1. 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?

2. 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 ) 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.

3. 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.

5. 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
are lower income

6. 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
are lower income

7. 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”)

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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. SUPPLY SIDE CONSTRAINTS

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

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