Questions about the specialized high school admissions process from a specialized high school teacher. Part 13 “Are there too many Asian students at the specialized high schools?”

Are there too many Jews in Hollywood?

Are there too many transgender people in the military?

Are the too many Latino baseball players?

Are there too many Asian students at the New York City specialized high schools?

Did you answer ‘yes’ to any of the above?

Asian students make up 17% of the 8th graders in New York City. They also make up 35% of the students who take the SHSAT and get 52% of the offers to the specialized schools.

Latino and Black students combine to make up 68% of the 8th graders, 32% of the SHSAT test takers, and 10% of the offers.

Statistically speaking, an Asian student is about 16 times more likely to get an offer to a specialized high school than a Latino student or a Black student.

These are the facts and they serve as a starting point for the big questions that this series of posts has been building toward.

To the question “Are there too many Asian students at the specialized high schools?” some might say that this is the wrong question to ask. The proper question, they might argue is, “Are there too few Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools?”

Are those the same two questions, just worded in different ways? I don’t think so. The second question “Are there too few Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools?” has, in my mind, an obvious answer which is ‘yes.’ The more important question which cannot be answered so easily is “Why are there too few Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools?” I will address this later in this post, but first I want to explore the other question “Are there too many Asian students at the specialized high schools?”

There are a finite number of seats at the specialized schools. The only way for there to be more Latino and Black students offered seats at these schools would be for Asian students to be offered fewer seats at these schools. But if you believe “There are too many Asian students at the specialized schools?” you probably won’t feel comfortable saying it too loud. It has the same structure as the other “There are too many X in Y” statements I referenced at the beginning of this post. In any expression of this form, if the ‘X’ is not ‘white men’ you are treading into dangerous territory.

So how do you answer the two questions? Do you think that ‘yes’ there are too few Latino and Black students but that ‘no’ there are not too many Asian students at the specialized high schools. Or do you think that ‘yes’ there are too few Latino and Black students and that ‘yes’ there are too many Asian students at the specialized high schools. Or do you have some other set of answers to those two questions?

I think there are some people who believe (whether or not they say it so bluntly) that there are too many Asians in the specialized high schools and I want to address that belief here.

Some people who have been reading this series do not like when I use sports analogies, but with the summer Olympics going on right now, it is hard not to. There are certain events in the summer Olympics that have been historically dominated by different countries. Russia has won every gold medal in artistic swimming (used to be called ‘synchronized swimming’) since 2000. South Korea has won nearly every gold medal in women’s archery since 1984. China has won almost all the gold medals in table tennis ever awarded. Kenya has won all 9 golds in the history of the men’s steeplechase. Hungary has won nine gold medals in men’s water polo since 1928.

Does anyone see it as a ‘problem’ that Hungary keeps winning at men’s water polo? When you hear that Hungary won again in men’s water polo, how does it make you feel? Do you think that there is something about water polo that gives Hungary an unfair advantage? Do you think the rules should be changed so that it is a little easier for some of the other countries to win? Maybe the other countries get to start with a few points? Probably not. You probably just think that it is pretty impressive that Hungary is so good at men’s water polo. We don’t think the Hungary men’s water polo team is cheating in any way. We don’t say “Oh, it isn’t fair, they spent a lot of time practicing water polo.” There’s probably a culture in Hungary where kids aspire to be on the men’s water polo team and they’ve got water polo little league and the names of the men’s water polo players are household names. Maybe you don’t agree with all the rules of water polo, like how only the goalie can handle the ball with both hands and if another player does, they lose possession of the ball, but at least all teams have to play by the same rules as arbitrary as they may seem. You probably don’t think that Hungary has won “too many” gold medals, you tip your hat to Hungary and admire their accomplishment.

The United States hasn’t gotten the gold in men’s water polo since 1932. But does that mean we don’t train for the Olympics? Maybe the fact that Hungary will be participating is a motivating factor for the United States team to try to compete with the Hungarians. And even if the U.S. team, again, fails to medal was all that training a waste?

But when it comes to the specialized high schools some people don’t think this same way about the Asian students who gain admission to these schools. It’s not “Wow, those families supported supplemental learning for their children. How great.” For some of these families, maybe they take an ongoing course where the students improve their skills. These skills will not just help them on the SHSAT but in high school and beyond. For some families the supplemental learning may not involve a course but just that they encourage their child to sit for a few hours a week with a skills book. However they do it, why is supplemental learning not something not everybody wants to celebrate? In my opinion, the more students who study at home, the better. So that’s why I don’t agree with you if you think there are too many Asian students at the specialized high schools.

The former New York City schools chancellor Carranza was pretty clear about his feelings when he said at a press conference “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools,” about the fact that about half the specialized school offers went to Asian students.

But let’s say you’re someone who doesn’t think the problem is too many Asian students. You have no problem with the number of Asian students, you just think there should be more Latino and Black students. Well, I also think there should be more Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools.

The big question that everyone (or at least the 10 or so people who have been reading this 50,000+ word series of blog posts) wants me to answer is “Why are there so few Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools?”

The reason there are so few Latino and Black students at the specialized high schools has little to do with the specialized high school admissions policy. Yes, you can change the admissions policy if you want and get the numbers you think there should be, but that’s not fixing the problem really. If you fix the problem the correct way, not only will you get more Latino and Black students into the specialized high schools but as an added bonus even the Latino and Black students who don’t get into the specialized high schools will be more prepared for college or whatever future they choose to pursue.

One reason there are so few Latino and Black students at the specialized high school is that politicians and high level NYC DOE administrators have not cared enough to ask the right questions to find out why there are so few.

For example, surely there are some Latino and Black students going into 8th grade next year who would be great candidates for the specialized high schools. But they aren’t going to take the SHSAT maybe. Have people at the NYC DOE ever tried to find out why those students don’t want to take the SHSAT? Have people getting paid to think about this stuff at the NYC DOE ever really tried to learn why Latino and Black students are not enthusiastic about the idea of going to a specialized high school?

And what about the Latino or Black student who was a superstar at his or her middle school and seemed destined to ace the SHSAT but didn’t make the cutoff? Has anyone ever taken a close look at the test they took and the answers they wrote? Has anyone looked over their math scrap paper? Has anyone ever sat with that kid for a few hours and asked, “Why did you write choice C for that one? What was your thought process?” If nobody is doing that kind of scientific research and getting this kind of data so you can more easily answer the question of why there are so few Latino and Black students meeting the SHSAT cutoff score, it says to me that in the current system there has not been the will to understand what the problem is.

There are a lot of theories about why there are so few Latino and Black students at the specialized schools. Someone from the NYC DOE actually should investigate them and see which of them are true, if any. But they don’t because they don’t care enough to apply the scientific method to this important issue. One theory is that private schools offer scholarships to the top Latino and Black students. Is this true? How many students does this affect?

Another theory is that many of the top Latino and Black students are attending high profile charter schools. These charter schools lose many of their low performing students over the years when the schools threaten to make them repeat a grade if they don’t transfer out. So the few students who make it into 8th grade in those schools are likely very good at standardized tests. So why aren’t those students taking the SHSAT? And if they are taking the SHSAT, has that charter school helped them succeed on it or do they discourage those top performing 8th graders from taking the SHSAT or preparing for the SHSAT or even from accepting offers if they do well on the SHSAT? The theory is that those schools want those students to attend the charter school high school. I think this theory has some truth in it. Here is something from the Success Academy blog about how two of their students qualified for Brooklyn Tech but elected to say at Success Academy for high school anyway. How many more Black and Latino students could there be in the specialized high schools if those students were encouraged to consider it? Again, this is something that someone at the NYC DOE should have already thought about and should be working on this. You’ve got to approach this scientifically.

But the bigger issue is that by the time students are in 8th grade, the low SHSAT scores are merely a symptom of a bigger problem that had been going on for decades. If Asian students are supplementing what they get in school in order to get better at math and reading, why can’t that supplementation be given to Latino and Black students as part of their regular schooling? I’m talking here about resources, or more specifically the lack of resources. With more money invested in the schools from K to 8, like for smaller class sizes, maybe the Latino and Black students would be more prepared for whatever the specialized high school admissions process is, even if it moves away from just being the SHSAT. This type of thinking leads to an authentic solution which benefits everyone. Even if it doesn’t change the demographics of the specialized high schools as much as some people hope it would, everyone would be better off.

I know there is a lot more to the issue than I’m able to fully appreciate. Here’s an article from The Atlantic called ‘Don’t Scrap The Test. Help Black Kids Ace It’ with a similar perspective. And here is an equally thoughtful piece with the opposite perspective from The Daily News called ‘Scrap the SHSAT, for diversity’s sake: Mayor de Blasio is right about selective high schools’. Here is another interesting take called ‘Is New York City’s Plan to Diversify Specialized High Schools Racist toward Asian Americans?’ by a bi-racial writer who says ‘no’.

I’m sorry if you were hoping that I would be able to give a more satisfying answer to this difficult question. I tried to offer some short term and some long term solutions. I don’t have the data to answer the question any better but through these posts I hope I have modeled for somebody what it means to approach something scientifically and to raise the right questions in order to tackle the big questions.

In the next, and final, post in this series, I will try to make some final reflections.

This entry was posted in Specialized High School Admissions and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Questions about the specialized high school admissions process from a specialized high school teacher. Part 13 “Are there too many Asian students at the specialized high schools?”

  1. Gabriel Maldonado Rivera says:

    I’ve worked with highly talented Latino and Blacks students most of my career. I’m a Latino educator, school founder and former head of a department of education. Two of the schools I founded served largely Latino/black students of high academic talent. I am PuertoRican with a PhD in Science Education from Columbia University. My experience informs anecdotally on this question – with over 16 years of working with Latino and blacks communities not just in NYC but also in PR, DR, Mexico, and Tanzania where “minority students” are actually vastly dominant majorities. My thoughts are as follows: 1) there is somewhat of a pipeline and educational low investment disadvantages that affect the quality of the in-school educational experience of Latino and Black students in NYC. These inequities are significant but not savage. 2) the big problem is cultural – at the family, community, school and individual level. Asians kids and their families and community believe in the link between cradle to adulthood effort/focus/dedication in academics and they invest in ways rarely seen in equivalent Latino/black communities. Asian and privileged white families (also a much smaller minority of social capital privileged Latino/black families and communities) create ecosystems of academic support that leads to high academic performance and doing extremely well in the specialized tests. Equivalent ecosystems of academic support, cultural value systems and actual community and individual student/family investments of time and energy into academic development of their youth, don’t exist at the scale, with the qualities, or with the sustained and culturally supported effort in Latino/Black families. There are widespread cultural beliefs and values that undermine academic efforts and behaviors, some at the individual student, others at the family, and some at the community level. I’ve even seen this value system of academic excellence inverted in two schools – where the privileged look down on academic effort/perseverance and performance and it’s the hungry scholarship “minority” that get the academic excellence culture and behave and get family support in ways that lead to high academic performance in one disadvantaged group, and low academic performance in the privileged one. 3) it doesn’t matter how you screen the kids. There is no problem with the specialized tests regardless of how narrow it’s scope and methods are. Any seriously challenging test – one meant to differentiate academically the top 5% is going to produce similar outcomes. It has nothing to do with test bias. The distribution of academic skills, attitudes and behaviors are NOT distributed equally among ethnic groups in NYC. 4) academically underperforming communities have cultures, values and behaviors that consistently favor other foci of attention and excellence – most notably sports, artistic careers, social-political involvement. These culturally (and often school reenforced) driven alternatives to academic excellence are deep seated and difficult to change, especially in the academic distribution curve below 20%, where negative outcomes reenforce the low valuation of academics. Charter schools with high levels of academic success know this very well – that’s why they correctly emphasize cultural shifts in expectations, internally select and wean out nonconverts, and to their credit manage to create an alternative academic subculture in pockets of Black and Latino communities. Charter schools behavioral, rule oriented rigidity, and high outcomes expectations and unwavering academic focus is essentially an attempt at cultural re-engineering schools, including selectivity bias towards more converted families. There is no way anybody could get these outcomes without a critical mass of academically focused students who have fully converted to the no pain no gain culture necessary for excellence in anything. 5) structural racism, the internet media driven distracting and cognitive development impairing activities, and the pervasive problems of single parent household, are impacting Black and Latino BOYS, the effect is devastatingly different than say Asian nerdy kids on the internet in a two parent household. Black and Latino boys are affected by perfect storm kind of scenarios with key developmental factors impacting them in combinations much less commonly seen in Asian families.

    Neither changing the specialized school test nor any other testing alternative will change the above issues. If we want to provide high performing Latino and Black kids with a world class education we have to create alternative high performing schools, that are tempered to the cultural realities and needs of this population. They will have to be selective, they will require assisting boys in particular, and they will have to invest a lot in social-emotional development, values, confidence building as well as establishing a strong academic culture that is counterculture.

    • David Holmes says:

      Dr. Maldonado-Rivera, can you recommend links or references to amplifications on the thinking in your post, in English (for the monolingual among us)? It seems likely that you have boiled down a lot of reflection into this post. I’d like to learn more.

  2. David Holmes says:

    This series of yours on specialized high school admissions articulates hard questions about thorny problems that reflect even harder questions about even thornier problems in our society. At least one of your “10 or so” readers finds himself unable to help with your disappointment at the “lack of hate mail” (mentioned in Part 12) precisely because of those difficulties. Plus, too few of your suggestions are hateful.

    Please keep up the good thinking and clear writing.

  3. Chris Moth says:

    Gold medals in water polo are great. With a gold medal, and $5, you can get coffee at Starbucks.
    And so it goes with ultra-score-segregation. When we put a very few kids on a podium and pat ourselves on the back for finding them with our clever tests, we have missed the entire point of public education – which is to energetically educate every child to their ability, given scarce resources at hand.

    The East Germans showed us that with the proper hormone therapy, an entire species can be transformed to swim faster, and the fastest will be very fast indeed. In that case, the price for adolescent cheering of our heroes on the podium is too high. I fear it is not too different with what you note some families are putting their kids through in the pursuit of score segregation.

    Perhaps there are disproportionately many Asian students at ultra-score-segregated high schools because of some cultural thread that equates segregation with success more strongly than other populations. Maybe more affluent Latino and African-American families are smart enough to recognize that there is much more to life than having their kids only rub elbows with other affluent kids.

    All of the proposed answers to the silly question about race, mine included, are silly. It is the score-segregated school fundamentally, that is the evil. As long as we cling to score-segregation as “a good”, with no evidence to support our hunch, we are doomed to have to ask silly questions and propose silly answers.

    Race will take care of itself. Surely it will evaporate as a concept in the coming few hundred years. After we send in our overdue reparations checks, we should not worry quite so much about it.

  4. Tim says:

    “I hope I have modeled for somebody what it means to approach something scientifically and to raise the right questions in order to tackle the big questions”

    I literally laughed out loud at this.

    “Scientifically” = making numerous errors, big and small; failing to engage seriously with accurate and good-faith critiques; claiming that to ask for equitable access to taxpayer-funded K-12 institutions is as frivolous and unfair as prohibiting the Hungarian national water polo team from winning; and proposing to remedy a 50-year-old state law governing local control of high school admissions that was motivated by nothing other than racist fear (and was correctly called out for it as such when it happened by iconic civil rights activists) by . . . sifting through scrap paper.

    It may not be what you intended or thought would happen, but this series of posts will be championed, retweeted, and celebrated for years by people who believe that Black and Latino students are intellectually inferior, and that the SHSAT results every spring are just “race realism” in action. Again: heckuva job.

    P.S. Here’s one mistake you could have undone with five seconds of googling: Black and Latino students in no-excuses charter schools take the SHSAT in huge numbers; the details can be looked up here:

  5. NYC public school parent says:

    Specialized high schools are about cherry picking from a group of students who are high performing. The relevant number is not what percentage of any one ethnic group are high performing — it is how many total students that is. For example, there could be a school system
    where Asian students were only 10% of the 8th grade students and 90% of those Asian students were high performing, and white students were the other 90% of 8th grade students and only 10% of those white students were high performing. If that school system had 1,000 students per grade and wanted to start a specialized high school exclusively for the high performing 8th grade students, the specialized high school’s incoming class would be 180 students and would have 90 Asian students and 90 white students. There would likely be some people with no understanding of math who would say that new specialized high school should not be 50% white and that new high school must be admitting lots of unqualified white students who could never handle the work there, because only 10% of the white students in the school system are high performing. Those people with no understanding of math would believe that it would be virtually impossible to fill half the seats at a specialized high school with high performing white students because “only 10% of the white students are high performing”. They would be demonstrating that they have no understanding of basic math. Because 10% of 900 students equals 90% of 100 students.

    Black and Latino students together comprise nearly 70% of the 1 million+ NYC public school students. The percentage of high performing students among them may be lower (due to many factors, especially very high poverty rates), but the overall number of high performing Black and Latino students is still a significant percentage of the high performing students overall. That is basic math.

    I looked at the 2019 state ELA and Math exam data for 7th graders. In ELA, 31% of the highest performing 7th grade students who got 4s on the state tests were Black and Latino. Out of the 11,560 NYC public school 7th grade students who got a 4, 3,600 were Black and Latino. In Math, 28% of the highest performing 7th grade students who got 4s on the state tests were Black and Latino. Of the 14,915 7th grade students in NYC public schools who got 4 on their state Math test, 4,100 of those 7th graders were Black and Latino. But the next year, when that cohort was in 8th grade, only 470 Black and Latino students got offers to specialized high schools.

    (And if that was expanded to the NYC public school 7th graders who received 3s and 4s on their 2019 state exams, 40.5% of the 7th graders who tested proficient and higher in Math were Black and Latino. Over 45% of the 7th graders who tested proficient and higher in ELA were Black and Latino.)

    This data does not even include charter schools, which have additional high scoring students, most of whom are Black and Latino.

    To sum up – in 2019, 31% of the 7th graders in NYC public schools who received 4s on their state ELA exam and 28% of the students who received 4s on their state Math exam were African American or Latinx students. So why did only 10% of the seats in specialized high schools go to them? This discussion isn’t about admitting so-called “unqualified” students. It is about the many qualified African American and Latino students whose exclusion from specialized high schools is based on the false narrative that those students are “unqualified” and would struggle if they were there.

    Gary, I think we both have noted how misleading it is when charter schools brag about so-called “99% success rates” in passing state tests and claim it is virtually impossible for them to cherry pick students. They expect education journalists to be so ignorant of numbers that they never notice that even if state test passing rates are “only” 25%, in a school system of over 1 million students, that is still 250,000 students to cherry pick from! And when you realize that the so-called “failing” NYC public school system has 250,000 students who are performing at or above grade level, suddenly a rich charter network with 15,000 students doesn’t seem quite as miraculous anymore. Of course it can cherry pick if it only teaches 6% of the students at or above grade level. Of course it can cherry pick if it teaches fewer than 2% of the students in a school system.

    Specialized High Schools are designed to cherry pick. And because the NYC public school system is so huge, there are an extraordinarily high number of high performing students to choose from. And the performance on the state tests makes it clear that far more than 10% of those high performing students are Black and Latino. 31% of the 4s in ELA went to Black and Latino students. 28% of the 4s in Math did. Not 10%. Some people may argue that there is no good reason to have specialized high schools and they may have a point. But one thing is clear — the people who believe that there is a value to specialized high schools should stop the false narrative that they are only 10% Black and Latino because there are just a handful of high performing Black and Latino students. That’s the same false narrative charters push when they expect people to believe they don’t cherry pick. It isn’t true. But what IS true is that SHSAT-only admissions is not identifying those students because the SHSAT absurdly stack ranks the students who take the SHSAT that year instead of being a test that simply identifies strong students.

    Here is why this entire conversation has bothered me. Advocating more test prep assumes that if 100 Black and Latino students were privately tutored and got a higher score and bumped 100 Asian and White students out of specialized high schools, that the Asian and White students who were bumped down should be considered “unqualified students who couldn’t handle the work”. Why would they be any more “unqualified” than they were before another 100 also excellent students were given better test prep and outscored them? Those students who got bumped down would still be just as qualified because the pot of “qualified” students doesn’t artificially stop at the students with the highest 5,000 SHSAT scores. That is absurd. It is why the test prep argument is absurd. It implies that the students who are in specialized high schools would mysteriously lose their ability to handle the work of specialized high schools if 100 other students were given massive test prep and able to outscore them on a test that stack ranks students – the SHSAT. They would ALL be qualified. Just like those 100 other students are already qualified. The only thing that more test prep would do is supposedly “prove” that other students aren’t qualified anymore! It’s that false narrative of “the best”, rather than the true narrative that all these students are excellent, including the 100 that would get bumped out of their seats if 100 other students were given unlimited access to the most expensive test prep and outscored them.

    Those who advocate more test prep seem to believe that there is a finite number of qualified students and that number exactly equals the number of available seats in specialized high schools.

    Some of us, even if we support the idea of specialized high schools, can see how truly absurd that belief is. In 2019, nearly 15,000 7th graders got 4s on their state math test, and over 11,500 got 4s in ELA. Thinking that a single test can identify the only 5,000 students capable of handling the work at specialized high schools is just plain wrong. And more test prep won’t change how wrong it is.

    • Gabriel Maldonado says:

      Superficially your arguments makes sense but it misses that state tests score of 4 is not really that exceptional, your own numbers show that. Score distributions in state tests are rigged (by that I mean they are adjusted year to year to accommodate an expected distribution of scores). The state tests are not designed to differentiate within the top 25% of the students. It has a fairly low ceiling for that and if you’ve ever seen the actual score distributions within a 4 you’ll see it’s too narrow a band to differentiate much at all. For that you need a harder test that distributes the scores – spreads them out much more, to distinguish between, say a top 15% student, and a top 3% student. If you’ve worked with highly talented students you’ll realize that the difference between a top 15% and a top 3% student is enormous (by some measures much more than the difference between a 50% student and a 10% student, yes in spite the much greater spread). Within these “4” students there is pstill enormous variation in academic aptitude, learning attitudes and values, perseverance-grit, and intelligence. Having said this I agree with the broader point which is there are many potentially specialized school level students in the pool, especially in the large Latino/Black population, that aren’t even bothering to aspire, much less prepare or apply to them. And I also agree that part of the structural issue of serving highly talented students is that NYC doesn’t have enough highly academic schools to serve the gifted and talented kids we do have (and the many more we could have if we fixed poverty, and had many more better primary schools). These pipeline and externalities issues are not in my view resolvable in the USA because of the ways schools are funded, and the structural poverty that is politically irresolvable. But we would greatly improve matters, at least for the highly talented students, of all ethnic and socioeconomic categories, if we simply had more high performing schools comparable to Stuy and Bronx Sc. Why does this obvious solution – say double/triple to 24 the specialized schools in NYC? Some attempts in this direction, screened schools like Columbia Secondary School, have now been undermined by egalitarian pushes, a regression to the mean kinds of forces, the resistance of the system to innovation and academic risk taking

      • NYC public school parent says:

        “I agree with the broader point which is there are many potentially specialized school level students in the pool, especially in the large Latino/Black population, that aren’t even bothering to aspire, much less prepare or apply to them.”

        That is not my broader point. Do you have specific evidence that those high performing 7th graders are not taking the SHSAT? I find it odd that you believe the SHSAT score is more valid than the state test scores, without providing any evidence. That’s like telling colleges that the SAT should be their guiding factor in admissions, as if the difference between a student who gets a 770 and one who gets a 730 on a single sitting of the SAT is vast. Why not just join me in believing that both of those students are outstanding, instead of judging the 730 student as incapable or unprepared to do the level of work the student who gets a 770 is.

        “Score distributions in state tests are rigged (by that I mean they are adjusted year to year to accommodate an expected distribution of scores).”

        Say what??? SHSAT scores are even more “rigged” by your definition. The score isn’t based on how many questions a student answers. It is based entirely on whether a student answers more questions right in comparison to the other students who take the same version of the exam that year. Two students can both only miss 5 questions on the SHSAT, but their scores can vary wildly depending on what version of the exam they took, how the other students who happened to take the same exam performed that day, and most importantly – which sections of the exam their incorrect answers were in and whether the other students taking that version of the exam happened to answer more right in that section or more right in a different section. The SHSAT is “rigged” to say that as soon as the last seat is filled, all the remaining students – which include students who missed the same number of questions and sometimes even fewer questions overall — are “unqualified”.

        “For that you need a harder test that distributes the scores – spreads them out much more, to distinguish between, say a top 15% student, and a top 3% student.”

        If the specialized high schools themselves believed that the SHSAT “distinguished” among students, they would place students into classes according to their SHSAT score (which can range over 100 points at Stuyvesant). They do not.

  6. Pingback: Gary Rubinstein: What You Need to Know about Admissions to Specialized High Schools | Diane Ravitch's blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s