SPLIT from Muggings: Public High Schools

Interesting subject here - I went to public schools in Brooklyn (PS 38, IS 293 and "gasp" John Jay) John Jay was the zone school for most of Red Hook, Park Slope and Sunset Park. Gowanus, Cobble Hill went to Sarah J. Hale. With the exception of John J and Sarah J I had great experiences in school. When I attended these schools the majority of these students were minorities.

Right now my son attends PS 9 and is graduating to jr. high next year and the search for a school for him has been extremely stressful. We finally found one that I like and we have our fingers crossed that he gets in. As a mom I am more personally worried about picking out a junior high that fits my son because I feel this is the age (11-13) where they tend to make dumb mistakes due to immaturity and I would rather a smaller school where he won't get "lost in the sauce" among the thousands of others. I also find that while some schools are good academically, they are in the worst neighborhoods for a young teen to walk through.

There is a program called Prep for Prep that my son will be tested for. This is a program for minority students who scored above average on the citywide tests and keep a high GPA. This test will allow him to attend a private school on scholarship or for very low cost. Unfortunately he will not be able to attend unless its for free since I cannot even afford a 1/3 of what the private schools cost.

Anonymous wrote:


Nope, Bishop Ford is and has always been a private school, that is why it is so good!

As someone else pointed out, private schools have the luxury of being able to choose their students and to get rid of kids who are struggling academically or are discipline problems or have special needs, etc. Nothing against Bishop Ford, I don't know the first thing about it. I just think so many people automatically assume that private=good without thinking about all the factors that go into that.

hermitage wrote: Actually John Jay serves a somewhat important purpose.
I always told my daughter, "do well in school, or you will end up going to John J..."
Probably bad parenting - but has produced wonderful test scores!
We are on pins and needles till the end of March when we find out what HS she gets into. The HS process in NY is a NIGHTMARE! Start thinking about it when the kids are in Pre-K - get in a good K-12 school to avoid it!

How many choices of High Schools do they allow them to pick now? I always thought that with more options than jr. high's it would be easier to choose a HS.

homeowner wrote:

But isn't that also true of the top-tier public schools? The best public schools in the city require kids to test or audition into them. As a matter of fact, when I was looking for the statistical information, I came across the high school directories and those schools aren't even in the same booklet as "regular" public schools. Those schools also choose their students and get rid of kids that can't cut it or are discipline problems. I don't think that private=good, but the best public schools don't operate under the same principals as the local high school on the corner either.

Yes, definitely. The top-tier high schools select their students (or they test in). I'm not sure how much latitude they really have to push out kids who are failing or disruptive, but the basic principle is the same. Also -- any time you have a school where a parent or child affirmatively has to do something to get the kid in (like apply or enter a lottery as opposed to just showing up at the zoned school), you're going to have a better school because you're starting out with a population of kids whose parents are invested/involved/informed enough to make an effort.

I'm just resistant to the idea that private schools are inherently better just because they're private schools and not run by the government and free-enterprise-will-solve-all-our-problems.

Quickly broaching the private vs. public argument, I recently read that Alberta had dramatically increased the performance of its students to the point where it is has the highest ranked schools in Canada and has made solid gains on the perennial leaders like Singapore and Norway. The way they did it was by creating a system where parents had the ability to send their kids to their choice of several area schools, and then the schools were funded according to how many students they attract. Thus, the schools effectively competed against each other for govt funding, introducing one of the most advantageous aspects of the pro-private argument, while maintaining education as a publicly-funded institution, satisfying the desire for egalitarianism and universality. I really don't know the details, but the results are apparently hard to argue with, and to me it seems like a great compromise between the two: schools cannot remain complacent and must compete, parents have choice and are not locked into failing area schools, and education remains affordable for all.

I have an idle thought about the first point . . .

Emily wrote:
--What is the utility of having high schools for special subjects like law? How much of the day do students spend on that subject as opposed to normal ones like Bio and History? Do people end up choosing those schools even if they're not that interested in the subject, just because the school is better? I find myself pretty skeptical of this idea...it seems too early to specialize and it's hard enough to get kids to learn basic stuff they should know without the distraction of an additional subject.

the more you're engaged, the more you learn and the more you get done.
(works with adults too -- "need something done, ask a busy person" is the cliched line but I think it's mostly true)
I hope the specialty schools try to get kids excited about something Real World, and in doing so strengthen their academic learning. Not to mention, making them Feel Special like they have a place in the world -- which is the opposite of an overcrowded class in a trailer or a converted broom closet, which tells the kid they are destined for jack.

why would you waste money on a private high school when NYC has some of the best public high school's in the country. Many have much better reputations then the privates. This seems to be one of those cases where people think if it costs more money it must better.

For the record, I know people who have gone to Stuy, had great grades and great SAT scores, and still failed to get into colleges that they would have easily gotten into out of a private school (and I know mediocre kids from pvt school who got into excellent colleges). Why? B/c there are hundreds of other Stuy kids with top marks, and Harvard et al can't accept them all, whereas if you go to a school with a graduating class of 50, the top 10-20 kids all can be the only one from that school to go to their respective top university. Furthermore, NYC is known to have underperforming public schools even compared to the nation's other public schools (which are themselves low-performing relative to international standards).

And not to be the grammar police, but it does strike me as ironic to post about the superior quality of public schools while simultaneously fucking up an apostrophe. :?

Don't worry too much about the kids from Stuy. It is a pretty impressive intstitution - and all college admin know about it. Also they are able to hook kids up with internships, courses at local colleges, great clubs that no ordinary school would have, etc. that give them great things to put on their applications. And while the Ivy acceptances go up and down every year they get their fair share admitted. Hunter may do a shade better than Stuy but they are up there.

Anonymous wrote: Don't worry too much about the kids from Stuy. It is a pretty impressive intstitution - and all college admin know about it. Also they are able to hook kids up with internships, courses at local colleges, great clubs that no ordinary school would have, etc. that give them great things to put on their applications. And while the Ivy acceptances go up and down every year they get their fair share admitted. Hunter may do a shade better than Stuy but they are up there.

Yes, Stuy sends a lot of kids to top schools, no doubt about that. But that's precisely why it's hard to get into a top school out of Stuy, because it's you and several hundred other smarties all competing for the same spots. I'm not "worried" for them--it seems like every other guy I know went there for high school and is doing just fine. I'm just saying, whether it be for corrupt reasons like legacy preferences, personalized attention from private school deans who will personally lobby colleges on behalf of individual students, or the smaller pool of applicants, that your chances are a bit better in a pvt school. And please don't take my point to mean that private schools are better--this is just one narrow aspect I'm focusing on. There are arguably a ton of benefits to going to a large school full of intelligent kids of various backgrounds as opposed to a tiny school of mostly rich kids.

If i post again I'll get out my Chicago Manual of Style and carefully edit so that my apostrophes don't offend or cause unintended irony...

That leaves significantly less then 100% slots based on merit for undergraduate admissions (my sister is on the admissions committee at Harvard).

I think you mean "less than", not "less then". (easy, i'm just fucking with you)

Anonymous wrote: why would you waste money on a private high school when NYC has some of the best public high school's in the country. Many have much better reputations then the privates. This seems to be one of those cases where people think if it costs more money it must better.

sorry to contradict, but according to a study done by manhattan institute from policy research, here are the actual stats.

* Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges.
* Only 51% of all black students and 52% of all Hispanic students graduate, and only 20% of all black students and 16% of all Hispanic students leave high school college-ready.
* The graduation rate for white students was 72%; for Asian students, 79%; and for American Indian students, 54%. The college readiness rate for white students was 37%; for Asian students, 38%; for American Indian students, 14%.
* Graduation rates in the Northeast (73%) and Midwest (77%) were higher than the overall national figure, while graduation rates in the South (65%) and West (69%) were lower than the national figure. The Northeast and the Midwest had the same college readiness rate as the nation overall (32%) while the South had a higher rate (38%) and the West had a lower rate (25%).
* The state with the highest graduation rate in the nation was North Dakota (89%); the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation was Florida (56%).
* Due to their lower college readiness rates, black and Hispanic students are seriously underrepresented in the pool of minimally qualified college applicants. Only 9% of all college-ready graduates are black and another 9% are Hispanic, compared to a total population of 18-year-olds that is 14% black and 17% Hispanic.
* We estimate that there were about 1,299,000 college-ready 18-year-olds in 2000, and the actual number of persons entering college for the first time in that year was about 1,341,000. This indicates that there is not a large population of college-ready graduates who are prevented from actually attending college.
* The portion of all college freshmen that is black (11%) or Hispanic (7%) is very similar to their shares of the college-ready population (9% for both). This suggests that the main reason these groups are underrepresented in college admissions is that these students are not acquiring college-ready skills in the K-12 system, rather than inadequate financial aid or affirmative action policies.

brooklynpotter wrote: [quote=Anonymous]why would you waste money on a private high school when NYC has some of the best public high school's in the country. Many have much better reputations then the privates. This seems to be one of those cases where people think if it costs more money it must better.

sorry to contradict, but according to a study done by manhattan institute from policy research, here are the actual stats.

* Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges.
* Only 51% of all black students and 52% of all Hispanic students graduate, and only 20% of all black students and 16% of all Hispanic students leave high school college-ready.
* The graduation rate for white students was 72%; for Asian students, 79%; and for American Indian students, 54%. The college readiness rate for white students was 37%; for Asian students, 38%; for American Indian students, 14%.
* Graduation rates in the Northeast (73%) and Midwest (77%) were higher than the overall national figure, while graduation rates in the South (65%) and West (69%) were lower than the national figure. The Northeast and the Midwest had the same college readiness rate as the nation overall (32%) while the South had a higher rate (38%) and the West had a lower rate (25%).
* The state with the highest graduation rate in the nation was North Dakota (89%); the state with the lowest graduation rate in the nation was Florida (56%).
* Due to their lower college readiness rates, black and Hispanic students are seriously underrepresented in the pool of minimally qualified college applicants. Only 9% of all college-ready graduates are black and another 9% are Hispanic, compared to a total population of 18-year-olds that is 14% black and 17% Hispanic.
* We estimate that there were about 1,299,000 college-ready 18-year-olds in 2000, and the actual number of persons entering college for the first time in that year was about 1,341,000. This indicates that there is not a large population of college-ready graduates who are prevented from actually attending college.
* The portion of all college freshmen that is black (11%) or Hispanic (7%) is very similar to their shares of the college-ready population (9% for both). This suggests that the main reason these groups are underrepresented in college admissions is that these students are not acquiring college-ready skills in the K-12 system, rather than inadequate financial aid or affirmative action policies.



I don't really see how these quotes pertain to specific NYC High schools? We all know that public schools are in crisis but that doesn't mean that a good public school is not as good as many private schools? Maybe a lousy private school is still better then a lousy public school.

I mean frankly what did your private school education get you? Do you really think you are better educated then these kids leaving Hunter? Nothing personal but you seem to be doing about the same as those of us who went to public schools and somehow wound up in top tier colleges.

Snarky South sloper wrote:
I don't really see how these quotes pertain to specific NYC High schools? We all know that public schools are in crisis but that doesn't mean that a good public school is not as good as many private schools? Maybe a lousy private school is still better then a lousy public school.

I mean frankly what did your private school education get you? Do you really think you are better educated then these kids leaving Hunter? Nothing personal but you seem to be doing about the same as those of us who went to public schools and somehow wound up in top tier colleges.

posting those quotes was a direct response to the posting by anonymous in regard to NYC having some of the best schools in the country.

obviously, while you're still under "guest" status, you've read the boards long enough to know my position on public vs. private schools. everyone has different feelings about different things. every child learns in a different way. my beliefs are based on my own education as well as the people i know who've has either similar experiences, or those from my original high school who stayed and graduated from there. and if you go back and read what i've written you will see that i consistently mentioned high schools like hunter and sty, etc., as the exception.

your "nothing personal" comment was clearly meant to insult and bait me, and i'm not going there at this moment. sorry, find someone else to poke with sticks.

and as a sidenote, snarky person, because your comments seem to imply this: i NEVER said that i was better than anyone who went to public school, just that i feel i had a higher quality of education.

homeowner wrote: So we keep having this broad discussion about public schools generally but the reality is that the PS public schools at the high school level aren't an option for most people given their current performance and no one has mentioned any schools in neighboring areas (PH, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens, Sunset Pk, PLG, etc) that they are using or would consider either.

The only high school reasonably proximate to PS that I would consider a really good school is Brooklyn Tech. But it doesn't matter so much for high school because at that age, kids can commute on their own. So, it would be great to have a good high school right in the neighborhood, but it doesn't matter the way not having a good middle school in the neighborhood would matter. Most of the Park Slope teenagers I know go to school in Manhattan.

Snarky South sloper wrote: Nothing personal but you seem to be doing about the same as those of us who went to public schools and somehow wound up in top tier colleges.

oh, i was going to leave this alone. i was. and then this happened: http://womentowatch.blogspot.com