The Department of Education’s report, “Equity and Excellence for All,” puts forward plans to create an education system where “…students will benefit from diverse and inclusive schools and classrooms where all students, families and school staff are supported and welcomed” (1). This policy, which was released in June 2017, hopes to increase the number of racially-representative schools, decrease the number of economically-stratified schools, and increase the number of inclusive schools for English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. They hope to do this by setting priorities and goals, convening and collaborating with experts and community leaders, acting on their policies, and informing communities about their initiatives. The report is short and simple, which is likely a quality that certain residents valued upon its release.
Despite the Department of Education’s repeated claims that they, “have already taken steps… to make our schools more diverse and representative of our city and our communities,” their report lacks clearly defined procedures for doing just that (5). Most policies are ambiguous at best. Those policies that are slightly more specific, such as the decision to optimize admissions processes through online applications, seem to address minute details that do not adequately address segregation in NYC schools. Furthermore, the report states that although the NYC DOE has taken steps to address diversity issues in schools, their “…efforts are incomplete without more community conversations and concrete actions that result in greater school diversity” (1). Whilst continuously praising the work of the NYC DOE, the report claims that communities within the area must do their part in order for them to fully realize the DOE’s goals. Yet, specific ways in which these communities can do so, are not discussed, which was likely a complaint of many of the policy’s critics.
Section 3a outlines the decision to “streamline the formal mechanisms to learn about school options and apply.” It hopes to mobilize the entire application process for schools in order to save working families time and stress. However, although doing so would make it easier to personalize the application process for students of different backgrounds, it is also concerning that students will have to have access to the Internet in order to apply for school. Once again, an additional entry barrier is introduced for poverty-stricken families who want to give their children a good education. Many people in New York City do not have access to the Internet and would therefore not benefit from this initiative. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the paper application process. Although some may find it confusing, it would be no less confusing if the process were moved to a virtual platform. Thus, this “solution” is not really necessary or helpful.
Although this policy has many flaws, I do agree with its goal of increasing the participation of underrepresented students in advanced classes. Courses such as these expose students to real-world issues that will not only prepare them for their future careers, but that will also give them an advantage in the college admissions process. It is important to show children that they can pursue any career path of their choice, no matter what their gender, socioeconomic status, or race is. These classes will do exactly that. However, it is concerning that only an additional fifty, out of 1,800 NYC schools, will implement this program. This is not a high enough quantity of schools to make a large impact on diversity in high-level classes.
Moreover, this policy does not make sweeping strides to combat segregation in NYC schools. It serves merely to outline the city’s vow to spread diversity in all schools across the area. Still, this policy is an important step towards increased equality in New York City schools.
I agree very much with your argument. I felt the same way about the report, specifically that some of the policies from the report are somewhat vague. It is easy to talk about problems that need to be fixed, and say what needs to happen in order to fix them, but it is not easy to make these words come true. For some of the policies, it remains unclear as to how they will be implemented. For example, like you said, how do these policies “make our schools more diverse and representative of our city?” (5). It is also noteworthy that the word “segregation” is not mentioned, although it is a problem amongst NYC schools.
In response to what you said about 3a, I also believe that “streamline[ing] the formal mechanisms for families to learn about school options and apply” will not be accessible to everyone (7). Those who do not have access to the Internet will not be able to learn about these middle schools and high schools on their own. In addition, I do not think that children who are 10 years old, applying to middle schools, will be going on the Internet to read about different schools that they may want to apply to. Automating school applications online will make the process more independent for the students because all of the information will be online, so hypothetically the teachers don’t need to play a role in the process. However, I believe that at such a young age, children and families need more guidance and education on how to choose a school than what can be provided online. I agree that although the paper application may be more tedious, it is better to hand out information in school and let the children apply on paper. I know it sounds nice to have a “personalized process for each student”, but realistically, that is very difficult for larger schools to do (8). Overall, the ideas of the report are a good first step towards progressing the education system. The report very well acknowledges that changes needs to be made, and that is important.