‘Kids Need a Good Start’: Readers Debate Admissions at Elite N.Y.C. Schools

I am a black NYC resident who was accepted to Stuyvesant for the class of 1975. Like Nicole Simone Madison, I was offered a scholarship to an excellent private school that was a better fit for me because it had a more varied curriculum in the humanities, much smaller classes, and lovely facilities. Although I did pass the SHSAT, I was a bit concerned about getting lost in the throng of Stuyvesant, which like all my public school classes before, had class sizes of over 30. Math and science were not my strengths. I applied to Stuyvesant because it was far and away the best educational opportunity available in the public school system at the time. I bought a book to study, as did other kids in my neighborhood. If more were required today, I believe I would rise to the challenge. Being accepted to Stuyvesant remains an achievement of which I am very proud. Every student I knew who was accepted to one of the specialized high schools or to Music & Art (one of the predecessor schools of LaGuardia) felt the same. I've followed the debate and looked at the exceedingly poor state test results of blacks students and am convinced that the problem is not the SHSAT. It is the deterioration of K-8 education. The Mayor's proposal is shockingly superficial and the Chancellor is the most divisive person in that post in memory. How could he launch the campaign against the SHSAT by saying that Asians thought they "owned" the Specialized High Schools because they work hard to pass the test?

I graduated from Brooklyn Tech in 1987. The school was close to 51% Black & Hispanic. The issue isn't test prep. The issue isn't the test. The article spells it out in plain English, yet people still don't want to discuss this fact, especially the Mayor and the Chancellor: when gifted and talented and other advanced programs began to be taken out of Black & Hispanic neighborhoods, Black & Hispanic numbers at the specialized high schools plummeted. 1 in 4 Black kids in teh city can't do math at grade level. ELA scores are just as bad. The problem is not teh SHSAT.

I graduated from Science in 1970. Most of my friends there lived in the Bronx on the Grand Concourse, around Pelham Parkway, and in Riverdale, and were middle class at best. I don't think there were any test prep courses. I got in due to my verbal scores, and that probably came from my habit of reading books. Neither of my parents had a college education; neither did the parents of many other friends. We did, however, have stable lives with two-parent families, fairly decent neighborhoods, and books in our homes. My public school, was overwhelmingly white, and marked by an atmosphere of discipline. My Junior High School, near Parkchester, was much more integrated and also stressed discipline. Both my sisters attended our neighborhood high school. One became a city planner, one a nurse. Other friends of mine who attended that same school became lawyers and other professionals. In ocntrast, I did rather poorly, hated math and chemistry, and went to a CUNY school, as did others in my class. Many students I knew at Science did attend much more prestigious schools. I believe we are all begging the question. New York City is looking for a quick fix to years of failed policies. If all public schools including high schools were as good as they used to be, if teachers were as competent as they used to be, and moreover, if families make sure they have books in their home, and more children come from stable households, then maybe this would be a non issue. Just saying.

Funding across New York City schools is fairly equal, generally favoring poorer areas. Funding is also vastly greater (more than twice) that of typical American school systems. So why do some school appear to be so much better than others? It is because the quality of students varies enormously. Smart, Hard Working students who value education consistently do well, especially when they share a classroom with other smart, hard working students who value education. While these characteristics often correlate with family wealth, our city's rich supply of poor immigrant families have proven that what matters most is values, not money. Stuyvesant is a place where these largely poor students can come together and push each other. Students who didn't even earn a specialized high school placement would be utterly miserable at Stuyvesant. A placement there would cost them in terms of both learning and college admissions opportunities. So why can't we be happy about an elite school stuffed to the gills with poor hard working students. It should be a source of obvious pride. As nearly as I can tell the problem is that the poor students who are improving their lives there belong to the wrong race. What a terrible reason to seek to destroy a learning opportunity!

"Kids need a good start" - It begins at home, with parental stimulation, way before pre-K.

Can the NYT perhaps follow up with a discussion about the significant decline of white students? Especially at Stuy and Bronx Science. I only speak for myself. Best thing about POC who graduated from Stuyvesant was knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was earned. Any change will cast doubt on every single future student. Regardless of background.

Just an fyi that doesn't get discussed much. Most of the "white" friends I had at Stuyvesant were either Jewish or first generation Eastern European. That was from the 1980's. Something to keep in mind for folks who feel the need to passionately discuss the topic. Have a nice day!

The answer is to improve ALL schools, not dilute the elite for the sake of diversity. Once schools have improved generally, more black kids will get into specialized schools. The competition from Asians is intense. They are the reason that Stuy and Bronx Science are no longer majority white. Cultural shifts do happen; they're unavoidable. Everyone has to adapt. But punishing the Asians by forcing them out of seats in favor of black kids without the same level of achievement can;t be the answer.

Our daughter tested into Bronx Science in 1998. It was a singular experience for all of us. Most of the Bronx Science students in 1998 were sons and daughters of immigrants as they are now. Then as now most had complete fluency in English as one of the languages they spoke. There is a steep decline in African American and Latino students being admitted today as compared to her time. This problem cannot and will not be ignored. Here is my solution and why. Right now, 25,000 potential students take the test and 5,000 get in. That is one in five. I propose doubling that number to accommodate two in five. People, those who don’t make the cut are more than qualified for a good education. With more opportunities to win a seat more students will study and take the test. Good. At the same time we must create enough high schools reserved for students who graduate in the top 5% percent of their class. This too is merit based and will improve the culture of learning in all our schools. We cannot ignore the huge gap in admissions. Finally, It is not just the test. Success resides in the teachers who are attracted to schools where there is little reason for burn out. Teachers stay in schools where students are prepared to learn and work hard in a learning environment that is free of violence. Students thrive and we parents love it. Peace merit opportunity and diversity. We can afford to have 20 specialized high schools based on the SHSAT. Of course we can.

How about this? Turn every high school into a magnet school, based on the kind of training that will ensure access to good jobs. So have a health care magnet school, a software development and computer use school, a bookkeeping, auditing, and accounting school, a professional drivers school, a food services school, etc. Make it easy to transfer from one school to another, as students' interests change. Have different levels of classes in each school so any students can achieve in any school. I bet that many of the industries would help fund the change, as some businesses are having a very difficult time finding employees (nursing, trucking, etc.)

I graduated from Bronx Science in 1972 and can only remember one african american classmate. While I have no doubt there are issues with the #s of minorities or those of color that this and a # of other articles on the specialized schools have highlighted, I also know I took no prep courses before testing for the specialized schools; was told of the test, showed up on test day and took the test, then felt fortunate to be accepted. The idea of bias wasn't in my vocabulary, and I couldn't tell you if there was a question or place on the test form that asked if I was white black or asian. I felt the results were based on merit. I don't recall if there were even prep courses available in 1968. Once signed up to sit for the examination we may have been given some practice tests to prepare, but I can't recollect if that was so, but beyond that, there were no prep courses I attended or knew of. So it was a proud accomplishment to be accepted to Science, and remains so to me. I think the bottom line is, it should still be considered so at any of the specialized schools. Maybe a way ahead- just test on one's natural scholastic ability, with no indicators of where you come from, just your name and phone # or email, at the top of the test and a signature indicating you swear you did not take any prep courses, which would be banned as a criteria for sitting for the exam.

Read Hillbilly Elergy by J.D. Vance, substitute hillbilly with African American/Hispanic and one gets an idea that the cause isn't one due to skin color. It's cultural: parents didn't get good education, why should kids? How do kids know how to get a good education? It's economic: money to feed the kids vs. prep classes? It's survival: need a job now vs. finishing school and making money later? It's societal: name three NFL quarterbacks and three Supreme Court justices, which is easier? It's systematic: schools' objectives are to keep kids from being killed and meeting graduation statistics with ever shrinking resources. It's political: fix the symptom gets a politician re-elected today, fix the problem at best gets an obscure footnote in the Times obituary in 30 years. Cue Mr. DeBlasio. It's psychological: two steps forward only gets ones step back. It's everything. Mr. Vance himself doesn't give a recipe for fixing his people's problem He did offer that the solution lies with his people themselves, recognizing and owning up to their problems and breaking the cycle themselves and not relying on Band-aid solutions offered by the government, which only gives a false sense of accomplishment and perpetuates the cycle.

I graduated from Bronx Science in 1966. As we wring our hands over the decline in minority students, we should also recognize that the numbers of white students have also dropped precipitously. In Riverdale, where in 1992 the middle school sent 150 students to specialized schools, now in a really good year we might see 15. Asian parents are doing something right. Much has been suggested about test prep. I think that it goes deeper. Many Asian kids attend extra classes during their free time. The classes offer instruction in the child’s native language and in advanced traditional math. Courses designed to keep the kids competitive in case they returned to their native country, where kids often average skills in math two or three years ahead of US standards. Meanwhile for the rest of the city, traditional math, where the goal is to get the one right answer, has in many cases been supplanted by “constructivist” or “fuzzy” math where the correct answer takes a back seat to some deeper relationship, one that doesn’t help any student do better on the all-important math section of the SHSAT. If all students were taught math by traditional methods such as the well-regarded Singapore math in regular school classes, then we could overcome the advantage that Asian parents have given their kids outside of their official classes. That advantage is one that proper instruction will overcome if all kids are returned to the less fashionable but more effective math programs.

If you want to get in to an elite school, you need to do it the old fashioned way- earn it. Fair is fair. Otherwise you go to a regular school like all non-elites. Using test scores only has kept the schools great. Reducing this objective way of selection will just make every school ordinary.

IMO the most important thing is to maintain rigorous educational standards while giving the truly best and brightest the best opportunity to get placement in G&T schools. My daughter is entering K next year and she scored very well on the G&T test. While she didn't receive any tutoring we know of many children whose parents bought tutoring and other resources to help their children score better. To better sift out the best and brightest means giving all kids an equal playing field from which to enter these programs. I would like to see the DOE ensure that all children are mandated to take the K level test and either provide parents with prep test booklets or sufficiently change the test each year so as to make it difficult to prep for it. I suspect that many children are at a disadvantage when their parents don't know about the test!

Before we eliminate competitive admissions to Stuyvesant, perhaps it's worth remembering what open admissions did to CCNY. At one time, CCNY was known as the poor person's Harvard, an institution with great scholars and students who changed the world. Open admissions, intended to benefit black students, ruined CCNY. It took decades of hard work to undo some of that damage and the school's quality and reputation have recovered only in part. Is that what the mayor wants for Stuyvesant? It sure sounds like it.

In the 1960s I did some of the earliest integration research on busing black children from urban public schools to elite white suburban schools. While stresses on the black kids (travel time, overt racism, increased academic competition) were substantial, much worse was that urban schools had not at all prepared their students to compete at the same grade levels as their suburban peers. Integration is a worthy goal but: 1. Many blacks find the assumption that mixing black kids with white kids will somehow improve the black kids to be insulting. 2. Mixing students of very different academic abilities will force some teachers in the high-performing schools to teach down to the lowest common denominators, short-changing the high performers. 3. Given the large performance gaps between the high- and low-performing schools, the former will need to provide major counseling and tutoring services to help the incoming students try to catch up with the higher-performing students and help under-prepared students cope with the stresses of a more demanding academic environment. 4. The parents of many students who are forced to attend low-performing schools will consider switching to private schools or relocating to the suburbs, thus reducing even further the number of white students in the school system. The answer is not to try to spread the relatively small numbers urban white students proportionally across all urban schools, but to improve ALL urban schools.

I don't think that exams like the SHSAT or the regular SAT are the "be all and end all" way to measure performance. BUT this administration's plan to substitute class rankings for the SHSAT exam for entrance to specialized high schools is an absolute recipe for disaster. Each teacher has vastly different grading criteria even for the same subjects. In my children's middle school the students whose parents (almost all stay at home mothers) who volunteered at the school got preferential treatment when it came to class assignments and other perks. Now imagine the fights over which kids get assigned to the perceived "easy" graders. Parent teacher nights in Middle School will turn into screaming matches demanding why the teacher assigned someone' child to the group project with kids who are didn't work as hard or don't have the same skills etc. etc. Middle school grades will turn into a blood sport.

Many issues of importance here, the most significant being systemic access to high quality public education and limiting the advantages heaped on the children of affluent families--who are disproportionately white--and then measuring all students with a "standardized" test of highly unstandardized education. Let me simply speak to one issue that seems unremarked upon. If an "aptitude" or other psychometric test designed to measure attainment or potential can be cracked through preparation then it is not functioning as it is intended and should be eliminated. That is, this test is not meeting a basic psychometric assumption upon which the use of its scores are based: that the test reliably measures something beyond the performance on the test itself that is predictive of future learning and does so unconfounded by other characteristics of the test-taker, including targeted preparation. The equitable solution is not to give slightly more students access to test prep. The solution is to create a valid and reliable test or to get rid of flawed testing. The descriptions here about the significant impact of test prep demonstrate that the test is failing in its purpose: it is simply measuring one's test taking ability which is reliably increased by taking courses few have access to. See the work of Robert Sternberg, the Yale professor of psychology and psychometrics and expert on intelligence, for discussions of the too-often unexamined fallacy undergirding such testing.

This stood out for me: "much of that shift had coincided with a decline in the number of accelerated learning programs in black and Hispanic neighborhoods." Why the decline? Funding? Administrators having no interest? Stereotypes about current students not being capable? Parents aren't aware of these types or programs, and so they aren't pushing for them?

ALL students deserve a shot at the best public high schools. How can we level the playing field when affluent students (and their families) can spend the money for test prep--and boost their chances for acceptance-- when other students cannot? We're not talking about the ACT or SAT, but the test needed to simply apply to NYC public schools. These schools are PUBLIC, and I would like to see a way for ALL students to gain access.

In the 1960s I did some of the earliest integration research on busing black children from urban public schools to elite white suburban schools. While stresses on the black kids (travel time, overt racism, increased academic demands) were substantial, much worse was that urban schools had not at all prepared their students to compete at the same grade levels as their suburban peers. School ntegration is a worthy goal but: 1. Many blacks find that the assumption that mixing black kids with white kids will somehow improve the black kids to be insulting. 2. Mixing students of very different academic abilities will force some teachers in the high-performing schools to teach down to the lowest common denominators, short-changing the high performers. 3. Given the large performance gaps between the high- and low-performing schools, the former will need to provide major counseling and tutoring services to help the incoming students try to catch up with the higher-performing students and help under-prepared students cope with the stresses of a more demanding academic environment. 4. The parents of many students who are forced to attend low-performing schools will consider switching to private schools or relocating to the suburbs, thus reducing even further the number of white students in the school system. The answer is not to try to spread the relatively small numbers urban white students proportionally across all urban schools, but to improve ALL urban schools.

I'm a current high school student at a small school in Queens. I don't think people understand that it's pretty cutthroat out there. The main mistake is making it the sole factor in admissions, as far as I'm aware. It's what's lead to this cutthroat mindset. When I was in 8th grade, I remember distinctly that hispanic and black students such as me usually never took the SHSAT, whereas white and asian students did, and we're encouraged to do so. People like to say that they passed without preparation, but as far as I'm aware, currently, taking it without AT LEAST a month of test prep is effectively suicide. Because tests have inherent faults, such as providing little insight into a person, I think it's silly to use it as the sole arbiter of who enters these schools. If you got consistent A's and were part of your schools debate team, but UC Berkeley told you they couldn't admit someone with a 1200 on the SAT, you'd think the system was a joke. If you get consistent A's, but don't have the opportunities to prepare for the test adequately, or aren't even encouraged to, and then they tell you that you'll be going to your zoned high school with no modern amenities? That's the fair and just SH admissions system. Of course, we also have to consider if the concept of SH's is fair. Inevitably, some schools will be better, but when High School is the lowest degree you should reasonably get in this day and age, is it ethical to have such varying quality between vital institutions?

I think it is obscene that today so few black or latino students earn places in these specialized schools. Over thirty years ago, when I was a student at Bronx Science, the diversity of the student body enriched my education as much as the rigorous course work. I don't know why there has been a steep decline in the numbers of black or latino students. I do think we should all be alarmed about it. Instead of eliminating the the test entirely or inserting proxies to get the desired results, the city leaders should ask why the school system as a whole produces such poor results. That is a much harder task. I did not take a prep course nor was I in a gifted program prior to my admission to Bronx Science. English was not my first language and I was raised on public assistance without the presence or support of a father. One of my teachers asked me if my parent(s) were surprised at how well I did on the exam. The implicit bias in her question was evident to me at that time. Why would they be surprised? Why would anyone be surprised? Let's raise the expectations for all our students and ensure that they have the same opportunity and support to excel.

If the DOE know that accelerated learning programs in elementary and middle schools have work for black and Hispanic students ,why won't DOE expand such programs to more schools in black and Hispanic communities (especially in the Bronx)?

I may be a liberal but I believe meritocracy should take priority when it comes to education. Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech should remain schools of the best and the brightest students in this city and the SHSAT should be the only factor in deciding this. Since when did Asians not count as “diversity” when it comes to student demographics? To ignore and demonize the success of Asians who earned seats at these schools (many of them poor) is simply appalling and disturbing to me as a liberal and an Asian American growing up in Inwood who worked my tail off to get into Bronx Science by the skin of my teeth.

Science grad, class of 1967. I had no particular interest in science but my local high school had a terrible reputation both academically and for violence so my parents wanted me to take the test. What I don't understand is why 55 years after I entered Science, so many NYC public schools are still so bad and students are still receiving an inadequate education. I despair at things ever changing but reform should begin before first grade. I fear high school is too late.

Deblasio appointed Carranza to help blacks and Latinos. It seems to be his ONLY agenda. Maybe someone of equal power may be appointed to help whites and Asians. That would be equality. Right now whites and Asians have NO representation. This is a tale of two cities.

Admission to an elite science school should be based on merit...end of story. I can't believe in 2019 this is even a conversation. The plan to scrap the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT) is flat out racist. Because you are taking away seats from Asians students who have earned the right to be there by studying harder. We have no obligation to diversify our best schools if it means better qualified kids will be left out. Such a system punishes kids who got better grades & test scores. What kind of message does that send? Admissions should be primarily based on grades & test scores. At least a majority of the best & brightest would be going to our top schools. Isn't that what we want? By the way this idea has already been tried with great success in California. For decades Asian Americans here had complained that they were being short changed & in some cases discriminated in UC college admissions. In 1996 voters amended the state constitution by voting for Prop 209, to prohibit state institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, in public education. By law admission to UC colleges now had to be race neutral. Prop 209 restored & reconfirmed the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The premise of Prop 209 is that every individual has a right, & that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Prop 209 ended pitting one group against another in our colleges which perpetuates social tension.

Yes, it's about exclusion - excluding students who are not as gifted academically as others to study at a higher level. It's not about money, as many poor Asian students have proven.

Obviously, kids need a good start. And that good start begins with stable families who have delayed gratification long enough to become decently educated, have jobs, and work at parenting. (For Asian kids, despite non-English-speaking parents and extreme poverty, things seem to work out. They have a family cohesiveness that transcends disadvantages.) The next step is an elementary school system that stresses both joy in learning and the necessity for the personal discipline it takes to engage in learning. In middle school, after-school programs are necessary to shore up less accomplished students. Applications to take the tests for Stuyvesant and other fine public schools should be handed out during the last classes of the day or mailed home. And we must all learn wisdom: A test is a test, and many kids will not pass that test. So be it. Besides, with programs like Prep for Prep, a decent number of bright black kids will be going off to private schools all over the city as well as to New England boarding schools.

What about the large drop in the number of white students at these schools as well? Why is that not mentioned?

Let’s set a target for admitting 70 percent black and Latino students in these “elite” schools. Why not go big? 30 percent slots for Asians and whites. That would reflect the student body of public schools as Carranza desires. This is fine, as long as there’s an objective measurement such as the objective, color-blind test. To add race as an admissions component is ludicrous! It’s simply not the point of the ‘elite’ school. Colorblind is the only way to go. Keep it objective.

And the interminable debate resumes. Obviously something needs to change, and to anyone who took the SHSAT and got into the schools, the test isn't the real problem. The test worked for them, it's not a test of anything other than math, English, and logic, there's nothing wrong with it as a method to determine potential, IF education was equal for all. Public education in NYC is an appalling, largely racially segregated, mess. Improve the schooling that Black and Hispanic students are receiving, and they'll pass the test easily enough. One thing strikes me as odd about these strings of articles though, they all claim Black and Hispanic students' numbers have gone down in the specialized schools, from 12% overall to 4%. But this obscures the fact that Hispanic students' numbers have actually stayed the same, at about 3% then and now. It's White students' numbers that have fallen the furthest, so these articles should really be asking, why have Black and White students' numbers dropped so far so fast?

DeBlasio’s proposal of scraping the test and instead offering seats to top performers from every middle school will not achieve what he tries to accomplish. What would happen instead is asians would move to these so-called bad school districts to increase their own chances of admission. The culture is such that asian immigrants would go great lengths for their children’s academic success. But to me, the worst part of all of this is that without the standardized test, specialized high schools will become a watered down version of what they were meant to be.

Why aren’t black and brown kids doing better on the SHSAT tests? The first places to look are the poor quality of the lower feeder schools and the limited SHSAT test prep available to these students. Improving just these two factors would definitely increase the number of black and brown students who pass the entrance tests, and would be cheaper and much more feasible than trying to change the values and culture of these students’ parents, who in general do not place as much emphasis and value on education as do, say, Asian parents. Eliminating the SHSAT tests and dumbing down the curricula of the Specialized High Schools is ridiculous and counter-productive, and will only serve to reduce even further the proportion of white students (now at 15% of NYC public school enrollment).

I knew a student who attended Bx Science. He came from a lower middle class background, and his parents had little cash. His father never graduated H.S. Both parents worked in a factory. Their industry collapsed, the factory closed, and they had to go back to trade school. His dad became a cab driver, his mom a secretary. He got into Bx Science by taking the test - without coaching, and without taking any prep classes. Elitism was not involved. Racial preference was not involved. He went on to get an M.S. with honors. He spent the fist 26 years of his career at a world famous, highly respected company. The company was The NY Times. The student was me.

The criteria for admission to the selective high schools, purportedly are "accomplishment" and "ability." If good written test performance, materially impacted by expensive test prep courses (or the lack thereof), is considered "accomplishment," why isn't being among the top handful of students at your middle school considered "accomplishment" or reflective of "ability?" De Blasio's proposal is eminently sensible and workable. It ensures the highest motivation for all NYC middle schoolers, regardless of the middle school a child happens to be in. It gives every student in every middle school in NYC a fair shot at NYC's best public high schools. On what basis could anyone dispute its merits?

At the end of this month I will finish my 55th (and last) year of teaching. I've taught all levels, except kindergarten to fifth grade, including high school classes in science and math when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Malaysia (many years ago), and college classes in English in in China. My observations are three fold: schools in China are SERIOUS; schools in Malaysia are SERIOUS; but schools in our country are often more focused on sports than on academics. Our schools' sports games are fun to watch, but they take far too much time away from what our kids should be learning in those schools.

The Hecht-Calandra Law that mandates only using a test as qualification for admission applies only to Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech. The City decided to expand with five additional specialized schools, and is under no obligation to use only the test for admission to those other five schools. While Hecht-Calandra mandates using only the test, it is completely silent as to the form that test takes. There is no reason why it must be a multiple choice test, where test taking strategies are as important as native intelligence. I saw in my own years at Stuyvesant a whole lot of people a lot smarter than I, and the specialized schools have highly motivated, effective alumni associations. There is every reason to think that there would be no shortage of smart alumni of all three schools ready and willing to help design a better test, and the well endowed alumni associations might be willing to bear the increased cost of grading exams that aren’t scantron multiple choice. My wife and I both graduated Stuy in 1976, and I don’t think either one of us knew anyone who had prepped for that test.

As of fall 2018 there were 1,135,334 students in the NYC school system, only 15% (170,300) of whom are white. There are 1,840 public schools (including charters), with an average of 617 students per school. (Source: NYC Dept of Ed) The tiny percentage of white students means that the closest NYC can come to integrating its schools is to place an equal number of white students into each of the City's schools, which would mean an average of 93 white students per school and an average of 524 non-white students per school. The Mayor and the School Superintendent seem to believe that mixing white students with minority students is the only way to improve educational outcomes for all students, but I don't think 93 white students per school is enough to accomplish that goal. (And isn't it insulting to minority students to suggest that they need exposure to white students to improve or succeed in school?) Unfortunately, if the Mayor and Superintendent make further attempts to force integration by busing or by re-zoning school districts or by lowering admission standards for specialized schools, further white flight to the suburbs or private schools is inevitable. There are simply not enough white students to spread around NYC public schools; the solution to the problem of variable student outcomes and opportunities is to acknowledge that residential and economic segregation exist and focus efforts and funds on improving education at ALL public schools.

Every time this topic is brought up by the writer Eliza Shapiro and the editors, there is a failure to address the elephant in the room: culture. That test prep is not barred from blacks and Hispanics based on Race or Income. That it is a cultural complex that doing well in school within those communities is called "Acting White". That there is systemic bullying if a black or Latino does well. That gang culture is deemed as cool. And each time NYT publishes another article without addressing those themes, it is nothing more than spreading fake news. Fake by omission. Fake by neglect of their duty as reporters to convey the truth to the masses. Thankfully each time the comments section opens for an Eliza Shaprio article, countless of New Yorkers step up to defend the truth. Asian American are THE poorest group in this city. The question of test prep is not a lack of money. It is a lack of motivation, and motivation is what bears fruit.

It's up to the city's black and Hispanic communities to discover why they are unable to prepare their kids adequately for these tests and why they can't compete against Asian kids, many of whom have barely gotten off the proverbial boat but still manage to win slots into these elite schools. No doubt broken homes and one one parent families don't help the former in their failed efforts. Meanwhile, depriving Asian kids of their slots in order to permit students with lower scores entry is both unfair and under our present Supreme Court may be deemed unconstitutional.