1

Demographic Disparities Among NYC’s Elite High Schools: How Regressive Funding Structures Created a Pathway of Inequality.

Executive Summary:

This policy brief examines the difference in demographic representation in New York City’s eight specialized high schools, where admission is based solely on one standardized exam, the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), when compared to the overall representation of minority1 in NYC’s public school system. The following are some of the key figures and points that this policy brief examines:

Despite making up 72% of students in NYC’s public school system, Black and Hispanic students make up only 12% of accepted students.

Due to NYC’s regressive funding structure and elementary school admission process, there exists an Elementary school Middle school High school pipeline that has a noticeably negative effect on minority and low-income student’s education.

The exam itself has numerous psychometric flaws, in addition to its favoring of students from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds.

In addition, this brief will examine four policies that have been proposed by policy makers and politicians for both their efficacy and their political viability. Finally, it will propose three short and three long-term policies that aim to create a more equitable and representative system.

Introduction & Context:

Every October approximately 1/3rd of eligible 8th graders in NYC - between 25 and 30 thousand students - take the SHSAT for a chance to attend one of NYC’s eight specialized high schools. Admission to these schools is highly competitive, and spots are coveted. While less than 20% of applicants receive an offer, 72% of those accepted choose to attend.2 3 4 These schools, considered the best that NYC has to offer5, present students with excellent facilities, dedicated and highly qualified teaching staff and numerous, extra-curricular opportunities.

However, despite being located in NYC, where school districts are 72% Black and Hispanic, minorities make up only 12% of accepted students.6 In 2013, of the 5,229 students offered admission to the eight schools, only 618 students were Black or Hispanic – an acceptance rate of just under 12% - with one school (Brooklyn Technical High School) accounting for 244 students (34% of all minority acceptances). On the other side of the spectrum, Stuyvesant - widely considered the best of the eight schools -

1 In this policy brief the term minority primarily refer to Black or Hispanic students. However, because of the clear link in NYC between low-income and minority status, it also includes students who are low-income.2 http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/how-to-solve-the-diversity-problem-at-nycs-elite-public-schools/386944/3 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/Pathways_to_elite_education/WorkingPaper_PathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf (Page 10.)4 Those who do not attend generally choose similarly competitive schools or honors program where acceptances are based on state tests, middle school grade point average and attendance.5 http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/the-elite-eight-here-are-the-top-schools-in-nyc/6 http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/03/05/share-of-black-hispanic-students-offered-specialized-high-school-seats-remains-low/#.VkkrovmrTWJ

2

accepted only 33 black and Hispanic students, out of 963 total students. (See figure 1 for a breakdown on acceptance numbers for all eight specialized high schools.)7

And, over the past five years these numbers represent a downward shift in minority student representation within the eight specialized high schools. With disparities already large, and growing, policy makers and politicians have attempted to understand and alleviate these worrying statistics. (Figures 2 and 3.)8

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

7 http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/results-of-shsat-for-top-high-schools.html

8 http://b.3cdn.net/nycss/b72f6ba9554188f841_d3m6bzkxa.pdf (Page 9.)

3

Figure 3.

Structural Inequities & the Pipeline:

Because admission to the eight specialized schools is predicated entirely on the SHSAT, it is imperative that we examine the educational trajectory of minority and low-income students.

In New York City, the process by which students are assigned to elementary schools is locally administered. This means that in the vast majority of cases, students attend schools that are within their zip codes, which for many minority students are poor neighborhoods and districts.9 Yet, because the funding structure in NYC is regressive – on average, poor districts spend only 82 cents10 11 for every dollar spent in wealthier districts – students born in low-income neighborhoods are more likely to attend schools with fewer resources, less experienced and less effective teachers.12 For these reasons – and numerous others – low income students have lower grades in key subject areas, lower standardized test scores and poorer attendance records than their wealthier peers.13

And, since applying to middle schools in NYC is competitive and based on the aforementioned metrics, low-income and minority students are less likely to attend honors or screened middle schools. Indeed, these students are more likely to attend ‘zone’ schools – schools which are in or near their zip codes, which again face the same regressive funding structure that elementary schools face.

9 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/10/08-school-choice-in-new-york-city-whitehurst/school-choice-and-school-performance-in-nyc-public-schools.pdf (Pages 4-6.)10 http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/National_Report_Card.pdf (Page 18.)11 This policy brief uses the 82% figure, because the statistics used are taken from a study that analyzed data from 2005 to 2013.12 https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TeacherDistributionBrief1.pdf 13 There is a clear link between low-income and minority populations. In NY, 57 and 60 percent of Black and Hispanic children respectively, are considered low income.

4

It is here that the inequities in the system become reinforced, ultimately adversely impacting minority and low-income students in two key ways: first in deciding to take the SHSAT, and subsequently, in earning the requisite score needed for admission.14

Of all the middle schools in NYC’s public school system, nearly half send no students to these eight specialized schools. However, between 2005 and 2013, 24 middle schools accounted for 53% of acceptances and 88 schools made up 85% of students offered a place. Of those 88 schools, 76 schools were either ‘honors’ or ‘screened’ programs.15 Demographic data on the students who enroll in these 88 middle schools show that students predominantly come from wealthier and, largely white or Asian households. For example, in 2014 the Christa McAuliffe School in Brooklyn was the biggest ‘feeder’ to the 8 specialized schools. Out of a graduating class of 288, 244 were admitted. City data shows that only 5% of the students in the school were black or Hispanic.16

However, in addition to the socio-economic advantages that students who enroll into these ‘feeder’ schools generally have, they also benefit from attending the schools themselves. Not only are these schools better funded, they also offer more comprehensive and rigorous curricula, while also dedicating resources to informing students and parents about the SHSAT and the high-school admissions process in general. So, a natural consequence of attending one of these schools is that students and parents are both more likely to have heard of and are more likely to be prepared to take the exam.17

These structural issues are pervasive, and create an institutionalized pathway from birth that allows those with means to attend the best schools in the city. A recent study by the Research Alliance at New York University concluded that even when minority and low-income students had identical test scores and grades as their wealthier peers, they were still 3% less likely to take the SHSAT, and 7% less likely to get an offer.18

Critiquing the SHSAT:

“The SHSAT is a two-and-a-half-hour long standardized examination that tests for high ability in English and mathematics. It is the sole determinant of whether a student will be offered a place at one of the specialized high schools. Before taking the examination students rank the eight schools in order of preference. Scores are then calculated on a 200-800-point scale, with each school having its own cut-off. Test results are then ranked from the highest score to the lowest, and administrators place students in high schools starting with the students with the highest score. Each student is placed into their most preferred school until there are no more spots.” 19

14 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/Pathways_to_elite_education/PathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf (Page 4.) 15 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/Pathways_to_elite_education/WorkingPaper_PathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf (Pages 12-18.) 16 http://www.wsj.com/articles/well-worn-path-from-top-nyc-middle-schools-to-coveted-high-schools-1419824326

17 Students enrolled in these feeder schools were also significantly more likely to attend any of the top 30 high schools in NYC. 18 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/Pathways_to_elite_education/PathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf (Page 4.) 19 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6652112.pdf (Page 4.)

5

Like all standardized tests, critics argue that the SHSAT does not test for ability and potential. Rather, the test is an indicator of income and readiness more than anything.20 21 Parents who can afford to, invest in expensive preparatory courses, and high quality private tutors to give their children a head-start. These test-companies and private tutors are keenly aware of how the test operates, imparting additional advantages to children taking the test. Two notable examples of this includes:

1. The SHSAT’s decision to favor higher overall scores, rather than balanced ones. This means that a student with a score of 500 (with a score breakdown of 250/250) is viewed less positively than a student who scores a 501 (with a score breakdown of 399/102) – where the lowest score a student can get on a section is a 100, and the highest a 400.22

2. In addition, students who use test preparation generally take a minimum of two simulated SHSAT’s under test conditions. Because the SHSAT is administered only once per year, students who receive this test preparation are not only more aware of their strengths and weaknesses within the two sections, but are also more psychologically prepared than those who are taking the exam for the first time.23

Yet, criticisms of the SHSAT are not solely socio-economic. The test itself has serious flaws. Two reports that examined the SHSAT found that “Students who receive certain versions of the test may be more likely to gain admission than students who receive other versions”24 and that “the SHSAT ignores widely accepted psychometric standards and practices.”25 In addition, because the cut-off scores for admissions differ slightly from year to year, being accepted on the margins is largely a matter of luck. Finally, the SHSAT only tests for ability in math and reading, other key subjects – such as science and history, - are not included.

Examining Existing Policy Proposals:

As policy makers have struggled with the challenges of keeping the eight specialized schools diverse they have proposed four policies. This section examines these proposals for their efficacy in increasing diversity, and political viability.

1. Changing the admission criteria for the eight specialized high schools26 – Because standardized tests favor students who have the resources to invest in test preparation, policymakers argue for including other criteria in determining acceptance. The following is a list of factors that are commonly proposed:

a. School Grades – with particular emphasis placed on History and Science courses.

20 http://www.nacacnet.org/media-center/standardizedtesting/documents/standardizedtestingwhitepaper.pdf (Pages 20-23.) 21 This critique is also particularly notable among students who take the SAT, where there is a clear relationship between family income and average score.22 http://www.nber.org/papers/w3705.pdf (Pages 19-24.) 23 http://tesl-ej.org/ej12/a2.html24 http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-feinman-nyc-test_final.pdf (Pages 3, 18-24.) 25 http://b.3cdn.net/nycss/b72f6ba9554188f841_d3m6bzkxa.pdf (Page 2.)26 http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/03/05/study-simulates-changes-to-admissions-criteria-for-nycs-specialized-high-schools.html (Pages 15-18.)

6

b. Other standardized test scores – Minority and Low-income students who score above the 95th percentile on at least one standardized test in 7th 27 or 8th grade.

c. Attendance records – Other elite high schools in NYC use attendance records as part of their criteria for acceptance.

d. Extra-Curricular activities – playing an instrument, a sport, volunteering. e. Life circumstances – Effectively, a high school version of affirmative action.

i. Numerous elite high schools in both NYC and the country take various factors into account when considering admission, while maintaining excellent academics and diversity. (See Figure 4.) However, this proposal does come with a serious drawback. A recent study noted that when using several of these alternatives – notably GPA and attendance – the number of black students offered a seat would actually drop.28 29

ii. Finally, this proposal is politically divisive. The current system has massive support from Asian, and Eastern European immigrants.30 In addition, alumni have banded together and created the “Coalition of the Specialized High School Alumni Organization” to protest any change to the admission structure.31

2. Top “X” Percentage proposals – These proposals have two common variations:a. All students within a certain percentile of their graduating class are guaranteed a spot at

one of the eight specialized high schools. i. This proposal would be very politically feasible and has proven to be popular as

the previous top 2% rule shows.32 ii. This policy is enacted in states all over the country at the college level. Students

in Florida with a GPA over 3.0 are guaranteed admission to a state university. And, in both California and Texas students in the top 8-10% of their class have guaranteed offers from either UC or UT schools. These policies have increased diversity in schools, without measurably sacrificing quality. 33

b. Identify high minority and low-income population schools and guarantee the top ‘X’ percent within those school’s admission to one of the eight specialized high schools. Metrics such as free lunch qualification and total % of minority/low-income students could identify such schools.34

i. This process is politically feasible, as it has been proven to work all around the country and rewards the most ‘meritocratic’ students.

3. Quotas – This proposal would establish a certain number of seats guaranteed each year to minority and low-income students. Quotas have been shown to increase diversity in both the workplace and in university.35

27 In previous years, any student who scored in the top 2% in either the English or Math standardized test during 7 th

grade was automatically admitted to their highest non-specialized high school choice. 28 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/spa2/PBPathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf (Pages 5, 9-10.)29 The same study noted that the number of girls and Hispanic students would rise by 4% and 8% respectively. 30 http://www.wsj.com/articles/immigrants-view-test-prep-as-a-ticket-to-better-future-142526155731 http://coalitionedu.org/32 http://insideschools.org/blog/item/1000863-scores-on-state-tests-inch-up-slightly-29-pass-ela-exam 33 http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Texas-Ten-Percent_style.pdf 34 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp 35 https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/race%20income%20%26%20selective%20college%20enrollment%20august%203%202012.pdf (Pages 3, 9-11.)

7

i. This proposal is highly controversial as affirmative actions are often highly unpopular.

4. Additional Resources for Minority and Low-Income Students – This proposal would keep the SHSAT as the sole criterion for admission, but would increase state/city funding for minority and low-income students for test preparation:

a. As of now, there is only one major government run program that provides test preparation for minority and low-income students – The New York Specialized High School Institute (SHSI). The SHSI provides high achieving minority and low-income students SHSAT preparation. Students receive two lessons a week, and an additional 38 lessons between July and October in 8th grade.36

i. While this program seems promising, there have been no studies or evaluation reports on the program – thus, policy makers have little knowledge about whether or not the program is effective.

ii. This proposal is the most likely to be supported. However, the program has recently lost funding due to declining levels of minority student enrollment in the specialized high schools.37

Figure 4.

Policy Recommendations for the Short and Long Term:

The disparity between the demographics of NYC and the eight specialized schools is a result of a confluence of factors. The following recommendations intend to reduce this inequality on two fronts – the immediate future, and the long term.

Short Term:

36http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/SHSI/default.htm 37 http://insideschools.org/blog/item/7253-doe-to-curtail-specialized-prep-course

8

1. Reevaluate and change the SHSAT – The following proposals should be undertaken to make the exam more equitable, both between students taking the test the same year, and during different years.

a. Test makers should adhere to widely established psychometric measures to ensure that one version of the test is not easier than another.

b. The SHSAT should close the ‘composite score’ loopholes – achieving solid proficiency or mastery of both subjects would prevent students and prep companies from gaming the system by studying for only one section.

c. The SHSAT should include two additional sections; one in History and one in Science. d. Finally, the eight specialized schools should create base scores for admission that do not

vary from year to year. 2. Adopt an ‘X’ percentage system – Guaranteeing all students who graduate within a certain

percentile of their graduating class a spot in one specialized high school would ensure that at least some additional Black, Hispanic, and low-income students be accepted to specialized high schools.

3. Study the SHSI – The SHSI has the potential to be a successful program. However, the lack of transparency around the program is perplexing and needs to be remedied.

a. A longitudinal study must be conducted to better understand where and how the program could be improved, before deciding how to further proceed.

Long Term:

While the above policies may have an impact on the number of minority and low-income students accepted into the specialized high schools, they do little to address the structural inequities in the system. The following policy proposals aim to ameliorate some of these issues.

1. Funding –While it is impossible to ensure that low income and minority students have the same advantages from birth, it is vital that the schools they attend are funded properly.38 The regressive nature of NYC’s funding system needs to be re-examined and changed to a more progressive system.

a. The political viability of this proposal should not be taken into account, though, opposition can be expected if this proposal is undertaken by redirecting money from wealthier districts, or by raising taxes.

2. Teachers – Research all over the United States suggests that the newest and least effective teachers teach in low-income and minority populations, while more effective and experienced teachers go to high-income schools.

a. There are many issues involved with this proposal, including where to get qualified teachers.39 However, it is imperative that minority and low-income students receive as

38 http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ExecutiveSummary_2015.html As of 2014-2015 the funding structure of NYC has significantly improved. Though it is still regressive, the disparity is now 95 cents to every dollar.

39 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/teacher-shortages-spur-a-nationwide-hiring-scramble-credentials-optional.html

9

much support as they can in the classroom. Drawing in experienced and effective teachers via various incentives would position us to achieve this goal.

3. Creating a different pipeline – Each school in low-income and minority neighborhoods should have a minimum of 1 ‘honor’s’ class per grade, and high achieving students should be re-directed to these classes.

a. Building off of these ‘honors’ classes, elementary schools should establish connections with honors and screened middle school programs (particularly the 88 schools which send the majority of students to the 8 specialized and other elite high schools.) Students who do well in these schools should have a guaranteed place in at least one feeder school and be automatically enrolled in a program like the SHSI.

Together, these six policy proposals aim to change the system in four key ways:

1. Make the admissions process into the eight specialized high schools more equitable.2. Make the student population at these school (and the elite 30 high schools in general) more

representative of the demographics of NYC. 3. Increase funding to low-income (and minority) school neighborhoods and make the funding

structure progressive, rather than regressive. 4. Establish a separate pipeline, that targets talented minority and low-income students, and

provides them with the resources and the support they need to attend the best middle and high schools that NYC offers.

References :

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TeacherDistributionBrief1.pdf

http://b.3cdn.net/nycss/b72f6ba9554188f841_d3m6bzkxa.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/10/08-school-choice-in-new-york-city-whitehurst/school-choice-and-school-performance-in-nyc-public-schools.pdf

10

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/race%20income%20%26%20selective%20college%20enrollment%20august%203%202012.pdf

http://coalitionedu.org/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6652112.pdf

http://insideschools.org/blog/item/7253-doe-to-curtail-specialized-prep-course

http://insideschools.org/blog/item/1000863-scores-on-state-tests-inch-up-slightly-29-pass-ela-exam

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Texas-Ten-Percent_style.pdf

http://www.nacacnet.org/media center/standardizedtesting/documents/standardizedtestingwhitepaper.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w3705.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-feinman-nyc-test_final.pdf

http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/03/05/share-of-black-hispanic-students-offered-specialized-high-school-seats-remains-low/#.VkkrovmrTWJ

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/results-of-shsat-for-top-high-schools.html

http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/the-elite-eight-here-are-the-top-schools-in-nyc/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/teacher-shortages-spur-a-nationwide-hiring-scramble-credentials-optional.html

http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/03/05/study-simulates-changes-to-admissions-criteria-for-nycs-specialized-high-schools.html

http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ExecutiveSummary_2015.html

http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/National_Report_Card.pdf

http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/SHSI/default.htm

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/spa2/PBPathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/Pathways_to_elite_education/WorkingPaper_PathwaystoAnEliteEducation.pdf

http://tesl-ej.org/ej12/a2.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/how-to-solve-the-diversity-problem-at-nycs-elite-public-schools/386944/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/immigrants-view-test-prep-as-a-ticket-to-better-future-1425261557

11

http://www.wsj.com/articles/well-worn-path-from-top-nyc-middle-schools-to-coveted-high-schools-1419824326