HIGH SCHOOL ADMISSIONS AND STRATIFICATION JUNE 15, 2017 DONORS’ EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE IN THE NEW YORK COMMUNITY TRUST What stands in the way of Progress for ALL?

OVERVIEW The NYC high school admissions process provides many options: >770 programs in 440 high schools across all five boroughs. A large fraction of students receive their first choice (roughly 49% in 2015-16) and the large majority are matched to one of their top three choices (76%). The “effective” number of options available to a student is limited by constraints within the system (screening, priorities) and geography. Moreover, the number of “high-quality” options is limited.

OVERVIEW These statistics mask a few important realities, however: It is difficult to assess the quality of matches made through the system. That a student received his or her 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice does not necessarily mean the match was a “good” one or the “best” for that child. By any measure, the number and diversity of school options is overwhelming, and the process complex. Gaining admission to the most desired schools is competitive and challenging.

How do lower income students fare? In NYC, lower-income 8th graders choose - and are matched to – high schools with lower graduation rates (see also Corcoran & Levin, 2011; Nathanson, Corcoran, & Baker-Smith, 2013) A potential contributor to income gaps in 4-year HS graduation (52% vs. 79%). 11% of total population (which is 76251) are higher income - 15752 are lower income

How do lower income students fare? Differences in choices and matched schools by income are not simply explained by differences in achievement 11% of total population (which is 76251) are higher income - 15752 are lower income

Factors influencing different choices & matches Preferences Lack of information—knowledge of options, school quality Limited understanding of the school choice process Weak school-based guidance and/or limited of parental support Supply side/proximity constraints, screening Behavioral obstacles Poor estimates of likelihood of admission (“under- or over-reaching”)

SUPPLY SIDE CONSTRAINTS Count of high schools by graduation rate (2014-15)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS of EFFECTIVE CHOICE SUPPLY-SIDE CONSTRAINTS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS of EFFECTIVE CHOICE ALL STUDENTS Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Avg. number of available schools 53.93 28.70 1.00 122.00 School Performance Data (percent)   Graduation 71.72 4.95 54.67 84.67 Variety 72.96 2.74 62.71 89.00 Safety 79.31 2.91 67.00 85.95 College and Career 49.96 6.42 37.13 70.40 School Demographic Data (percent) Black 40.81 14.86 11.19 64.15 Hispanic 39.28 14.37 7.00 80.41 Other Race 2.33 0.77 0.30 5.15 White 8.38 10.29 1.13 64.60 Asian 9.19 6.64 1.59 39.30 Students with Disabilities 20.17 2.92 11.55 26.30 English Language Learners 8.55 2.39 1.87 20.40 Poverty 78.02 7.71 42.80 91.55 We generated an “effective choice” measurement that estimates the actual number of schools for which a given student is eligible (supply) cross-analyzed individual student level data with school level priorities and travel time to generate a list of accessible programs for each student. collapse these programs at the school level and generate summary statistics for “effective choices”, including average graduation rate, safety rating, and school demographics. ignore admissions priorities and generate an “effective choice” measure by limiting travel to 45 or less in order to isolate the impact of admissions priorities on supply. Finally, I merge in actual match data for comparison.

SUPPLY SIDE CONSTRAINTS on average, students in New York City have access to 54 schools (12% of total) with a graduation rate of 71.7% significant heterogeneity in school quality across boroughs and race Eliminating admissions priorities and restricting choice using travel time alone increases access to 107 schools with an overall graduation rate of 73.3%. We see the most significant gains for Bronx residents (increase of 3 percentage points) Comparing effective choice data with match data shows that students, on average, attend higher performing schools than the effective choice average, though gaps between student populations (by race and borough) increase substantially

SUPPLY SIDE CONSTRAINTS

Information/complexity Less than three months after submitting their high school applications: 65% of students recalled their first choice 45% recalled their second choice 31% recalled their third choice Student surveys collected from 954 eighth graders in 25 high poverty schools

Influence of school guidance Students attending schools where the guidance counselor provided action-guiding advice were 27% more likely to recall their top choice school Students with GCs willing to recommend/dissuade, significantly better off than the most hands-off on multiple outcomes: (1) Graduation Rate of Choices 1-3; (2) Graduation Rate, Matched Schools; (3) Post-Secondary Attendance, Choices 1-3; and(4) Post-Secondary Attendance, Matched Schools

Ideas for moving forward IMPLEMENTATION OF DOE HS ADMISSIONS CHANGES INFO/GUIDANCE/TRAINING TO: MS Personnel HS Personnel Students/Families CBO’s/External Agencies OVERSIGHT/COMPLIANCE MS/HS Admissions PUBLIC/SCHOOL PERSONNEL RESPONSES TO CHANGES Parents/students behaviors & barriers School behaviors CBO staff To what extent do changes meet families’ needs/satisfy demand? IMPACTS Who is benefiting from changes?  

Carolyn sattin-bajaj (Seton Hall): sattinca@shu.edu nychighschooladmissionstudy.com With Jennifer Jennings (Princeton), sean Corcoran (NYU) & sarah cohodes (TC/Columbia)