From the “Equity and Excellence for All” agenda, one can see that the Department of Education has tried very hard to create equity inside the classrooms of New York City public schools. People cheered for it because it’s a grand idea to make underrepresented students’ dreams come true. And at the same time, the DOE took a significant step toward equity by expanding the definition of diversity: not only students with different racial backgrounds, but also those who with different housing status and sexual orientations are included in this agenda.
Although I believe “Equity and Excellence for All” is a wonderful program, I have some questions on its ability to maintain equity in public schools with limited capital and space in a long run.
First, more funding for magnet schools in New York City can backfire. Since magnet schools have a large number of educational resources, they will attract more students to apply to the schools. As a result, students who come from better family backgrounds and have access to better educational services are more likely to stand out from the pool of applicants. This can negatively affect the admissions of the underrepresented students. Since the agenda does not specify, how should the diversity grants work toward selecting students?
“Equity and Excellence for All” provides many helpful approaches to improve equity in NYC public schools, but it overlooks the major influence that comes from the students’ families. Many underrepresented students come from low-income, single-parent, or even abusive family backgrounds. Pressure from the family can cause the students to give up college education after high school. In order to help students further their education, “Equity and Excellence for All” can add a proposal that connects students’ family conditions to the DOE. Savings for post-high school education should be emphasized in the proposal. Giving out after-school job offers to students of low-income is also a great way to help set up future funds for them.
Both “equity” and “excellence” are the goals of the plan. I hope the target schools do not rush to meet student quota and neglects the quality of the education provided to the underrepresented students. Will more teachers be assigned to the incoming students? Will funds be distributed evenly among students from all kinds of different backgrounds? Overall, “Equity and Excellence for All” is a great program and it is not easy to implement it into our education system. I look forward to seeing its positive results in the next few year.
Offering equal opportunities to any and every student has always been the ideal goal for school policy makers for a long time now. As diverse as New York City is and seems, the fact that New York State has the most segregated schooling system is a testament to how hard it is to implement policies that ensure diversity in the long run. The “Equity and Excellence for All” agenda is the latest attempt to tackle this issue and I agree with your assessment that the Department of Education took a significant step toward equity by its expansion of what is inclusive in their definition of diversity.
Prior to reading this and readings we’ve done in the class, when it came to promoting diversity in schools, I’ve always thought that increasing diversity was only a matter of representing more races. I enjoyed the fact that they mentioned aspects like housing status, sexual orientation, immigration status and more when stating the groups they are trying to help represent in New York City schools. One statistic that I found interesting was how high school applications take a minimum of 25-72 hours to complete- time that many parents cannot afford to spend because of financial obligations. By taking factors like this into account, the Department of Education states that families that experience this are inclusive to the diversity it hopes to create in schools. One way they are trying to solve this problem is by removing the screening barrier that limits families that can’t afford the time or resources. Although it is great to know that families with these needs are being considered in policy changes, I would have hope for a more detailed explanation on how they would implement this change.
As a magnet student from the 4th grade to 8th grade, I agree with your statement that funding magnet schools in New York City can backfire. In my situation, my mother has always been active in getting my brothers and I into the magnet program. My older brother got into the program and transferred middle schools in first grade. I however, did not get into the program in kindergarten and stayed at my zoned elementary school until the 3rd grade. My mother persisted by getting very involved in school. I was able to retest for the program, and eventually I got into the magnet program and transferred elementary schools. Because of the way magnet schools are set up, even though there may be more magnet programs being funded, those who are more well resourced and more persistent are able to drive out needier applicants. It is encouraging to hear that the Department of Education is actively trying to create a more diverse student body in magnet programs. However, I would like to know more specific details on how this will be enforced and how they can keep these programs diverse as intended. Overall these policies have a great direction, but it would have given me more confidence in these policies if they elaborated more on how these policies will be enforced.
Thanks for this, Derek and Sophie. One thing to think about with the DOE’s pledge to change the screening process for schools, is that the proposal only addresses the “limited unscreened schools” — which are schools that do not screen for test scores but screen for students showing interest by attending an open house or signing up at a high school fair. This means that all the schools that use test scores and grades for admissions will not be affected. The plan may increase diversity in some schools, but not in the schools that most of the students in our seminar attended.