one group is good thing. This is an elite public commodity - that should have a closer representation to the city it is in.
More diversity would be a good thing for the kids in this school
You claim the SAT is " so critical for college admissions"
It isn't. More and more colleges are test optional these days . There is a reason for that - one test does not show the whole child nor the whole child's ability.
Check out fairtest - an organization which shines a light on the many problems of tests like the SAT.
We can do better than to award precious spots based on one test. There are other ways to measure and gauge intelligence and ability.
5
De Blasio's plan would sacrifice talented kids of modest means to political correctness.
Kids who can't perform well on the admissions test won't be able to handle work at the pace and level of the elite high schools, and that means that the teachers will have to slow down, destroying the schools in the process.
But politically, it's so much easier to say "these kids will do great if only they're given access to the elite schools" than it is to say "these kids were too poorly prepared in elementary and high school to thrive at a school like Stuyvesant."
The rich can pay to send their children to rigorous, intellectually demanding private schools. If De Blasio's plan succeeds, they will be the *only* New Yorkers who can do so.
14
During cultural revolution in China, surgeons were given janitors brooms, and janitors elevated to surgeons. After all in Marxist dogma, everyone is equal. Millions have died in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia etc in the delusional pursuit of Marxism. Now DeBlasio wants to try a soft version on the backs of meritorious and hard-working asian americans.
6
The Mayor should concentrate his efforts on expanding HS opportunities for gifted children instead of lowering the standards of existing ones.
It is sad that in a city of this size and resources that we are still offering the same handful of elite schools of excellence as when I went to HS in 1960's.
If there are more worthy kids than there are places for, create more programs or schools.
Also, as a graduate of Brooklyn College during the initiation of Open Admissions, I can tell you firsthand that when standards are diluted and kids are not prepared to function at the same level as the rest of the school, everyone suffers.
I hope this misguided plan is voted down.
BTW, I am a social worker and a democrat.
3
While I understand Mayor DeBlasio's intent, I would like to respectfully suggest an alternative possibility. Why not target black and Latino youngsters who show an affinity for math and science for afterschool STEM enrichment programs from the second or third grade and up? Space would have to be provided, but I'm sure a call put out for late teen and college student volunteer tutors would be answered with enthusiasm (particularly ed. majors and awarding them credits toward their degree objectives wouldn't hurt). To admit the kids to Stuyvesant unprepared would merely set them up for failure.
4
Bravo, Boaz. de Blasio should be offering subsidized or free summer prep courses for minority students before the admission exam, not automatic entry by a less meaningful criterion. Don't criticize any group for hard work, but motivate the others to similarly rise to the challenge.
9
This is a hard topic to address.
I believe that the test is probably skewed toward affluent white people vs less affluent minorities. And that makes a world of difference at least at the margins.
The Asian students that get into the specialized schools for the most part are hard working, very dedicate and they all have one thing in common they go to "Chinese schools" for prep. These are schools that prep for a variety of test high school sat etc. Is it possible that these schools have access to information that helps their students do better on the test then others?
On the other hand using a criteria other then a test, does open the door to favoritism. And we all know how that works out for minorities.
I think the catch that deBlasio put into his plan is having to take the top kids from every school. Will that diversify the schools? Will people send their kids to minority schools knowing they increase the chance of getting into Stuyvesant?
Maybe we should try De Blasio's plan on some new specialized schools. See if that works before tearing the test system.
As far as the test is concerned, maybe we can adjust the test to sku it toward minority kids the way its is sku toward affluent white kids? will that diversify the student body while keep a smart competitive student body?
If the test were skewed as you say, then affluent white people would probably perform disproportionately better on it. Instead, less affluent minority people perform better, as indicated by their admissions numbers at the most competitive of the test schools. It just so happens that it is a particular less affluent minority -- lower-income Asian-Americans -- and not the most historically-disadvantaged minorities, who perform the very best, and are therefore overrepresented as a proportion of the student population.
2
Affluent white people do perform dis proportionally well on all standardized tests. That's because other affluent white people write the test.
Asian kids do well on the test, then the question is why? They hang around affluent white people? possibly. And obviously they prep for the test better. How do you prep for the test? They probably do old questions that have been on tests before. Better yet, they do questions that they think might be on the test. Maybe you can get the questions that are on old tests that are used to prepare next years tests? If you have a big network of people and you are willing to throw some money around. You can probably, over time, get all the questions from past years test . And then you have a significant advantage over someone going to take the test cold turkey.
"Diversity" used to mean "fewer white people." Now Asians have been added, selected for the crime of studying too hard. What the school needs, apparently, is more kids who are bad at math: just think of how "vibrant" it would be!
Cultural diversity is all fun and games when it's about the choice of ethnic restaurants in the neighborhood, but when the social justice warriors start re-engineering schools for "equity," the novelty wears off.
16
I grew up in poor Brooklyn neighborhoods,Brownsville, East New York and Crown Heights. I went to a public jr high school (middle school?) with great teachers and got a good education. I was a serious student, passed the test and was accepted into Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech and the Bronx High School of Science. Being a rebellious kid, I opted not to attend these "elite" schools and went to my neighborhood (I did take a bus to get there) public high school. Once again a fantastic education with great teachers. I was accepted in all the colleges I applied to and went to Cooper Union ,mainly for financial reasons (no tuition). This was a long time ago. Why has public education deteriorated to such an extent over the decades that such plans are being proposed and such desperation for a good education is exhibited?
3
This statistic that 75% of Stuy students are "Asian" is a "White" construct. I doubt many of these students of Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc., ancestry considered themselves "Asian" except in terms of the "boxes" provided. They are Americans of Chinese ancestry or Indian ancestry. etc. This "Asian" label is a way of saying they are not-white. Keep the test and let's not punish achievement.
39
Really? A "white" construct?
The people attempting to get in in greater numbers aren't "white"
Other than that I agree that the test is a fair method of entrance for this school.
Agreed that so-called 'Asians' at Stuy are not all first or second generation of immigrants from Asia. But neither are 'African Americans' are all exactly from Africa.. Better to just call everybody 'Americans' and judge them based on their achievements and not ethnicity.
There are many good reasons why a single test score (SAT or ACT) admission policy is rejected by colleges, including the most elite universities in the world. Too easy to game, too narrow in scope, and they are generally poor predictors of success at the next level. However, using a de-facto affirmative action policy to admit students to an elite high school will result in either a dumbed-down educational program or a much higher failure rate; not to mention the resentment created by admitting the less qualified. Should be a happy medium somewhere, why not look to the admission policies of elite colleges and universities.
1
"It’s all about whether you do well on the test, which best determines whether or not you can do the academic work."
And with a single unproveable assertion does the remainder of the argument collapse. The remainder of this essay puts slanderous words in the new Chancellor's mouth, and attempts to redirect attention everywhere except Stuyvesant, where a stunning lack of diversity has been and continues to be a problem. The idea that diverting time and money into test prep, when it is the test itself that's broken, is obscene.
I went to Stuy. I loved it there. But I must consider that siphoning away the top students from a small handful of schools that feed into Stuy, and giving parents a reason to not invest in making their public schools better, instead encouraging them to invest in cram schools and test prep, are bad for the system as a whole. And that's the Chancellor's job. Not preserving a few crown jewels while the base metal from which the crown is cast rots.
3
Mr. Weinstein's argument is part of the playbook that privatizers use to destroy public education. What is interesting is his argument for keeping Stuyvesant, Stuyvesant. It's the people! Not the school! He then contradicts his argument and blames the problem on the NYC Public School system. Indeed it is about the people as has been well proven, standardized tests of all sorts (designed by corporations to make money) simply prove the top performing students come from the families and zip codes with bucks.
Mayor de Blasio's approach is actually a better indicator of academic success. Top ten percent students are the answer no matter where they come from and no matter what the test scores don't tell you. Mr. Weinstein simply wants to maintain the status quo which makes his charter schools look even better.
3
It just selects a different "top".
You lose the bright quirky kids who don't always remember to turn in homework, or who don't yet have the maturity for neatness, who sometimes push too hard at one subject at the expense of another...
If you want a school of pleasers, go the top ten percent route.
1
The mayor is revising the practice of quotas for a previous group of bright aggressive students in the early part of the last century. Then it was Jews, who would have overwhelmed Ivy league Universities.
It also seems that City College did what DeBlasio is proposing in the 1960s when it had a reputation of being Harvard on the Hudson. It's no longer described as such.
6
You're somewhat out of touch on City College. The open enrollment of the 60's did have the effect you assert, but that was reversed long ago and City and the other CUNY schools have reclaimed their role as New York's escalator from the lower to the middle class.
First, there is an issue about terminology - this is about racial groups and not ethnic groups!
Second, East Asians and South Asians are overrepresented, it is not Southeast Asians such as Cambodian and Vietnamese.
Who would want their child in the top percentage at a failing school to go to Stuyvesant - and get mediocre grades and feel overwhelmed when they aren't qualified to compete with the kind of students who perform well on this grueling test? The Mayor's policy will either destroy Stuyvesant because 1) the curriculum will have to be changed for the worse to accommodate less qualified students who will face enormous struggles - or 2) it will destroy the confidence of students who aren't qualified to excel in such a challenging academic program.
This is a destructive and pitiless solution to the failure of hundreds of NYC public schools. Racism is not the only factor at play in the ongoing public school disaster. Poverty, family problems and lack of good teaching and curriculum are also at fault. Reducing the solution to 'diversity' is not going to solve the academic disparity in NYC.
22
I agree with the author, but must take exception to his statement that Stuyvesant is the best HS in NY. Bronx Science is the best.
7
This is not about the elite vs. low income people. At Brooklyn Tech, over half the students quality for free lunch.
The Mayor's plan makes no sense because the test does indeed serve a purpose: it determines whether one has a chance of succeeding at these schools. The admissions test evaluates just two things: the ability to do math and reading comprehension ability. Without those skills, one cannot succeed in these schools.
As the author suggests, this problem needs to be solved at the elementary, middle and JHS level. The specialized high schools have already increased outreach. There are some other things that can be done: each specialized HS should "adopt" a junior high school or open one within their facilities with admission solely by lottery. All of the specialized high schools should get together and create a website that not only creates interest, but has guides for parents and students. And they should have tutorial programs that take place during the school day (for which JHS students who sign up would be permitted to attend) and/or during the summer to prepare students for the test by reinforcing their math and reading comprehension skills, which should have the side effect of improving their performance on state exams.
I don't know why we would attempt to destroy the one part of the public school system that is actually working well. Admitting students who can't pass the test would be like letting me play for Knicks...a complete failure.
35
I probably would have agreed with this piece before reading Supreme Court Justice Kagan's autobiography. In it she explained how she got into Princeton and was wholly and utterly unprepared to be there. She rose to the challenge and became a supreme court justice. If her admission were dependent on a test score alone, she wouldn't have been afforded that chance. Yet she was absolutely capable, and proved it after having some time to adjust. Think of all the Elena Kagan's who are missing out -- not because they are not talented enough -- but because they did not get the quality early education they needed.
4
Interesting. Elena Kagan went to Hunter.
3
Ah just what we need... more polarized dialog. Perhaps the real message here is that our educational system... whether the elite or non-elite version... has woefully failed to convey to generations of students the ability to confront the host of complex and ambiguous realities that we must grapple with... whether admissions policies, foreign policy, economic policy or any other. Instead, supposedly educated people resort to rigid opinion and adversity. This of course neatly avoids the necessity for true analysis.
I'm for it, because it encourages gentrifying parents to enroll their kids in the community schools. Maybe make it 50:50 test and top of their class.
No one can say that being top of your class in a community school isn't merit based though, that's not a randomly assigned position. You're just measuring merit differently from someone using a test to measure it.
3
I recall reading a study in an education class that seperating out the very top students marginally improved the performance of those students -- but significantly degraded the performance of more average students. The most supported and motivated kids were already performing near the top of their abilities, but their performance raised the expectations of other students. Also, the most motivated kids came from the most motivated parents, and those parents also improved the school through fundraising and pushing for more academic oppurtunities.
There is no reason that city as wealthy as NYC should have to ration quality education for the very best students. Every high school should be economically and academically diverse, and every high school should offer a challenging curriculum for kids willing to attempt it. It's high school, not Harvard.
6
In 1950, I failed to pass the test for admission to Stuyvesant. Disappointed, I attended New Utrecht instead. I next was admitted to Brooklyn College having passed its admissions test. Back then the college was tuition-free. That all ended after 1970, when, using the same rational as is used now with respect to relaxed admissions to Stuyvesant, namely to provide access for low income racially diverse students. an open admissions policy was adopted that nearly led to the closure of the college for lack of funding and the loss of its reputation as an elite educational institution. Don't let the mayor make the same mistake that was made more than 50 years ago with Brooklyn College by destroying Stuyvesant's special status as one of the best high schools in the nation.
45
Brooklyn College is still an excellent school! They didn't lower the difficulty of the courses they offered! One still had to pass muster! PS Surprised, that having attended New Utrecht, you didn't become a comedian?!
1
It's hopeless, Moschlaw.
No one wants to admit that (1) having progenitors who aren't into education isn't a good start in terms of DNA, and (2) without actually paying attention in class, going to the teacher for clarification, and doing homework, and reading books, there's little hope of success even in a regular public school.
Plenty of black people, all over the country, do well. They are lawyers, physicians, physicists, and businessmen. But they worked for what they achieved. And they mostly come from families who knew how to delay gratification and apply their energies to intellectual pursuits.
1
A classic case of trying to achieve equality by leveling everything down. Can we not have at least one high school in the city where entrance is based on academic ability? Destroying this exceptionalism will not raise up any significant percentage of the teenage African American population in the City, but it will cripple the City’s effort to give the appropriate educational experience to those few who are nearly unique in their academic skills.
26
I applaud Weinstein's opinion piece, especially noting his reaction to Richard Carranza's statement: “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.”
Weinstein's response needs to be shouted, loud and clear:
"There is so much that is disheartening about that sentence. It pits minority groups in our city against one another. It imagines a cabal. And by describing the majority populations of these schools as “one ethnic group,” it fails to appreciate the socio-economic and other diversity among these students and internal to Asian communities."
As an Asian American, I do agree that more diversity is needed in the SHS system. However, do not penalize Asian students and their families (often poor and immigrant) for striving towards this from the beginning. Help, instead, build up our city's elementary and middle schools so more children will have a fairer shot at doing well on this exam. Also, widen the net of "desirable" high schools.
8
Broadening entrance opportunities a little as proposed by the mayor sounds like a worthy experiment.
Considering that many smart kids in poorer neighborhoods may not have had all the advantages that can help boost the scores of more affluent families, the proposal doesn't sound particularly radical, or likely to dramatically affect the quality of Stuyvesant High School. And if it doesn't work, changes can be made.
Finally, since secondary education is really an opportunity, I'd dispute the assertion that the city is attempting to provide equality of outcome.
We are one city, after all. Let's celebrate that.
5
It's easy to understand why the beneficiaries of the Stuyvesant admissions game want to protect it. The problem? Preserving a space for children whose families have the time and resources to drill them until they pass necessarily excludes those children whose families can't. For these kids, their inchoate potential is overlooked in favor of the lucky few whose potential has already been coaxed out by private tutors, summer sessions, and the quality public instruction that only a higher tax base tends to provide in New York.
If public education is still intended as an engine for social uplift and the empowerment of the next generation of leaders, the conspicuous class bias in Stuyvesant's existing admissions policy is an impediment not a saving grace. While the status quo has certainly served many of Stuy's graduates-- the author of this oped is CIO of a thriving private equity firm-- it's not working so well for much of the city, as Mr. Weinstein rather glibly confirms.
It's not often that a politician like Mayor de Blasio takes the steps necessary to level the educational playing field, and his proposal has been deeply refreshing. But unsurprisingly, the mayor has many powerful adversaries.
From the tone of this OpEd, their point is clear. Students in the South Bronx, not-yet-gentrified Harlem, and the bad blocks of Amsterdam Avenue need not bother taking the test. You're not at their level and Stuyvesant and its board clearly don't want you...
5
Myles, the "inchoate potential" of children whose families don't support their education, or children who live with gang violence all around them, is overlooked. That isn't fair. But is it the duty of Stuyvesant High School, or the public school system, to set that unfairness right?
When I first started reading this editorial, I agreed with it, you'd convinced me. Then the more I read, the worse the arguments became. "Under his proposal, 20 percent of seats at the schools would be reserved for students from under-resourced middle schools who score just below the cutoff score on a standardized test, which is now the sole criterion for entry." It's hard to argue with that, given that there may be very talented students in bad schools who should be given a small amount of leeway in points due to the fact that their educational experience hasn't been as top notch as others. But why bring race into it when the policy is specifically designed to be colorblind? There is no reason to criticize Asian-Americans specifically for the crime of wanting to succeed, to get into the weeds as to who's treated more fairly "in the workplace, at the bank, and in law enforcement interactions," or to make inflammatory claims like "Asian-American critics of Mr. de Blasio’s plan are arguing to preserve a racist system in which whites, not Asians, are on top." You destroyed your solid argument with that nonsense. And to say "only five percent of kids are getting access to a valuable public resource" is to miss the point. These are elite schools. They're supposed to be for only the best and brightest! Yes, let's give smart kids from poor schools a slight break on their scores, to mitigate not having had all the same advantages. No more needs to be said.
2
Let in the unqualified. Then when there is a huge performance gap between them and the qualified, call it racism by the teachers. That is going to be the story within a couple years of this new policy.
12
“I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.” That line just kills me.
I took the specialized high school test in September for students who missed the regular test date. I missed the regular test because I was a brand new immigrant- fresh off the boat. At the test, I sat next to a Russian girl, her English still heavily accented. We both got in. Why was my admission to the stuy somehow illegitimate simply because 70% of the school shared my ancestry? Was that Russian girl disenfranchised in any way because she was not of that same ancestry? What does it mean when a school chancellor sees the success of a group of students and sees something sinister?
23
Want it ............EARN IT. The real problem is the schools that are failing to prepare the students and the students and their families.
6
I didn't go to highschool in US. In fact went to school in IRAN - post-revolution, during the war with NO access to the outside world (other than summers abroad). I came to US (I'm born in US) with $850 of my own money.Yet my perseverance got me in to NYU-Film School and got 2 MBAs after from IVY League schools. But I lived next door to Stuyvesant and watched these Students grow up on a daily basis. I can see some of Mr Weinstein's points. But would like to add to mine. Stuyvesant is a highly competitive school with clusters of students depending on their interests and RACE. They tend to gravitate towards each other. I can see what the Mayor is doing. What I disagree with what the Mayor is doing is that the students that are not gifted in their area of interest but are overall smart in lets say Math will most likely not succeed at Stuyvesant just by the way the school culture is. Had the Mayor announced 10 new Schools for the smart in all areas would have been better rather than cause friction among the students and disrupt the culture of the school.
I think any child can do what I did...and that Stuyvesant can't teach that anyone.
Though the Mayor is trying to provide the "opportunity" ... maybe this is not the right one.
A gifted child is "gifted" in certain areas of concentration and that should be cultivated, discovered only in that area which is what these Schools do.
1
The problem with having one exam that carries so much weight in admissions is that it gives students and their parents an opportunity to game the system. Students who have access to tutors that specialize in preparing them to pass these exams have an enormous advantage over students whose parents can't afford tutors.
While many students will get in on pure talent alone, there will also be a lot of "hothoused" students who are not necessarily brilliant, but are grinds who never look up from their textbook page and have little to offer beyond doing well on tests.
With that said, the mayor's solution is a recipe for disaster. A better (though still imperfect) solution would be to use a more holistic application process, where a student's transcripts, exam scores, teacher recommendations and activities would be used to put together a class that was both academically capable and diverse.
5
Mr. deBlasio is no student of history. If he were he would remember what happened to CCNY when rigorous admission requirements were dispensed with. Once one of the finest public colleges in the country, where immigrants and their children got a world class university education, it became just a remedial secondary school, posing as a community college.
40
Using the standard of statistical representation, there are not enough Asians on the basketball team or the football team either. Clearly those selection mechanisms are not working. Perhaps a quota on our sports teams is also appropriate. I am no Tom Brady, but am confident that in his company, I would have at least reached my full potential as an athlete. Let's not limit this to academics. I spent more than 20 years in school. Kobe and LeBron didn't even go to college. they both make far more than I ever will.
18
As a school leader and former Bronx teacher, I am just concerned that the staff of these schools are culturally/professionally ill-equipped to serve what would be their new students. I worked for an alternative Bronx high school for years, and when we were sent to an elite specialized high school to grade Regents exams with teachers from that school, they sat around all day mocking the names and essay responses of predominantly black children. The truth is, these teachers think that working in a specialized school is a sign of their own merit. However, their skills pale in comparison to teachers who work in underserved communities and actually have to like children, work hard to teach concepts in novel ways, and push themselves as people. I have little confidence in their ability to navigate this possible change and embrace their new responsibilities with love and effort.
3
Hey, I think you're right. Not all students are the same. Some are going to do better if they have a teacher of the same race or ethnicity as themselves. Others are going to be able to learn calculus from anyone who knows it. It is a real skill to be able to "teach concepts in novel ways." Some students need that; others can learn the standard definition of the derivative.
I was supervised by a guy who taught middle-school math and didn't know how to add and subtract negative numbers. He knew how to relate to the students. Replacing him with someone who knew how to perform the required operations, given the school's culture, would not necessarily help anyone.
1
opening up seats to the kids who just miss the cut off score is not going to be an issue: while my son got in, I know a number of his friends who went through the same grueling multi year prep class and did not get in. Any one of them would have been a successful Stuy student. It's just that there not enough seats for all the qualified kids so the bar ends up being set artificially high.
however, admitting kids based on their rank in middle school is problematic because so many of our middle schools are really not very good.
1
Like Mr. Weinstein, I attended Stuyvesant. Unlike Mr. Weinstein, I believe that the specialized high school test has long since outlived its usefulness. As was the case with the SAT, the original intentions behind this test were good. A test based on innate aptitude was certainly a fairer basis for admission than the highly subjective admission methods that elite colleges and universities used for decades to avoid admitting students whose racial, socioeconomic or religious characteristics were undesirable.
However, anyone with an understanding of "how the world works" in 2018 knows full well that - like the SAT - the specialized high school test has long since ceased to measure aptitude. Instead, it has turned into a test of who has the most resources (in terms of money, time and emotional investment) to devote to test prep. I am talking about weekly classes that start before elementary school, years of one-on-one private tutoring, organized mock exam sessions, etc. This has made a mockery of any notion that the specialized high schools are purely meritocratic institutions. In addition, the idea that the test has any connection to a student's ability to "do the work" at these schools is absurd.
I'm not sure what should replace the specialized high school test, and Mayor De Blasio's proposal does not strike me as a viable solution. What I am sure of, however, is that pretending that the status quo is worth defending is neither realistic nor productive to the debate
7
Mr. Weinstein,
Your column here is so depressing to read.
I went to a college where the occasional classmate was a Stuyvesant alum. It was so impressive, and strangely uplifting, hearing from them their high school experience at this legendary school. Similarly, other classmates were graduates of Bronx High School of Science and that too was equally eye-opening learning about their education prior to college.
About a year ago I randomly came across an article titled "The Left Ruins Everything It Touches" written by someone named Dennis Prager. The title shocked, offended, and angered me. But I read it.
In the intervening time I've reluctantly come to realize that he is exactly right.
A perfect case in point is what is happening now to Stuyvesant High.
I'm so sorry. It's probably hopeless. You have already lost, Mr. Weinstein. It's over.
As you say, Stuyvesant High School will disappear in everything but name.
Again, I'm so sorry.
12
I'm sure students and alumni at Midwood and Bronx Science would argue the self-proclaimed "best" status of Stuyvesant (and for that matter, perhaps the students at LaGuardia School for Music and Art.)
And I've heard often and anecdotally that there ARE legacies and students with wealthy parents make their way into the student body.
Study after study has proven that standardized tests, and IQ tests, are designed for an economic elite (including white kids). Look up the history of the College Board.
While it might profit the author personally to shunt economically disadvantaged students into for-profit charter schools, where they are taught to shut up and obey orders, the "I've got mine, too bad about the other" attitude does not help NYC overall.
It will be a process to discover the best way to identify children who have the potential to succeed. And it will probably involve more than a standardized test.
In the long run, it will grow the school into a richer, more diverse community that has far-reaching, positive effects in every neighborhood.
4
IQ scores are simple the most accurate predictors of success in difficult and complex disciplines that social scientists have devised.
Other tests that measure knowledge and not aptitude are valuable for making intelligent comparisons on what a "B" average means at school A vs. school B.
Cite your sources, and then I'll cite mine..
1
And Brooklyn Tech is chopped liver?!
2
Mayor De Blasio is no expert in bringing up children. Look at his own personal track history.
Leave Stuyvesant alone.
14
We agree with Boaz Weinstein.
13
The dumbing down of the NYC education system continues unabated. It's been a 50-year-slide--this just puts the nail in the coffin.
16
Yup David.
NYC politicians are the lowest form of life. Their favorite ploy is to turn issues surrounding standards of excellence into racial ones. We are seeing it here and have seen it before.
the "dumbing down" began with CUNY Open Admissions, which reduced a stellar public university to a post-high school repository for anyone who could walk.
4
Perhaps the thought that extra studying, preparation and working throughout the year somehow constitutes "gaming" the system is the attitude that should give us all cause for pause.
Admissions testing based on merit is not discrimination.
The abject failure of the city's public elementary and middle schools to prepare enough students to qualify is the issue.
The failure is not the sole responsibility of the schools, their teachers or their funding.
The failure is shared by the failing students who do not study, who do not allow education to occur and who are not serious about education.
The failure is shared by the failing parents of those failing students who do not enforce studying and civil behavior as valued character traits of their children.
At some point, people have to take some responsibility for themselves and their families. The families and the student body of Bed Sty do. They deserve their placements. They worked and styled their lives to enable their placements. They should be emulated, not derided as the mayor's administration appears to favor.
It is stupidity like Mr de Blasio's that drive otherwise rationale adults to question the fairness and the objectives of progressive politics.
34
The whole point of the test was to measure aptitude, and only aptitude. You specifically acknowledge extra studying, failing schools, and failing parents as factors that determine performance on the test. These factors have nothing to do with aptitude. If performance on the test is based on factors beyond aptitude, then the test is no longer serving its purpose and we need to find a new approach.
De Blasio is a walking example of ineptitude and gaming the system to excuse his inadequate leadership of the NYC school system. If his voters' children can't make the cut, then change it.
4
I graduated from Stuyvesant in 2009. I can tell you that, had my parents not shelled out the money for a test prep course, I would never have been able to do well on the SHSAT. There were things on that test I'd never seen outside of my test prep course and I didn't attend a "disadvantaged" or underperforming middle school. I can also tell you that, apart from gaining my admission, the material on the SHSAT had zero bearing on what was actually taught. Doing well on that test does NOT determine whether you can do the level of academic work demanded by Stuy.
Mr. Weinstein's assertion that "The facilities and the teachers at Stuyvesant were not materially different from any other New York City public school" is also patently untrue. Stuyvesant had tremendous resources that aren't available in other public schools, especially as relates to college prep. There were several AP courses in every subject that students could take, school-managed college trips, many of the teachers (science especially) had doctorates, and there was a tremendously rich roster of extracurricular activities, to name just a few things.
As a hispanic woman, I've found many of my fellow alumni's responses to the proposal offensive. It's being reframed as an attack against the Asian community, which is a gross misunderstanding. Removing the test would allow top students to gain entry to Stuyvesant and all the resources it provides without the need to spend so much money prepping for an absurd test.
14
Why not rely solely on the NYS Regents exams? Are they no longer prescribed?
1
Many of the Asian students there had far less resources than you. They made it in on their merits. Now you want to change the racial makeup of the school because it doesn't fit your utopian worldview that outcomes should always be equal. That is absolutely an attack against the Asian community.
10
Jonathan, clearly you missed the point here. It is offensive (not to mention clearly racist) to suggest that only Asian students are "making it in on their merits." Every student that's admitted, no matter their race, is making it in based on how they performed on a single test that requires specialized prep, without any regard for their "merits."
I don't subscribe to a "utopian worldview" and am painfully aware that outcomes aren't always equal. Please explain to me how viewing students' grades when selecting students rather than admission hinging on a single test is an attack against the Asian community.
By the way, you have no idea what resources I did or did not have growing up, nor do you know those of the many past and present Asian students.
DeBlasio will destroy these schools if his plan goes through. What is wrong with creating a plan that helps those students pass the exam? What is wrong with teaching them math, grammar, writing, critical thinking so they can do better on the exam?
Entrance to these schools is as objective as you can get: you take the exam, and that score is your entry or not.
I would not object to creating some feeder middle schools that are more lenient in their entry requirements. But leave these high school jewels alone!
9
While we're on the subject of bias, it's worth asking why girls make up 43% of the student enrollment at Bronx Science & Stuyvesant even though they slightly outnumber boys enrolled in the city as a whole. Girls graduate from both high school and university at higher rates than boys, yet this disparity remains.
6
There has to be a place for the brightest, hardworking students for they are our future of excellence. DeBlasio is so wrong about dumbing down the elite public high schools for the sake of some mythic diversity. The smartest, fastest kids need to be together to challenge each other and to not be bored, wasting their high school years. If it means, in this era, that most students are Asian, so be it. They deserve to go where their intellect fits and their work ethic. DeBlasio truly thinks that every child, if given the opportunity, can perform at an elite level. Sadly, that is not the case. There needs to be a refuge for our best and brightest. DeBlasio should improve our existing mainstream schools or, if he needs to feel that he's doing something to champion diversity, invent a new tier of schools that achieves that without destroying a the only part of the system that works well.
12
Welcome to progressive America in 2018, where institutionalized racism and quotas against Asian Americans is considered acceptable. It's about times that we Asians realize that progressive identity politics is anathema to the interests of outnumbered minority groups such as Asian Americans.
25
Jonathan, these grievance groups to which one need not name, merely exist to excuse low effort and performance. They are not "progressive," unless one is referring to progress toward a set of outcomes that reflect ONLY the proportions of these groups in the general population.
Individual effort, hard work, diligence, willingness to sacrifice current satisfactions for the achievement of goals, all of these are ignored. Maybe there is a better future for outstanding students in other places.
1
DeBlasio has an under-achieving middle school problem, and he needs to fix it. All he's trying to do here is shoot the messenger that is broadcasting his failures. He would rather damage Stuyvesant and rob smart kids of the education they've earned fairly than admit to the middle school problem and start fixing it.
24
But that would take tremendous effort and years to see success, if any. BDB has won't be mayor anymore, so is focusing on short term political advantage.
The author of this article is financially invested in charter schools. His empathy for those who struggle is nil and he has no idea of the impact of financial struggle on the ability to excel on intellectual and educational levels. Why trust his opinion? He wants things to stay the way they are because that has served him and his ilk. He can go ahead and blame the whole system, but that is not a solution, it's a dodge. If he really had faith in the public schools as he pretends, he would never have invested in charter schools. This opinion piece is about keeping the status quo.
8
I agree with the author's larger premise. however, consider this:
Because their parents earn less, work longer hours, face more abuse by the police, find it harder to get a mortgage, had less access to education themselves etc...
please understand that large numbers of the Asian immigrants testing for Stuy and Bronx Science are often first generation themselves. their parents are equally poor, work long hours, earn less, rent (no mortgage), and do not speak English to boot. what they do have is a belief in the power of education and a social/cultural commitment to that belief. note that African and Hispanic immigrants share these same commitments. that difference explains why Cornell's BSU wanted to deny affirmative action to all but n-tj generation African Americans.
the history of racism, as the OP notes, creates systemic barriers to n-th generation URMs in America. a solution will need to address those barriers so that in the long run, everyone is incentivized to
work for it. they will appreciate it more and they might no longer need affirmative action because of it.
6
It's become difficult to talk about these sorts of issues lately, but outcomes vary by race because of enormous cultural factors.
Many Asian countries - especially S. Korea and China along with Japan - are known for having an extremely high-pressure test in high school that essentially determines people's futures. (Han Dynasty China actually invented the standardized test)
When Asians arrive, they bring cultural values that are strongly aligned both with education in general and with high-stakes standardized testing in particular. Asian-American families are very effective both at pressuring their children to study and at teaching them how to study.
They're also better at staying together and being helpful in the first place - they have high rates of having both parents in the household even if poor, a situation that is much less common for black, Hispanic, and poor white students. The latter are much more likely to grow up in broken homes, and to face a hostile environment for education more generally.
The result: in schools where test scores are the only admission criterion, people of East Asian descent are dramatically overrepresented compared even to white students, who themselves are highly overrepresented compared to Hispanic and black students, of whom there will be very few.
The best answer probably is to set aside about 25% of the seats for the highest-performing 1 or 2% of students in each school district, and then to use the exam to allocate the remainder.
3
Basically true, but one correction: in high-poverty pockets of Asian immigrants (NYC's fastest-growing community of low-income residents), it is not uncommon that the parents are not physically present. Sometimes the kids are on their own for stretches at a time, or with a relative, while the parents are in another city or state, working in, say, the low-pay restaurant industry. Or, they may not even be in the country. However, emphasis on education is retained and enforced, even if parents are not present.
1
"Instead of complaining, as he has, that the admissions test invites so-called gaming in the form of preparing for it after school and during summers ..."
This abject dismissal of de Blasio's complaint is no dismissal at all. It makes no attempt to address issues of unfairness that the protesters have pointed out: Some families can afford test prep courses for their students, which undoubtedly can help admission; other families cannot.
This problem is not so hard to fix; it is not necessary to destroy Stuyvesant in order to save it. Just provide test prep to any New York City students planning to take the special high school admission tests.
1
I believe that free test prep was already put into place a few years ago, but failed to increase the number of non-Asian minorities.
It's not the test that is holding these kids back. It's poor elementary and middle school education.
4
Oh, is that so? The same poor elementary and middle schools that the Asian kids went to?
This is what happens when diversity instead of individual success becomes the mantra. Humans are different by nature. Let the very best be pushed by their talents, not retarded by idealogy.
22
The Civil Rights Movement of the1960's was about equal opportunity for all, an antidote to centuries of favoring whites. Today the demand is for equal outcomes, regardless of effort or ability. Recognizing and rewarding excellence has been abandoned; getting the color scheme right is all that matters.
21
Sure, blame the teachers and ignore the structural inequalities. That will help! (Not.)
1
I attended an elite university where something similar to what Mayor DeBlasio is suggesting has been taking place for some time. That is to say that "the best" that each state could graduate found admission to the institution in the same general proportion that their population bears to the overall country.
The results were predictable: The quality of the education across high schools varied so greatly as to produce graduates who - while top students in their own high school - were simply outmatched when compared to top graduates from other schools.
Unfortunately, college isn't the place to address the shortcomings of high school, just as high school is not the place to address the shortcomings of the curriculum that preceded it. In that sense, the Mayor's proposal is nothing more than a band-aid trying to cover up a gaping wound.
14
Questions for Mayor de Blasio:
What is more important, diversity or excellence?
Where does our desire for diversity sit on our hierarchy of values?
Is it okay to require diversity within an organization, even when doing so reduces that organization's effectiveness?
Is the only just society one where every organization and area of endeavor looks like an advertisement for the United Colors of Bennetton?
Do you consider the Knicks' off-season practice a disgraceful attempt to try to "game" the NBA?
Aren't you concerned that they have yet to call me, a 5' 6" middle aged white guy, up to play center forward?
21
You seem to be implying that you CAN'T have both diversity and excellence. And that diversity is inherently of less value than other qualities you deem important.
1
You most certainly can have both diversity and excellence. But diversity at the cost of excellence, which is exactly what de Blasio is proposing, is making a fetish out of diversity.
1
Here's another discouraging thought about Mr. Carranza's statement: it's complete repudiation that, indeed, there are differences in academic ability. Did noone tell Mr. Carranza that life isn't fair? You can do your best to ameliorate the results of inequity, but you can't make it go away by ignoring its existence. And all this at a time when jobs requiring little or no skill are disappearing rapidly. Does he truly think that pretending that everyone is suited for intellectual achievement is going to raise everyone to a level where they can snag a highly skilled career?
I saw the "gifted" program in my small city that did well by my children completely demolished when it was suddenly expanded to include a more diverse student body. Criteria such as ability to bead hair was suddenly an intellectual achievement. The excellent gifted teacher quit, abruptly, one afternoon after being lectured by her principal about the unfairness of requiring homework when not everyone had parents at home who could help. But everyone is very pleased with their gold stars and banners. Except those who have fled to the charter schools.
27
Differences in academic ability appears to be a political hot potato. My children are by some but not all measures, "privileged," as I have been a single mom since their birth. While excellent academic performers, neither would likely have the test scores to get into SHS, and moreover, the high pressure environment SHS students thrive on would crush them. They need a different academic environment to thrive. Is it because I'm white that I don't see my children having a chance at SHS as unfair? I'd like like to think that it's simply the wrong environment for them, even if they should do well enough to make the cut off. I'm sure there are many other "privileged" families who also recognize the SHS are not the right fit for their children. Leave the SHS to the students that will thrive there.
I submit that Stuyvesant's admissions policy is notably egalitarian, as Boaz points out, except in regards to family and community upbringing.
It helps 1) to know about the test, 2) to prepare for it, and 3) to have a scholastic background that will contribute to test success. I was fortunate enough to enjoy these and in the 90s I joined my uncle and nephews as an alum.
For readers who share the goal of making Stuyvesant and the other test-based admissions schools more broadly socially-representative, while maintaining their academic quality, I propose the NYC school system could offer all students the previously-mentioned three items. The second and third items, in particular, would help most students, no matter their luck on test day.
Venerated public institutions are hard to build, but easy to destroy. I hope Boaz will press his publicity on this issue and offer some way for concerned alumni to offer constructive input.
8
If points 1, 2, and 3 were actual (among the abolishment of other inequities) for all students, then this conversation would never be taking place.
I wonder if Einstein could pass the NYC test. He had dyslexia and failed his entrance exams except for what he was interested in such as science and math. His professor in his interview saw the potential in him when admitting him to Polytechnical institute. Of course his curiosity was sky high and he knew what to and what not to believe in from past science. As a teen he gained confidence helping his father with electrical magnetic snafus in his factory when only a teen. We need a better mousetrap than the one that exists but not the Mayor's proposal. By the way my brother attended Brooklyn Tech while we lived in a housing project and was 1 year younger than his peers and was not a racial minority. If we follow the Mayor's proposal we should expand the enrollment and not keep out those who passed the test.
1
I can understand opening more special schools and having special opportunities in schools, but to disadvantage bright, hard-working students for the sake of "diversity" strikes me as wrong. I obviously would not have competed successfully for a special high-school music school, but I fit well in a different special school.
Expand opportunities for the finest of educational opportunities in different areas, but not at the expense of a particular school.
8
Suppose we were talking about a camp to develop the world's best tennis players. Wouldn't we have tryouts and give the spots to the best players? No matter that one player has spent his whole life preparing for the tryout--he (or she) has earned her prize. If we want to offer better education to disadvantaged young people, we need to offer them other schools made for that purpose. To use the tennis analogy, maybe they will become champs if given the right training--but the elite tennis camp is not the place for preparatory training.
7
That's a faulty comparison. If a student without experience in tennis showed up at the tryouts, but showed outstanding athleticism, flexibility, hand-eye coordination and speed, I'd bet they'd bring him/her in to build a champion.
I’m not a New Yorker, but I once had a chance to study NYC’s system of elite high schools some years ago, and frankly, the idea of having elite public schools seems patently anti-egalitarian. I would say I’m surprised they they persist in a supposedly progressive place like New York, but I’ve learned not to be surprised by the perpetuation of elitism.
Good for De Blasio for making this reform.
3
I guess it depends what you mean by egalitarian. Exam schools are anti-egalitarian only if your conception of egalitarianism leaves no room for individual achievement, a la Harrison Bergeron.
2
A couple of years ago, Farook Chaudry, former head of Dance UK quit, because, he said, the UK’s top contemporary dance schools were failing to produce the dancers they needed . . . top choreographers complained they were being forced to recruit overseas-trained dancers because standards here had dropped. He said:
"It's hurtful and it hurts me as well to say it, because I care profoundly about dance and there's a lot of very talented people I love and respect in this industry.
"But sometimes we can be too nice to each other and these are issues that do need to be addressed."
He added: "I think students are being mollycoddled. I think they are being treated too much with a light touch."
Egalitarianism is about a level playing field. Once on the field, however, or the stage, or trying to pass the bar exam, it's about what you can do.
That's not elitism. That's reality.
1
If as the article states, the key is the quality of the other students rather than the teachers or facilities, then just open another specialized NYC high school and admit students there based on the Mayor's new criteria. Also, make sure there is free or low cost assistance for students who want to prep for the current test during the year or two before it is administered. But don't break an existing system that works well.
19
We need to stop lowering standards in an effort to be more inclusive. In the end this doesn't help anyone, especially those that we're supposed to be helping. My son teaches college English. One of the English courses he teaches is a college-level English preparatory class. If we have to teach students basic English at a college level, we have failed.
47
To compare the Stuyvesant test to the SAT is risible. The SAT is rapidly fading as a metric of admission at elite schools and, at my institution, is completely optional. The better parallel is a junior version of the Chinese university entrance exam. In that pressure cooker, everything from cram schools to outright cheating is used to snare admission. De Blasio's plan is better. Admit the top students in each school, not the test prep grinders.
5
Can't test prep grinders be successful people? Why the hate?
2
It would be a colossal mistake to stop allowing top high schools to admit students based on merit alone.
14
Well, "polymath," what makes you believe that a single test is the sole way to discern "merit"? Why don't grades matter?
1
Admitting students whose poor test scores show they are woefully unprepared for the high level of instruction and competition at Stuyvesant can only result in failure for the great majority of these students. This is in no way doing these students a favor.
However, some people (e.g., the mayor) cannot see beyond political correctness to understand what a disservice lessening standards will create.
The only truly equitable approach is to improve public schools at pre-high school levels so that students of all races and backgrounds will have a meaningful opportunity to compete for openings at the elite high schools.
11
And how do you plan to do that, short of going into their homes & making sure their families are intact and non-violent, that they have enough money that they don't have to work after school, that they don't have to babysit because their parents are working 2 jobs, or at odd hours, etc.?
Study and prepare for the test. Those that do well deserve to be admitted. Those that don't need to work harder.
12
"I got to sit next to Omar Jadwat in metal shop, Gary Shteyngart in homeroom, Naval Ravikant in history, and Ruvim Breydo in physics, and that made all the difference."
Is it actually "fair" (whatever that means) or, perhaps a better question, healthy for our society to have these super-institutions where the student body is exponentially better than other schools? My point is this: when you actually meet people from Stuyvesant, their view of life is jaded. Anything less than riches or a prestigious career, an apartment in Manhattan or SF in your twenties, etc. is a step down. These people then go on to places like the University of Chicago, where they teach their striving peers who went to "lesser" high schools to see the world similarly. My experience going to "elite" institutions is this is part of a broader concern. You take all of these exponentially more fortunate kids (note: more fortunate, not necessarily more talented) and bring them together and it becomes a bubble. Forget about diversity of experience. Would it be better for society if we didn't concentrate wealth and ability in so few schools? These people come away with such skewed versions of the world and thinking, to quote the author, "I believe that admission to the school was one of the seminal events of my life." Should we really think of where we went to high school or college as the defining moments in our lives? What about higher causes or civic responsibility?
3
You are painting with an awfully broad brush. "When you actually meet people from Stuyvesant, their view of life is jaded"? Are you talking about 1 person, 2, 3? Of the 3,000 plus that are studying at Stuyvesant at any given time -- the 850 or so that it graduates every year? I know dozens of current and former Stuyvesant students, and though are generally an ambitious group, the subject matter of their ambitions varies widely, from achieving education reform to improving medical services in underserved areas of the world to providing broader access to legal services in their own communities to preventing Alzheimers, and yes, in a few cases, to success in business or finance. Putting talented, ambitious people together does create a bubble, but it's not an isolating bubble that keeps things out; it's a very salutary bubble of shared and complementary ambitions, skills, interests, and the like, in which kids who are more or less fortunate in their ZIP code, economic background, or other demographic attributes all get to benefit from one another's talents. We can't make people contribute to higher causes or exercise civic responsibility, but we can ensure that those who enter high school with the greatest prospects for making such contributions have a great chance to realize those prospects.
2
I did not make it into stuyvesant when I first took the test in 8th grade. Then, you could retake in 9th grade for admission in your sophmore year. The second time I took the test, my stepfather sat me down for a week and helped me through the study guide every day for two hours. Any parent can do this. It is not rocket science. I made exactly the cut off score and was admitted.
24
No, not every parent can. Every parent can try though. I volunteered in adult literacy in the City of Cleveland, where fully 2/3 of the adult population is functionally illiterate, that is to say not reading at a 6th grade level. I worked with the tireless Sister of Notre Dame. Our learners ranged in age from 18 to 60, all with a goal of getting their GED. Many were caring for both children and frail parents. Something I learned from the nuns was that, whether or not a parent obtained the GED, the very act of learning improved the outcome for the child. This leads me to believe in three things:
1) hold the parent or guradian in unconditional positive regard
2) make room in the struggling public school for adult education
3) parents may be not helping their chidren out of shame over their own lack of education. I believe the positive interaction between the adult learner and the tutor restores that adult's self-esteem and gives them confidence to be a better guiding star to their child.
You lost me at "...for the top students at every middle school regardless of their abilities." Those who do well in school ARE the most able - and have demonstrated that better than those who do well on a single standardized test. The city will be better off rewarding those kids who have studied hard and have the grades to show for it. I commend the mayor for taking this action.
P.S.: Although I don't live in NYC now, I'm a product of NYC public schools, and my mother taught in them her whole professional life.
2
Test results definitely indicate how well the student did on that test. Going far beyond that is a stretch.
7
Equal opportunity is no guarantee of equal results. This is a move to try and equalize results, and it will fail.
24
No one said the goal was equal results. The goal IS equal opportunity.
1
Just wait, the results will not be equal. Then everyone will be saying the teachers or the school is racist in some way. Because that will be the only PC reason they can come up with. Not that someone is doing more homework or was just smarter to begin with. The argument shifts over to results very quickly and the "gap" will be all that anyone will talk about.
My kids would not have been smart enough to get into Stuyvesant...they're fine kids, just not academic superstars. That said, I am thrilled and proud that a school like Stuyvesant exists in the same way that I'm proud of climbers who make it to the top of Everest even when a 10-mile stroll on flat streets is about as much as I can do.
49
I graduated from Stuyvesant in 1959. The school was in an old building near Stuyvesant Town. It was not coed. The principal, Leonard J. Fliedner, was a hack; someone pasted little fortune-cookie-sized pieces of paper in the stairwells that said "Scratch out the Flea". The teachers were of varied quality, but the students were excellent in both intelligence and spirit.
The best public high school (judged by number of National Merit Scholarships) was Bronx High School of Science, which was coed. Other outstanding schools were Brooklyn Tech, Hunter (affiliated with Hunter College), Regis (Catholic), and Erasmus Hall, a regional high school that drew from the Flatbush area of Brooklyn and was famously tough.
If students are admitted to Stuyvesant who cannot keep up, everybody will know this and it will not work educationally or socially. The city needs to pay as much attention to preparing students with great potential as it does to students with disabilities, so that their talents are developed and they are ready to compete to get into a special school and succeed there.
33
I totally agree with Boaz Weinstein, except that I would question Stuyvesant being the best High School in NYC.
For a hint about my choice: What do all Hunter HS and Stuyvesant HS students have in common? They all took the Hunter exam.
Seriously, thank you for a passioned and insightful article.
8
Whoever study harder and get better score on tests should get in regardless of race. Stop punishing people who study harder!!!!!!
68
Why do you assume that kids who do the best in their middle schools don't "study harder"? Perhaps they can't afford tutors to help them study. Perhaps they have to work to support their families. The prejudice underlying so many of the comments on this article is truly disheartening.
1
Academical achievement is measured by test score just like 100m sprint is measured by time and not effort.
1
We are equally intelligent regardless of race. Whoever study harder are likely have better scores on tests.
1
Richard Carranza, the mayor’s new schools chancellor, put it this way: “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.”
For anyone who want to move beyond simply opining about how race and racism is driving this dicussion, an excellent answer to the issue at question can be found in the book "What Truth Sounds Like: RFK, James Baldwin, and Our Unfinished Conversation About Race in America" by Michael Eric Dyson.
4
This is obtuse, considering the author is the founder of two schools that meet out inappropriately harsh punishments to its students, focus an insane amount of time on prepping for standardized tests and regularly discriminates against ELL and students with special needs.
6
What deBlasio is doing is turning Democrats into Republicans.
54
The fact that "Asians make up 75 percent of Stuyvesant students and 62 percent of specialized high school students overall" puzzles me.
2
Why would it puzzle you? Most Asian American schoolkids have intact families with two parents and there is cultural emphasis on education to get ahead in life. This is simply not true for the African American kids in NYC, where the majority are raised by single moms.
5
So the argument is that the racial make up of Stuyvesant is due to cultural differences. And the Mayor and supporters for a different admission process will somehow transcend these differences into a positive schooling experience simply by inclusion. I think the more obvious conclusion would be akin to a sinking boat.
Am surprised that de Blasio still tolerates the name "Stuyvesant." That man was the top slave driver for the Dutch West Indies, based on the island of Curacao. He did so well that the Dutch Government then promoted him to Mayor of New Amsterdam.
7
So, let me get this straight. Asians, who suffered plenty of historical discrimination (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese internment durring World War 2), and who continue to suffer violence and discrimination (Vincent Chin in Detroit, the two Indian-American engineers in Kansas last year), are ask to bear the burden of past sins and "white privilege" against African- Americans and ethnically white Hispanics, all in the name of racial justice?
Pandering hypocracy by Mayor to curry votes. Or worst yet, Progressive racism laid bare.
259
[[Pandering hypocracy by Mayor to curry votes. Or worst yet, Progressive racism laid bare.]]
"Curry"...I see what you did there.
Anyway, the best thing you can teach children is that the world is competitive. The world is also unfair, but most of what transpires is based on preparation and hard work.
I feel that to young people all the time...show up, be eager, say yes to everything and you're as good as gold.
The mayor's wife is from West Indian stock and I can tell you for a fact that West Indians do not play around when it comes to education. They are not concerned about quotas or percentages...the child will perform as expected or there will be consequences.
I invite you to also talk to the children of Nigerian immigrants. Ask a Nigerian kid if skipping school is an option or if C's and D's are acceptable. The answers are "no" and "no."
The point is, immigrant parents demand more of their children and the results are evident in test scores and placements.
3
My brother went to Stuyvesant in the 70s. We were a middle class family and my brother came from a public junior high in Queens. DeBlasio's plan to dumb down the student body in the name of political correctness is appalling.
191
Let's see some data. What's the correlation between the student's admission test score and his/her GPA? How much more time/money are Asian students spending to prep for the exam than are Black/Hispanic students?
Also, it's a bit puzzling to me why the test is the SOLE criteria. Why aren't middle school grades at least a factor? It seems like at least a useful data point. Aptitude isn't the only thing that determines high school success. Diligence is pretty important too. One would think that middle school grades give a decent indication of diligence.
6
Absolutely!
Stuyvesant itself does not confer any advantage to kids who would have gotten in anyway - this has been empirically confirmed (and written about by the NYT's own Seth Stephens-Davidowitz...). Put another way, if kids who would have passed the test anyway are now forced to go some other school, their outcomes are not worse. This observation has also held at ivy leagues - kids who got accepted to Harvard and chose not to go do as well as Harvard alums in the long run. The exception, interestingly, is for underrepresented minorities - a black student is much better off taking the harvard slot than going to a state school.
So, what we know is that admitting fewer qualified students to Stuy will actually not change the outcomes for the kids who would have gotten in but now have to go elsewhere. It also won't change the outcomes for the kids who would have been in under any scenario. However, it is likely it will improve outcomes for the under-qualified (and yes, they are under-qualified!) underrepresented minorities who are admitted.
While I personally hate the idea of Stuy not being completely merit-based (particularly as an Asian person!), I have to conclude from the research that the policy that has the best outcomes for NYC kids, in aggregate, is probably actually DeBlasios.
That said, the author here is totally correct that the real solution is to have much better public elementary and middle schools that teach what these kids need to know. But...how realistic is that?
8
So because the public union infested teachers and city government can't fix elementary and middle schools, you want to force meritorious asian american kids to be forcibly removed from the few working schools. And you also cook a fable to justify this forcible taking away of opportunity from the deserving.
3
The idea that it's considered unfair that people study after school and during the summer for a test is just pathetic. That's what students are supposed to do. That's what parents are supposed to encourage. This is one of the chief things about today's progressive activism that bothers me to no end. Decades ago, having an intact family that cares about their child's education was a baseline expectation. Today it is treated as it it is an obscene privilege and that any difference in academic performance stemming from it is unearned, illegitimate. It's not like these kids are buying their way into Harvard; they are studying for an exam. In the mayor's view, families like this should be penalized for simply being themselves and doing their best to do right by their kids. When conservatives criticize the left as being out of touch, are they completely wrong?
The kids that get into Stuyvesant deserve to be there because they literally earned it via their testing scores. We should be grateful that there are people in our city so motivated and engaged; they will be great assets in the future. For students who didn't get it; sorry. It's a selective school; not everyone is going to get in anyway.
108
I'm Hispanic and Native American and find De Blasio's sort of thinking categorically racist. It continues to astonish me that somehow it isn't absurd to suggest that black and Hispanic students, many of whom also have absolutely ZERO connection to a history of racism or discrimination in the US being largely first generation, are incapable of studying or that these families can't put in place the same structures as poor, immigrant, Asian families do. If in fact they cannot, we need to address that - not gerrymander the outcomes.
15
So well put, thank you! The reasoning you spell out so eloquently and concisely should be self-evident. And yet, we have come to the point where your view is almost heretic among self-described progressives.
"Decades ago, having an intact family that cares about their child's education was a baseline expectation. Today it is treated as if it is an obscene privilege and that any difference in academic performance stemming from it is unearned, illegitimate."
Great comment, Nick. A perfect distillation of how the idea of privilege has been distorted and misrepresented. Bravo.
5
Not a NYC resident, but the parent of a gifted child, now at Oxford. I understand DeBlasio and the Chancellor's dilemma. But it's misplaced. The issue is that there is likely a test prep cottage industry around that one exam and the leg up it provides families with the resources to access it. More well to do families provide all manner of enrichment opportunities that poorer families simply can't. There isn't an easy answer but cutting out the exam isn't and shouldn't be the approach. The spectrum of schools in NYC is pretty broad and the outcomes and level of education varies. Assuming that the top 10% or 5% of graduates from all schools are at the same level of readiness is absurd. Public school kids deserve the ability to earn access to schools with reputations equivalent to an Andover, Phillips Exeter or a Choate. Stuyvesant has that - don't ruin it.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water why not establish and FUND a true "gifted and talented" program. Provide the enhanced enrichment opportunities to those children that are in struggling schools. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the proposed plan will solve the problem of access, but it will take away from the school as a whole as resources are diverted. These gifted kids need a place to go that quite honestly caters to their special needs.
41
Obviously one test is not the best measure for determining who should go to these specialized High Schools. Some very intelligent people are not the best test taker's. While the Mayor's new approach may have some flaws it is not more flawed that the current system and may create more diverse High Schools.
1
This is a no brainer. Get the quality up of the middle schools first
and run a lottery for the top percentage of all the middle schools
for a small handful of slots of students who do not qualify on the test. See how well they do.
5
I have a suggestion: Set up a new school according to De Blasio's specs and admissions procedures, and keep Stuyvesant as is. Do a long-term evaluation study. See which school produces more accomplished and successful graduates. See if the two schools maintain equivalent standards of excellence.
121
If the goal is to get better representation of black and Hispanic students at top NYC schools, why not start voluntary, low-cost SHSAT test prep and tutoring classes at majority black and Hispanic schools? Surely Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg could make that happen. Allowing students automatic admission creates the perception, fair or not, that they did not earn their place in the school. Policies like this got us Trump.
53
That has been tried, no cost tutoring, and the kids did not want to put in the time required for summers or weekends.
8
It exists. Participation has been very low for said under-represented groups.
So what makes Stuyvesant so special? Faculty, computer resources, supplied tissue for restrooms? Perhaps the simplest thing to do is rotate teachers from school to school and give each student the benefit of equal resources and supplies? Are good teachers being rewarded? Is a good teacher the one who has all A students, or the one who has raised the grades of students from failing to B-? Before we say "we'd love to do that, but we just don't have the money," consider how much wealth leaves the city every day in non-recouped ground rent; i.e., socially created land value that no person or company deserves to keep.
4
I can assure you that it is NOT computers or resources that make Stuyvesant special. I am a former sales rep for interactive whiteboards and other educational technology... and I would never think to waste my time calling on Stuy. As all reps who sell to NYC DOE schools know, the better a school's academics, the less funding they had. No Resolution A funds, no School Improvement Grants, no Title 1 money... truly an under-resourced place.
40
I don't think you know what you are talking about
thanks for clarification that funding disparities disadvantage the better schools.
The writer contradicts himself in a big way. He starts off saying "The facilities and the teachers at Stuyvesant were not materially different from any other New York City public school," and then states that it was being surrounded by bright and motivated students that made all the difference.
Then, he basically says that in fact, there are big material differences between public schools, that have failed to educate certain students. However, isn't it more likely that the failure of top students at certain schools to pass the tests is indicative of their surroundings? Elevating these students to more advanced and prestigious schools is what will make "all the difference" in their lives.
A smart and motivated student won't achieve the same level of success if she is surrounded by peers who are struggling with school. Take that same student and put her in an elite school, and she will achieve far more.
8
It is just as likely that the failure of top students to pass the tests is indicative of the achievement of the students. It's a big problem to just assume that the failure is attributable to "surroundings". Yes, a student who is surrounded by peers who are struggling with school can achieve at the same level.
2
The failure of the best students who don't make is the lack of preparation for the test. This is a failure of parenting and self motivation. I was self motivated to study for the test and when I was, I made it in with my parent's help. A first generation black engineer and an immigrant who drove a taxi.
2
A leading city, like New York, needs a few high schools where top-achieving students can motivate each other without the distractions of those more interested in competitions other than academic. Admission should continue to be based on academic merit using a standard test open to all, as it is now. That said, turning New York's Elite 8 or Fine 9 (take your pick) into open enrollment ordinary high schools is simply not likely to improve overall quality of the city's public school system. Instead it's more likely to lower overall performance by sending a message, "Be the best in the worst school is the easy route to success." to under-achievers who really need help - in academic content and maybe also in motivation. The Mayor's idea would be laughable were the consequences so dire.
37
I agree fully with the author that talent and hard work should be rewarded and am definitely not a fan of blindly taking the top x% of schools across the city. That said, the author's notion that the test "best determines whether or not you can do the academic work" is highly questionable.
In particular, as the talent and hard-work of students is increasingly directed towards skills involved in test-taking, we produce students who are better prepared to take tests than to acquire in depth knowledge or the skills to apply it.
I am nevertheless in favor of testing and objective measurement. Although there may not be any easy answers, I think we should consider our assessment process very carefully so that we don't gloss over areas where tests fail to adequately assess talent, hard-work, and potential.
2
Have you ever looked at the Stuyvesant test? It isn't the sort of thing you can prepare a kid for by teaching to the test. The questions are subtle and probing. They demand, not so much knowledge of facts, as critical intelligence creatively applied. In order to do well, you need more than a big vocabulary. You need to be able to read for meaning and to reason about what you read. You need to have mastered middle-school math, and you need to be able to use that knowledge to solve fairly sophisticated problems. The Stuyvesant test is as unlike the No Child Left Behind tests as chess is to tic-tac-toe.
8
Say what you will about de Blasio (I am not a fan), but I don't understand why this is so controversial. We should all be deeply concerned that a public school's demographic makeup is mindbogglingly misaligned with the City's demographic makeup. These are the same discussions we have at the university level but flipped on its head. We should certainly ask ourselves why this might be. If one is to believe in nurture rather than nature (as I do), then you would suspect that many African-American and Hispanic students are systematically excluded from many opportunities along the way, whatever those opportunities may be, culminating in poor test scores on the admissions test. I would love to see the relative performance of the middle schools Stuyvesant's students attended vs. average schools for African-American and Hispanic students. I would wager a bet that the gap would be disheartening. Is this the solution we've been waiting for? No, but it's going to take a long, long time to fix the root cause and it's unfair to have to make these young students wait. This is a start.
4
It is not a "start" to put ill equipped students in over their heads at an elite high school. University's have the luxury of drawing students from all over the country so diversity is more feasible. Of course, DeBlasio can always cut the expected performance from the student body at the same time and then cheer about what a good move he's made.
7
I actually think diversity is more feasible in New York, where the racial makeup is certainly more diverse than the country as a whole, relatively speaking. I also believe that motivated students typically continue to overperform, even if they don't get into the Stuyvesants of the world, while the students who have had the odds stacked against them their whole lives may find new motivation in being admitted to a Stuyvesant. I think it is presumptuous to say these students are ill equipped simply because they did not perform well on a standardized test, which I have found to be poor indicators of anything whatsoever.
I like most of my friends came from a lower middle class family. After Bronx Science, I went to CCNY (because it was all we could afford) and then onto a PhD. Even though I am now a scientist working at a prestigious research institute, I still feel that Bronx Science was the most rigorous environment I've experienced that set the stage for future success.
To admit students who are not prepared into these schools is to set up failure: either the students will fail because they are not prepared or Science and Stuyvesant will fail because they will need to reduce their rigor.
And what makes this proposal more appalling is the blatant motivation to penalize Asians for their achievement.
As others have said, let's work on improving elementary and middle schools to give all students the skills they need to succeed.
266
I graduated from Bx Science in 1956 and went on to NYU (Ph.D. 1963). I studied in Leiden (NL) and the University of Iceland. I, too, feel the best and most rigorous part of my education was at Science.
Thank you for mentioning one of the other best schools in the world. No one is complaining there about diversity.
I attended Stuy in the late 70s, when commercial test prep and cram schools did not exist, and when most kids did not study for the SHSAT (or the SAT for that matter).
Since then, the rise of expensive commercial test prep providers, alongside a large increase in immigration of people from countries such as China and Korea where cramming for entrance exams is endemic to the culture has created a test-prep arms race. The test no longer separates kids of similar (non) prep and achievement from each other. Rather, it filters kids economically and culturally. This is not meritocracy.
The answer is to devise an admissions process that is not so completely susceptible to kind of prep that now dominates. I'm skeptical of the DeBlasio proposal, though. I would prefer to see the prep issue addressed directly, which could be accomplished by regular changes in the test format itself. For instance, a test covering fewer topics, but with long-form questions, and with content changed significantly from year to year would render prep and test-taking and guessing strategy less effective and would better showcase student's actual abilities.
40
Prep does not have to be expensive. My daughter was admitted to Bronx Science. Her prep: a book from Barnes and Noble.
10
Yawn. "I was a success, therefore you should be able to be one too". This a tired argument that views the world in a vacuum.
Not having been reared in New York, but having lived there, I was most impressed with those who qualified and had graduated from its specialized high schools. It would be a mistake, I believe, to lower their standards. The difference in those students often, I believe, starts at home with parents who project a high standard of expectations for their children in academic performance. The faculty and instruction are not so much different, as are the students eager to learn. They stimulate one another. I often tell others that when they consider what college to attend. I had the good fortune to attend one that is considered high on that list. If asked what was different about it, I would say the competition from a highly motivated student body rather than any real difference in the material offered or the faculty who offered it.
That, more than anything else, i believe accounts for the high percentage of Asian students as top performers in most of our high schools. I would bet, that in most cases, they also come from two parent families where Dads are present and great role models as such.
29
I attended Hunter, with an admissions test similar to Stuyvesant's. My parents paid for intensive one-on-one tutoring for months before the test to make up for what my private-school curriculum hadn't even covered. Not everyone can afford to do this. De Blasio should provide (capable, vetted) tutors free of charge for any NYC student who would like the extra help, whether they are facing a big admissions test or just want a boost.
14
Hunter is completely different. Once you pass the exam, then you need to go through the rest of the admissions process.
Stuy just has the one exam. Then you're either in or out. No mushy rest of the process.
1
De Blasio's plan is wrongheaded. These schools are intended to offer the most challenging academic environment for the most intellectually gifted students in the city. Intellectual capacity -- not fine tuned policies intended to replicate racial quotas -- should govern admission.
But apart from the bad policy, I think these kinds of affirmative action policies need to be reviewed anew by the courts. I believe de Blasio's plan should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Why? Haven't the courts blessed affirmative action as constitutional?
The relevant difference is NYC is a majority-minority city. And the majority bloc is voting for policies to advantage their own group on the basis of race (i.e., discriminate on the basis of race against the minority). So the twist is the majority bloc seeking advantage here are blacks and Hispanics.
This is majoritarian reverse racism and much more troubling than typical affirmative action policies ruled Constitutional in Texas and Michigan by which a majority white population determines to "inflict" itself for the benefit of the minority -- in such cases, the "racism" can be validly addressed through the political process because the "victims" constitute the democratic majority.
However, in NYC, these racially based policies are actually targeting the minority group -- and in such a case, the racially based policies should not be given deference by the courts.
25
Problem here is that many capable kids are being left behind. When I went to Stuyvesant
59-63, there were the same number of special test schools that there are today. But the number of students in the city is much higher now, there is more diversity and the public school education provided is not as good.
A teacher said back then that the stuyvesant kids teach themselves. By the way it was an all boys school then, some things have changed for the better!
6
The solution is to set a threshold score for admission and let in everyone who meets that score. If that means having two Stuyvesants, or three, that's good. The mistake is starting with the assumption of only x-many seats, so it squeezes out qualified students because there are super-qualified.
14
No wonder the Democrats will keep losing elections, even now. They are doubling down as the party that only cares for blacks and latinos, and then they wonder why our party affiliations have been aligning along racial lines. And I say this as someone who loathes Republicans, and who is horrified at the ascent of Trump. But the Democrats can never learn, and will keep shooting themselves in both feet. Even many progressive people like myself have had it with rampant political correctness, identity politics, and reverse racial discrimination.
221
Well said, and I wish I heard this necessary honesty more often, because this is a big part of what's forcing people into the hands of the Republicans and Donald Trump.
You just can't legislate equality. What you can do, and it is much harder but more productive, is provide equal opportunity.
7
Mayor deBlasio is not, (and his long running feud with the Democratic Governor and lukewarm support of HRC in 2016 establishes) a model Democrat. He aspires to be a man of the Left. Our own Jeremy Corbyn on these very shores.
If, as claimed, you are really active in Democratic politics nationally and know who is being chosen in many primaries or party conventions, you'd know Hizzoner is atypical. He stood with Charles Barron, the longstanding self-declared man of the hard left (in his usual Mao jacket) at the presser, for Pete sake. So, if you are not a sock puppet and really a Democrat , take heart. Mainstream liberals, not deBlasio types are running this year.
Who in the world do the identity politics people consider to be an "Asian"? East Asians? South Asians? Central Asians? A Pakistani, in the myopic view of the identity politics people, are lumped in with Koreans. Indians and Vietnamese. All the same, right? Hey, they are all the same when your tiny mind thinks only in gross, monolithic stereotypes. Do these people think all "Europeans" are the same, too? The "diversity" crowd can't grasp anything other than group stereotypes based on the crowd's ignorance.
89
yes, all of these countries are lumped together as Asian. What is missing from the U.S. is a similar focus on academic excellence. If we saluted scientists the way we did athletes, maybe we'd see different outcomes.
The central flaw in arguments against Weinstein for his temerity in taking the taboo position that exam schools are good as is, is the central conundrum that when you take "exam" out of exam school, it is not an exam school. In other words, it is no longer a coveted, prized symbol of student merit. Of course high stakes testing has a lot of drawbacks. But for lower socio economic students who study hard and excel on exams, such a merit-based system is a hugely positive, life changing step up and out. This opportunity will be gone when exam schools are gone. Instead, what were formerly exam schools will recede back into the great mass of other schools. These nice-but-not-exam schools will no longer be an upwardly mobile golden ticket that for generations was a transformative goal motivating so many students.
14
What you are essentially saying is that the top students at schools throughout the city, students who have likely worked hard for years, will not be as interesting or bright as those who score high on one test.
I disagree. Not only are many of these students as bright and as interesting as many of your former peers, they have the added benefit of adding some diversity to Stuyvesant. By virtue of being drawn from schools throughout the city, Stuyvesant students will now be exposed to more diversity of experience, diversity of perspective, and diversity of thought. I expect that future students will be far more challenged, better able to think critically, and will come away far more prepared for the real world. This is a good thing.
6
I don't think you can really promise anything about which group of students will be more "interesting" or "bright" (whatever you mean in choosing those vague terms). You definitely can't know that there will be more diversity of perspective or thought -- to the contrary, your assumption that kids coming from different schools do not share a range of perspectives and modes of thought suggests that you could use exposure to a broader range of young people.
If by diversity of experience you mean the experience of going to a failing middle school, I guess the mayor's plan would bring that -- though that probably is not the background most conducive to a positive high school experience for the cohort as a whole.
The one thing of which you can be certain is that if you admit a group that did not perform as well on the test, they will not be as good at what the test is testing. I am not as skeptical as you seem to be that a test can evaluate educational readiness with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
3
No. He's saying that not all top students at schools throughout the city are prepared for Stuyvesant High School. And test scores prove it.
3
Actually, he says the "magic of the place" was due to the "cohort of incredibly bright kids encouraged by camaraderie and competition to push themselves to succeed." He lists some of those kids. He then goes on to say that de Blasio's solution will "destroy it in all but name". His essay explicitly correlates being bright and increasing the overall excellence of the student body with the score on a test, and laments that without this metric, the school will no longer have the "magic." So yes. He did say that.
The demand for change of the entrance requirements for the specialized high schools is the wrong place to start this discussion. Where have the parents and students been while attending elementary and middle school and have the parents asked their child if there is an interest in working toward going to a specialized high school? What plans were made to support the child to be successful in getting into a competitive program? The programs are designed for students who are able to earn high scores on standardized tests throughout their school career. If they want a seat, don't change the exam.
19
I'm getting over the shock that this appeared in the NY Times. In de Blasio's world, hard work comes second to meeting quota's. It's outrageous and his plan should be put to sleep. The Asian community should be upset. These kids perform at the highest level, and shutting them out is criminal. More to the point, the city school system STINKS. Per the author, de Blasio should focus on improving the education of the entire school district, not the schools that actually work. (And BTW, the author is right...want to get into a premier college, better score high on a single test...the SAT).
98
Typical story, everyone wants a uniform racial mix in order to be fairly represented and alleviate the presence of discrimination. Unfortunately in a system where only the capable are selected there will be angst. A few years ago a neighboring city that has a predominant minority, low income population was blasted in the news because it's law enforcement and emergency services were mostly white because the minority applicants weren't passing the tests. The cities answer, Lower the Test score requirement. The diversity result has not changed materially but it's way easier for academically challenged to pass.
Lowering the entrance bar is not an effective method for pushing diversity. Suggest offering prep classes for those 7th graders interested in taking the test. This requires commitment to attend, ability to retain/learn test subject material, and capacity to apply learning to testing.
Sending unqualified children to advanced learning environments will create a new diversity metric - fail rate increase for minority students.
27
Thank you for this. I am concerned by what I perceive as cultural shifts away from meritocracy. I actually think reserving seats for students at high poverty schools who just miss the cutoff is not a bad idea, so long as "just missed" is defined quite narrowly and those students are truly competitive with those who scored above the cutoff. But it just doesn't make sense to take students from middle schools where nobody is even passing the state exam. What will happen to those students when they are in an environment with higher expectations and higher performing peers?
It is appalling that at 80 NYC middle schools not 1 7th grader passed the state exam. DeBlasio should focus on improving those schools and helping those students perform well, not engineering the selective high schools so that they are actually no longer selective.
89
It's a good thing de Blasio is not in charge of admission to medical schools for surgery or maybe who gets to fly your plane.
de Blasio cannot come to grips with the fact there are dummies in the world, he being one of them, apparently.
147
How is this not racism? In the past, many schools and universities set quotas for Jews precisely because they were “over-represented” in institutions of higher learning. The USSR did this until its own inglorious end. And still, Jews managed to get PhD’s at a rate much higher than that of the general population. Today these Jews are mostly in the US and Israel, while Russia is lagging behind in every science and technology field. So now NYC is applying the same quota system to Asians? I hope this disgusting racist proposal will go down in flames, as it deserves to do. I can just imagine the outcry if a school has decided that it had too many black students and set quotas for them. Why is it OK discriminating against Chinese, Indians, Jews, whites or whoever else the authorities deem to be too successful, too learned, or too smart?
307
Great comment! Deep down these communists are either racial supremacists (and ashamed of it) or feel that every success must be destroyed because they know that they are not capable of succeeding. Communism (which is exactly what this proposal is) is a toxic ideology based either on pathological guilt or pathological envy.
I can't believe this people get voted to such positions in the US!
2
I disagree with this opinion piece and support Mayor DeBlasio's plan. I attended Hunter College High School many years ago. At the time when I took the entrance exam most students didn't spent months with tutors or enrolled in cram courses to prep for the exam. There is plenty of research to indicate that SAT scores are more an indication of affluence than ability, and I think the entrance exams to NYC "elite" schools are more a measure of amount of test prep than student potential. These are public schools, and they should be accessible to *all* students in the city.
11
Indeed. It is a measure of test prep, but it's not a measure of income level. The people at Stuy are more often than not lower income. They just happen to work hard. Should hard workers be penalized because they aren't the right "diverse" profile the Mayor deems is appropriate? Diversity is always welcome but at what expense? These hard working kids' efforts and dreams?
The mayor would do better to prep lower-income lower achieving schools better. Administer SHSAT test prep city wide. Then see what happens.
1
Mr. Weinstein is 100% correct. Access to Stuyvesant has been unambiguous and open to all. Access to the best Prep schools in town are subject to legacy, parent's ability to pay, the right families etc. Stuyvesant has been a beacon of equal opportunity. When a school chooses to engineer a student class of less qualified students, the result is one of two outcomes, either the students fail or the school dumbs down (choice of words intentional) it's program. Instead of destroying the school, provide free after school tutoring to any student wishing to prepare for the entrance exams at schools around the district, have teachers identify high potential students and offer them extra help, make the feeder schools and programs better.
63
A compelling piece. At one out of every six middle schools, not even 7 percent of seventh graders passed the state math exam? Wow, what a disaster that would be for Stuyvesant.
55
Who needs meritocracy?
Quotas are so much better!
The Mayor is such a smart guy you have to wonder why nobody else thought of this idea?
The beauty of the plan is that it discriminates 'against intelligence'
You have to love our elected officials. God help us!
79
Elected officials don't fall from the sky. Most of the people complaining here (very justifiably) are the very ones who keep voting for these identity-politics drenched politicians like this mayor. So maybe they deserve this kind of inane decision makers.
This is not about rewarding talent and hard work but giving yet another advantage to children who already have the advantage of engaged parents with resources to pay for test prep.
The story about meritocracy that the middle class and up tell themselves is a lie.
It is very fitting that Boaz Weinstein is the founder of Charter schools that are catered to poor black and brown children.
Separate (with the myth of) equal is what this is about.
3
This is similar to what the University of Texas at Austin did in response to court orders to diversify its incoming class in the early 1990s. Instead of using SAT and ACT scores and high school GPAs, the university began automatically admitting the top 10 percent of graduating seniors from all Texas public high schools (it's now down to the top 6 percent, I think). That certainly helped diversify its classes, but the downside has been a large cohort of students from low performing schools unable to compete with the more prepared students. A huge percentage drop out after the first semester or two and to what end? Instead of demanding that low performing high schools do a better job and/or directing these students to colleges where they will excel, we play a numbers game that looks good race- and socio-economic-wise, but leaves the students feeling like failures.
79
Just what I would expect from this mayor. Truly, his objective is to destroy anything worthwhile in the City.
52
I’m having trouble thinking of anything that’s been destroyed in the city since he’s been mayor, worthwhile or not. Maybe my memory is faulty.
I teach Algebra to many gifted students in my middle school in suburban Chicago. We have changed the cutoff scores for Black and Hispanic students to get more diversity into our gifted program. It does not work out as intended unless many of these students get extra support. Mandatory homework help after school is one key to success as teachers can build relationships and build confidence. Otherwise, these students feel overwhelmed, do poorly, feel discouraged, and stop trying. The result is a C or worse in Algebra and classroom disruptions due to poor behavior. This is real life experience that the New York City schools should take into consideration as they make the changes planned.
319
You're saying that these non-white/non-Asian kids can't learn, and therefore become disruptive? The school should provide extra support unless you think that the children are just incapable.
If you add unqualified, those qualified will not be here anymore. You know why America has been on decline.
1
Good argument, Mr. Weinstein. Stuyvesant is one school in a system. Students arrive there after 9 or 10 years of school education. Ethnic dimensions of test results are a symptom of educational inequality, not a cause. A well-publicized revamp of one well-known school is great for a politician. It might look like they are upgrading the system. But in fact, it does not help students in the first 9-10 years.
52
Wow, this misses the point in so many ways, and is a good example why people need to be exposed to all types of different people -- some stuff cannot be learned in a classroom or by taking a test; exposure is key (which Mr. Weinstein references in his paragraph linking to his different classmates; which to me actually supports why more different types of kids (socioeconomic and race/ethnicity) should be at these schools). I hope that current Stuyvesant students can see through this.
The other opinion piece is so much more on point and a more realistic take on this debate (with more points backed up by research to debate). I am not sure why this one is showing on top in the online version; please go read https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/opinion/stuyvesant-new-york-schools-d...
3
Bill de Blasio will not rest until all New York City schools are bastions of mediocrity, where teachers teach down to the lowest common denominator, if the disruptive students let them teach at all. Bill de Blasio hates charter schools, even where most of the students are from his favored minority groups and even where those minority groups succeed. Bill de Blasio simply wants equal mediocrity in his domain.
150
So how is it that the charter schools are not producing students who can qualify for the specialized schools?
1
Not even the best charter school and the most inspired talented teachers can overcome the disadvantage a child has when their parents are not married -- mom is an unwed mother -- dad is who knows where -- they live on welfare -- their lives are constantly disrupted by violence, drama, instability, drugs, alcohol, etc. -- they cannot count on a quiet place to study or even know where they sleep from night to night -- despite massive SNAP benefits, there is never enough food or healthy food -- the adults in their lives act like spoiled children -- and NOBODY reads books, studies, cares about language or art or music (*except rap or hip hop). There is no way to get past this -- none.
I agree 100%. That said, the concern for teaching to the lowest common denominator isn't new. My children were born in 2000, and this was already a source of concern through "No child left behind," a failing program just like every other government educational failure. My twins graduated this year, and fortunately weren't guinea pigs in yet another social engineering project.
To pretend that a test is not, or cannot be, biased is not a reasoned position. It is a belief, or a hypothesis, that should be tested.
More concerning is the statement that zero middle school students are testing advanced in math in a quarter of the schools. The simplest explanation for this is that those schools are not teaching more advanced math. If this is the case then a whole swath of the population will never be exposed to this kind of math, regardless of their potential. Unless, of course, they get an opportunity to learn in an environment that challenges them.
8
You do not know the half of it -- I live far away in another state -- in a district so bad and lousy (and blue blue blue Democratic, high taxes, etc.) that last year, every single third grader flunked the state reading exam. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
1
Stuyvesant, I hear is an incredibly intense environment. Not sure I would want to go there if I got in. I certainly would not want to go if I didn't score high enough.
101
I think you get the problem. Exactly.
DeBlasio should really be focusing on improving the elementary schools, followed by the middle schools. I know this is not as glamorous as Stuyvesant but it is the solution to improving the academic performance of students in this city. Kids need a solid foundation that is started in elementary schools in order to succeed. Lowering the standards of the curriculum, or extremely low graduation rates, will be the result of his misguided plan. The fact that one racial group in particular makes up a larger percentage of the schools shows that they are focused, work harder, and are willing to sacrifice to find success. Many of these kids come from low-income families and know that attending a school like Stuyvesant or Bronx Science will have a dramatic effect on their adult lives. Maintain the test but fix the root cause - elementary education, not the effect.
256
The problems of elementary education are both problems and symptoms. I work in any inner suburban district where 2/3 of students qualify for free meals. Since I work as a substitute teacher, my semi-retirement gig, I see students in high school whom I've known since elementary school. What I notice is that students who have the greater number of disruptions in their life, especially with respect to changes of residence and/or head of household, fare worse than their peers. I once had a student who was on her fifth residence, third school district, and third head of household. She was disruptive, angry, and not at grade level. The things any of us who are even modestly middle class take for granted—knowing where you will sleep, who will take care of you, and enough quiet to reflect—are like gold. The housing insecurity, in particular, to my mind, proves the long reach of segregation. I don't know how to solve this, but it is clear to me that this is not solely a failure of education. These students break my heart.
6
The bigger problem which needs to be addressed is whether a single test should ever be the lone factor in determining a child's future educational opportunities.
6
What, exactly, are the appropriate criteria for admission to any competitive school? If it is performance on an exam, then Mr. Weinstein is correct. If there are other rational criteria, then Mr. Weinstein is favoring applicants with success at exam taking over applicants with talent for any other criteria. This is the central question that has to be resolved.
My own view is that exam performance is too narrow. Having attended an elite college and medical school, it is my experience that exam performance and competence in life's more important challenges (educational and otherwise) are poorly correlated.
I agree with Mr. Weinstein that admission to Stuyvesant and other elite schools should not be modified to achieve some racial or ethnic balance and I agree that improving rigor in other public schools might resolve the racial disparity in admission test performance. Those, however, are separate (and much less controversial) questions. The hard one is the same one Mr. Weinstein diligently avoids.
7
In theory, of course you're right. The tricky part comes in when you try to determine an applicant's "competence in life's more important challenges". If you think a standardized test is biased, wait until you start adding "soft" criteria. Then you've opened a Pandora's box. The question is whether the admission criteria should be strictly based on test performance. If so, then since Stuyvesant (and Bronx Science, and Hunter, etc.) is a public school, then every single elementary & middle school should offer the kind of instuction that prepares students to compete for a spot. The hard question is how do we change that? The other question that needs to be asked is whether the test is actually biased. There is ample reason to believe so, but it needs further (unbiased) investigation. Surely a more even-handed test can be devised. That's the easiest part of this problem to solve.
1
The standardized test seems the fairest way to me. Some years ago these specialized high schools were the only good high schools here. Now I am told there are many more good public high schools for bright kids. Consider also that the kids from Stuyvesant and Bronx Science may have a harder time getting into the colleges of their choice because so many of the kids from that particular school apply to a particular college. It ain't broke, no need to fix it.
71
The specialized schools, especially Stuy and Science, produce Nobel Prize winners. I'l always regret that the long commute dissuaded me from attending but maybe that's part of the reason I'll never win a Nobel Prize. You have to earn Stuy.
153
It took a change in subway trains and fifty minutes to get me from Washington Heights to the old Stuyvesant HS site back when. The same returning everyday, plus sports and a 24 hour weekly work schedule.
I don't regret any of it.
No, I did not graduate in the top half, but I learned from the best and achieve my dream career.
Keep the test, mayor. But open admission to some more poor folks and don't let communities, racial or otherwise, game the test or the system.
Yes, you can do it!
3
Actually back in the day, two regular neighborhood southern Brooklyn Public High Schools, Lincoln and Madison, produced like nine Nobel Laureates! You can look it up! And a significant number of New Utrecht alumni, helped create the glory days of Hollywood! Take that, Stuyvesants!!!
1
I graduated from Stuyvesant in 1954. I went on to Cornell (B.A.), Yale (Ph.D), and Harvard (MBA). The toughest place, which challenged me most and taught me most, was Stuyvesant. As I told fellow college students, once you've been through Stuyvesant, everyplace else is a piece of cake.
I had never heard of the specialized NYC high schools until a fellow Junior High classmate told me he was taking the test, and suggested I do so, too. One straightforward test and I was on my way. May it be so for those who follow me.
271
If the Mayor gets his wish, then at least 25% of the incoming students will not be ready for the curriculum at the specialized schools. The schools will have three choices:
1. Create two tracks within the school, one for the students who would have passed the test, and one for the students who came from middle schools that did not prepare them to succeed at this level. In this case, the schools will have re-created the segregated conditions that the mayor is trying to address.
2. Lower the level of instruction so that the incoming, unprepared students can comprehend the material and pass the tests.
3. Maintain the high level of instruction and fail any unprepared students who aren't able to keep up.
I can't see how any of these three scenarios benefit the population of students who have been failed by the city's elementary and middle schools. We need to better instruction at every school, not a cosmetic fix like this.
There is another issue: These specialized schools are predominately Asian. There are also exclusive public high schools in New York City like Beacon. Those schools are predominately white, but the Mayor isn't asking them to lower their admission criteria.
369
#1 will be the most likely if Mayor gets his wish. It will be awkward and embarrassing. I just hope the few Black and Latino kids who earn their way into the upper track are not dismissed by their peers as acting White. Sad!
1
In the early 2000s, I went to a large public high school often lauded for its diversity (racial and socioeconomic). The dirty secret is that it was highly internally segregated based on an academic tracking system. Being on the AP track, I mostly interacted with white, largely upper middle class kids, at a school that was maybe only 50% white and had a sizeable poorer population. It's very challenging to achieve meaningful integration in an environment where people are being tracked on performance.
7
I hope those excellent schools will produce more effective leaders than the mayor. On second thought, there is nothing like a politician.
Has di Blasio managed to make improvements on anything besides pre-K during his tenure? He is such an embarrassment to the city.
64
You are absolutely right!
I wish there was some one in Mayors advisors who would have suggested helping students from these minorities prepare for free and their training providers quality checked with percentage of acceptances.
We have learned the hard way already in USA merits is a must or our world will be totally taken from us by the personalities like the ones already in WH and outsourced to whoever pays like the putins and saudis or worse xi's stooges
7
When I attended Bronx Science many years ago, a teacher told me the test was meant to be an aptitude test, not an achievement test. It was meant to be a test you could not study for. I question whether that holds true today, as it appears that test preparation does make a big difference.
There is always a balancing act in education between using stronger students to pull up those a little behind them, or putting the strongest together so that they may soar. In NYC today, there is a need for more schools for top students in addition to Science, Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Tech.
21
In the early 70s, I was told AND TOLD in high school that the SAT was an aptitude test you could not study for. I was the first in my family to ever dream of attending college, and the oldest child, so I had no help with this whatsoever. No guidance counselor advised me either. So I took the SAT "cold" with no prep and got very mediocre results -- the kind that won't help you at all to get into a good school. I had no idea there was a pre-SAT (and was shocked when I found out!) or books on how to ace the test, or even special "cram" schools you could attend. I was also never told I could RE-TAKE the test for a better score!
I have paid my entire life -- educational and professional -- for that ignorance, and I was a white Jewish woman from a family that was entirely literate and well-read (but not sophisticated or experienced with higher education).
Frankly, I think the system has a problem if they cannot create a test that is unbiased and CANNOT BE STUDIED FOR or prepped for. But that doesn't mean I think Stuyvesant should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2
Yes, the original name of the SAT was the Scholastic Aptitude Test. It was eventually renamed the Scholastic Achievement Test, apparently around the time it became evident that you could study for it.
Still and all, in my middle class suburb in the 1970's, I wasn't aware of anyone taking a review course or preparing in any way other than showing up.
(The PSAT was not a practice test. It was basically the same as the SAT but given in the 11th grade instead of the 12th grade, and National Merit Scholarships were based on the results.)
The author's entire column is undermined by the fact that he founded Success 6 - an entity ENTIRELY devoted to test prep. I work at a public middle school in west harlem, and many of my students have been either expelled or have voluntarily left Success do to its obsession with test prep.
Surely, Mr. Weinstein would agree that education ought be more than a test result! Study after study have confirmed that income level is directly correlational to success on such standardized tests. Indeed, the founder of the SAT was a eugenicist who designed the test to prove whie supremacy!
I applaud the mayor's plan. It's genuinely exciting that my students, most of whom are black, Dominican, or Yemini, will now have access to schools like Stuy!
28
Your apparent inability to distinguish between “do” and “due” makes the author’s point.
5
You gave away any credibility when you misused the word "do" instead of the correct "due".
4
Students like yours already have access to Stuy. To believe that costly, private test prep is a necessary or even sufficient condition for successful testing reads like an excuse rather than an attempt to address the core problem. Large swaths of poor Asian immigrants, without the advantage of parents who speak the language or know the school system, manage to navigate the system. for those who sacrifice for private test prep, understand that it really is a sacrifice. parents eat chicken necks and fish heads because they are cheap and allow them to save money for their kids. that type of sacrifice and commitment is available to everyone. moreover, is it even possible that the people make the school and not vice versa? That a system that pools people willing to make such sacrifices is bound to succeed because iron sharpens iron and that those people would have achieved modest individual success anywhere; but by pooling, we achieve a positive network externality wherein the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? The school itself is incidental. that you had to work for it makes all the difference. abolishing the system opens it to free riding, too much of which destroys the goose (to mix metaphors).
2
If kids are smart enough to get in, then they do. End of discussion.
108
What right do u have to declare "end of discussion" right after u make your point? Let other people be part of the discussion, not just u and your ideas.
"Wise men propose, fools dispose". De Blasio is best inclined to ruin the city with his foolish acts. Why doesn't he just take another holiday and travel somewhere faraway?
20
sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make the perfect SJW omlette
13
The flaw in Mr. Weinstein's analysis is the assumption that the test really identifies academic merit. It is the flaw in all arguments for a pure meritocracy--the idea that we can actually tell what merit is.
It may well be that Mr. Weinstein is correct that students from many of New York's schools are so abysmally unprepared that they would flounder and fail at Stuyvesant, and bring the level of the school down substantially. But the solution to that problem lies not in simply adhering to the same rigid testing formula, but in finding new ways to judge who really belongs--that is, who can succeed--at top schools.
32
You just contradicted yourself. You wrote that "the solution to that problem" (that is, the problem that "students from many of New York's schools are so abysmally unprepared that they would flounder and fail at Stuyvesant") is "in finding new ways to judge who really belongs".
A new way to judge who belongs does nothing to improve student preparation.
21
Isn't merit based on ability to achieve, which is what aptitude tests are designed to measure? We might as well say, the kid with the biggest smile is the most 'meritorious.'
7
I think we're both right. Improving student preparation is necessary, but I suggest that so is re-thinking what we mean by "merit."
Years ago I signed up to tutor any seventh grade student at a middle school in the Bronx who was interested - tutor them specifically for the exam for admission to the four special high schools in the city. No one in that school had ever tried the exam, let alone passed it.
I believe that the program that took me there went out of business after I moved from NYC.
In the last of my three years on the job two of my students succeeded in getting into the special schools. Subsequently, both went to university - one to CUNY and one to St John's.
They are among the most remarkable young people I know.
But the fact is that I left my students at the end of the fall term, and to make up for my absence I paid the fee for one of the good tutoring services for the two most diligent students - the two who succeeded in the exam.
If I could do that, so can hundreds of others in NYC. Indeed I would pay for that tutoring for kids I have never met if the 2018 counterparts of Maya and Antia could be identified. Let's get a fund going Mr Weinstein.
EVERYONE with experience KNOWS that it is the presence of other brilliant students that does more than half the educating in ELITE schools.
I'll be writing to the Mayor to urge him to change his mind about this.
22
I am 63 years old, and a math professor. I grew up in California. Even there, even in high school, I knew about Stuyvesant's reputation. It is indeed the student body that makes the place. Change the criteria for the other magnet schools if you will; but leave Stuyvesant alone.
151
I think there are a lot of Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, and Townsend Harris alumni that would be offended by your statement. There is nothing different whatsoever between any of these places -- historically, they have all worked the same way in selecting their student body and they have all generated a staggeringly high number of distinguished alumni in every imaginable field and thus would be similarly affected by any change you'd propose for Stuyvesant.
"There is nothing different whatsoever between any of these places..."
There is one thing: The cutoff score for admission.
Stuyvesant's is higher.
Chicago Selective Enrollment schools have a disproportionate number of Asian students. My understanding is that Asian families privately prepare their children at test prep centers.
Why do NYC (and Chicago) public schools not offer test prep so that the playing field is more equal? If students can privately prep for the test, then the criteria is not truly based on merit.
53
Why do NYC (and Chicago) public schools not offer test prep so that the playing field is more equal?
They do.
25
They do, and it's free. http://www.passnyc.org/our-partners/
17
Chicago's magnet schools also attempt to achieve more diversity by taking into account the socio-ecomomics of the neighborhood the applicants reside in.
1
Excellent piece Mr. Weinstein. Most of the students at specialized schools are already low-income as the Mayor would have it. The new proposal is simply discriminatory and a cruel punishment for the hard work of kids from such diverse backgrounds as Pakistani, Ghanian, Serbian, Indian, Thai, Argentine, and many other hard-working immigrant communities.
140
Mr. Weinstein, obviously you make some valid points, but yours is hardly a disinterested opinion. Every group has the tendency eventually to create boundaries around itself be it of class, ethnicity, intellect, etc. Stuyvesant High School is no different. At the same time, the school culture there, with all its intellectual hubris, is known to be problematic. Mayor de Blasio's recommendations may need tweeking, but obviously this is America, not Singapore. All ethnic groups must find the means to compete.
12
So shouldn't the focus be on improving the quality of all the city's elementary schools?
10
Blacks and Hispanics form the voter base of the Democratic Party and those that elected Bill DeBlasio as mayor. He has to deliver the goodies to those who elected him. That is how politics works. These specialized schools may be one of the only reasons some parents continue to live in NYC. Bill DeBlasio and his new Superintendent has failed to understand that it is not the building or the teachers that make the specialized schools special, it is the student body and their families. This may be the shove they need to move to the suburbs.
60
You said it yourself in the opening paragraphs of this piece, "I got to sit next to Omar Jadwat in metal shop, Gary Shteyngart in homeroom, Naval Ravikant in history, and Ruvim Breydo in physics, and that made all the difference." Most NYC public school students don't have the opportunity to sit with peers that have such an uplifting effect on their educational experience.
While the elimination of the admissions test is not a perfect solution it IS an attempt to level the playing field for gifted students who's parents don't have the resources or wherewithal to navigate the testing and admissions process. Those students deserve to be in places that provide academic excellence just as much as any other student in NYC does. Stuyvesant shouldn't be a haven for the elite of the city; it should be a tool to lift up gifted students from all corners of the city.
If, as you say, it is the quality of students that makes the difference in education as opposed to the institution itself does it not stand to reason that those students should not be sequestered?
Additionally, I am personally suspicious of your motives in attacking the mayor's "inability" to tackle school equity during his tenure. As a key figure in NYC charter schools I would challenge that you do not have the best interest of the city's public school system at heart. To me your position on this matter seems contradictory and unproductive.
58
WTH - you suggest not sequestering high performing students in order to improve the overall school system. Why hold them back? Wouldn't it be better to maximize their potential? This does a massive disservice to students who will be the future leaders and researchers in favor of making the low end of the educational spectrum modestly better.
4
You have it backwards. The test itself IS what evens the field for gifted students whose parents don't have the resources or wherewithal to navigate the testing and admissions process.
Thus you are forced to question the motives and attack the source, because you can't even formulate your own argument.
1
NO, with respect, WTH, admission tests guarantee that there is a school where very very bright students can attain their potential, without having to be saddled by moving with the class.
DiBlasio should establish another school to capture the top students from every middle school in the city, fair enough. Then if some of the Stuyvesant students wish to go there, they will add to the mix. However, it is blatantly unfair to hold back students for the betterment of others.
This is less a socioeconomic issue, and absolutely a merit issue. Some people are just brighter, they catch on to concepts faster. They are held back by not moving at their intellectual pace, and learn instead that school is boring. Don't jeopardize the intellectual growth of NYC children by a mistaken attempt at equalizing opportunity.
24