Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious, are the non specialized NYC public schools really that bad?
Some CD elitists act like the school district I went to is bad but I know that's not true from personal experience.
I don't think the situation is at all as grim as people make it out to be. There are bad high schools but also a lot of good ones (specialized and non specialized). I think that the statistics are that most kids get put in one of their top choices. Both my kids went through the high school choice process and I was really nervous about it (the first time anyway). Both were decent students but not academic stars but both ended up in very good schools (one specialized and the other selective). And they were both offered partial academic scholarships from pretty much every Catholic school they applied to (about 1/2 off tuition).
I tend to think that the kids who end up in bad schools were already academically behind in middle school or have parents who are not involved in the process. At that age the vast majority of kids are far too immature to have a good result on their own - there is a lot of research to do, deadlines to keep, applications, interviews.... (and for specialized, some prep is now pretty much a necessity).
The citywide high school process levels the playing field to a certain extent, but still kids in District 2 in Manhattan have the best chance of getting into a good high school because there are more good selective schools there than anywhere else in the city and give preference to students there.
- These schools are very selective, good schools.
- Horace Mann is a VERY expensive private school and its high school is in the Bronx, not in Manhattan. In fact, some of the most elite schools in the city are in the Bronx. It's an entire borough and excluding it as a place to live is silly. Most of Brooklyn is worse/more dangerous than the Bronx and the highest crime rate in the city is in Manhattan - Midtown.
- People who focus on competition - especially on making their kids competitive, tend to live in Manhattan. We stretch our budgets and make ourselves miserable to help our kids grow up and associate with wealthier, more competitive people. That does NOT mean that The Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn residents don't care about those things. It just means the general populations of those boroughs are more relaxed about these things. In the end, their kids are probably better off because of it, as long as they are moderately competitive and concerned with their kids' educational success.
- US News and World Report ranks the HS of American Studies #1 in New York State and their methods might be better than some of the others you read about.
- Stuy and BxSci have always been the top 2 public schools in the city. The kids are smart, but they tend to be VERY nerdy kids whose parents are pushy tiger-mom types.
-Hunter has a similar situation - pushy parents whose kids have issues because of it. There was a report years ago that Hunter kids are mostly in therapy. Its elite status is mostly due to its location on the Upper East Side (where I live) and I can tell you first hand that parents around here are obsessed with getting in there and most do not.
- There's a free private school called "Regis" that is supposedly amazing, but harder to get into than all of these, and I think you need to be Catholic. I know several people who went there and they are all extremely smart adults. I know even more who went to Hunter and Stuy and they are, IMO, closer to average. I should also mention, this school is boys-only.
I very much agree. But a lot of people are silly...
I don't think the situation is at all as grim as people make it out to be. There are bad high schools but also a lot of good ones (specialized and non specialized). I think that the statistics are that most kids get put in one of their top choices. Both my kids went through the high school choice process and I was really nervous about it (the first time anyway). Both were decent students but not academic stars but both ended up in very good schools (one specialized and the other selective). And they were both offered partial academic scholarships from pretty much every Catholic school they applied to (about 1/2 off tuition).
I tend to think that the kids who end up in bad schools were already academically behind in middle school or have parents who are not involved in the process. At that age the vast majority of kids are far too immature to have a good result on their own - there is a lot of research to do, deadlines to keep, applications, interviews.... (and for specialized, some prep is now pretty much a necessity).
The citywide high school process levels the playing field to a certain extent, but still kids in District 2 in Manhattan have the best chance of getting into a good high school because there are more good selective schools there than anywhere else in the city and give preference to students there.
I especially believe the bold’d. Changing the admissions process for specialized high schools, while potentially helpful, is still a pretty shaky way to level the playing field. The high schools are thus far pretty good, so it’s odd to meddle with something that mostly works so well. What makes a lot more sense is for the city to concentrate on improving elementary and middle schools rather than to try to take on a fight to change the admissions process for specialized high schools.
I especially believe the bold’d. Changing the admissions process for specialized high schools, while potentially helpful, is still a pretty shaky way to level the playing field. The high schools are thus far pretty good, so it’s odd to meddle with something that mostly works so well. What makes a lot more sense is for the city to concentrate on improving elementary and middle schools rather than to try to take on a fight to change the admissions process for specialized high schools.
I don't think the test is a bad thing, especially since grading can vary greatly between middle schools. I do think that the city should offer prep to more kids though. Their program offers a gazillion hours of prep - really ridiculous. They could cut back the hours drastically and offer it to a lot more kids for the same money (make it like a Kaplan course).
The test as it is gives an advantage to kids who are strong in math so maybe there could be 2 tests since not all the specialized are math focused.
I don't think the test is a bad thing, especially since grading can vary greatly between middle schools. I do think that the city should offer prep to more kids though. Their program offers a gazillion hours of prep - really ridiculous. They could cut back the hours drastically and offer it to a lot more kids for the same money (make it like a Kaplan course).
The test as it is gives an advantage to kids who are strong in math so maybe there could be 2 tests since not all the specialized are math focused.
Yes, I think a lot of elementary and middle schools need more prep whether towards the test or not. That's the better way to level the playing field, plus it could help keep the kids out of potential trouble.
I'm not as much in agreement with the last sentence. I think kids just need to learn math better and schools need to be better at teaching it. Math education in the US overall is pretty weak and has been for a long time as there have been studies of math aptitude that puts the average US adult around the tail end of the pack among developed countries. I think instead of lowering the standards, there should be a push to get more people to have a better baseline.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-31-2018 at 09:08 AM..
Yes, I think a lot of elementary and middle schools need more prep whether towards the test or not. That's the better way to level the playing field, plus it could help keep the kids out of potential trouble.
I'm not as much in agreement with the last sentence. I think kids just need to learn math better and schools need to be better at teaching it. Math education in the US overall is pretty weak and has been for a long time as there have been studies of math aptitude that puts the average US adult around the tail end of the pack among developed countries. I think instead of lowering the standards, there should be a push to get more people to have a better baseline.
They could arguably raise the standards by adding a writing portion. Writing ability is so important in high school and college so why not have it be a factor for at least some of the specialized schools?
They could arguably raise the standards by adding a writing portion. Writing ability is so important in high school and college so why not have it be a factor for at least some of the specialized schools?
In concept that's good, but the issue with that would be the sheer infrastructure that needs to be built up in order to grade a writing portion. You can argue that a reading comprehension and grammar portion also tests the ability to write to some degree. I've graded SAT writing samples before and you really have to rush through them because of the sheer amount, but even being "good" at that isn't anywhere near as efficient as a scantron.
Perhaps you're suggesting that a couple of the schools (Brooklyn Latin and HSAS) can request it as part of their process? There's almost a precedent for that since LaGuardia Arts has an additional audition/performance component to it, but that eschews the test completely. For people uninterested in those schools, they can skip the writing portion entirely though that'll still be a pretty large volume of additional work the system would have to fund. Regardless, I don't feel like there should be a de-emphasis of the math portion.
Another thing is to set up new schools entirely with a different criteria. That's sort of happening with several of the very large high schools breaking up into smaller ones, so perhaps some of these can work as a test bed for selective schools that take into account more than the test scores.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-31-2018 at 10:20 AM..
The citywide high school process levels the playing field to a certain extent, but still kids in District 2 in Manhattan have the best chance of getting into a good high school because there are more good selective schools there than anywhere else in the city and give preference to students there.
Hence why when I moved from Queens to the Bronx, it was a no brainer to keep my daughter IN the district 2 school she was in. It was either that, or her zoned MS in Queens which was far from our home, not the same school that ALL of her fellow honors student classmates were going to (because of street address) and just too darn big. I'm happy that even if she defaults, she's guaranteed a seat somewhere in District 2.
They could arguably raise the standards by adding a writing portion. Writing ability is so important in high school and college so why not have it be a factor for at least some of the specialized schools?
As someone who excelled in writing portions of exams, and not so much in math, I agree. Not everyone has the same aptitude for the same things. That doesn't mean they're unitelligent. They just have different strengths.
Perhaps you're suggesting that a couple of the schools (Brooklyn Latin and HSAS) can request it as part of their process? There's almost a precedent for that since LaGuardia Arts has an additional audition/performance component to it, but that eschews the test completely. For people uninterested in those schools, they can skip the writing portion entirely though that'll still be a pretty large volume of additional work the system would have to fund. Regardless, I don't feel like there should be a de-emphasis of the math portion.
I hadn't actually thought it out so much, but to me that sounds like a good idea. The child I have in a specialized school was weak in ELA, so I was surprised he did so well on the test. I'm happy that the system worked for him, but thought there should be a place in those schools for kids who are more well rounded. (One thing I'll say is that he has become a more well-rounded student going to the school that he does, although the first year was pretty hard for him.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Another thing is to set up new schools entirely with a different criteria. That's sort of happening with several of the very large high schools breaking up into smaller ones, so perhaps some of these can work as a test bed for selective schools that take into account more than the test scores.
That's interesting, what kind of criteria? Some selective schools don't emphasize test scores now (for instance Beacon). More selective schools are needed and the priority on District 2 and Manhattan residency seems unfair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
