Since many people reading this aren't familiar with the NYC public school system, I think it is important to emphasize NYC has many, many, opportunities for stu

Since many people reading this aren't familiar with the NYC public school system, I think it is important to emphasize NYC has many, many, opportunities for students to get specialized education at the high school level that is not dependent on standardized tests. When i was in High School there was The Urban Academy, the School for the Arts, City as School, and many high schools had "magnet" programs that students could apply to and if accepted, they would attend a school that was "better" than their local (zoned) school on a academic track with a particular emphasis (journalism, science, etc.) This system was byzantine, and made going to high school much like applying to college, but there was no lack of options. Since that time many more alternatives have been introduced, not only charter schools but many other schools based on particular theories and approaches to education. The only schools predicated on a single standardized test are the ones referenced in the article, and i think it is great there are schools with objective criteria for admission. I attended Stuyvesant in the 90s, and the student body wasn't very diverse. However, changing from a single objective test to an array of subjective criteria does nothing to alleviate the root problem, that some kids are getting better primary education than others. All such an initiative can do is weaken those schools and make them more like every other school in the city.