Kiriaki and I are working on a project about Brooklyn Technical High School, which is a specialized high school that admits students based solely on SHSAT exam scores. Brooklyn Tech is regarded as one of the most elite high schools in New York City. However, its racial demographics are overwhelmingly made up of whites and Asians, with few Hispanics or black students being represented. Racial inequality in the New York City school system such as that which is embodied by Brooklyn Tech, is an issue that we have been studying heavily during this semester.
According to “Is Demography Still Destiny?” the Bloomberg administration focused on expanding school choice options in an attempt to narrow the racial achievement gap by giving minority races more opportunities to get into “better” schools like Brooklyn Tech. However, the aforementioned study determined that “choice has not been sufficient to increase systemic equity of opportunity” (2). Although this might seem obvious due to lack of economic resources in poor neighborhoods and difficulties involving navigation of the school choice maze, Bloomberg sought only to address demographic inequality and lack of opportunity through school choice, with vague reasoning as to why this would work (which mirrors the vague wording of the Equity and Excellence for All diversity report). Despite Bloomberg’s grand plans of immense options for school choice, “students tended to prefer high schools that matched their own academic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds…These patterns suggest that universal choice [is] limited in its ability to prevent stratification of students across schools by race, socioeconomic status, and academic ability” (Corcoran and Levin, 214-215). Rather, college readiness of high school students appears to be highly correlated with the neighborhood in which the students reside.
In contrast, Roda and Wells’s “School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation…” suggests an entirely different issue in the NYC school system, the perception of good vs. bad schools. Often times, white schools are perceived as being better than schools with large numbers of black and Hispanic students. This issue was explored in several of our readings this semester, particularly in the Delmont reading on busing, where black families wanted their students to be bused to better, whiter schools. However, why are majority white schools often deemed as being better than other schools? What makes them better? What exactly does a school need in order to be considered a good school?
These questions comes into play when studying Brooklyn Technical High School. What makes other non-specialized schools in the area less prestigious than Brooklyn Tech? Furthermore, why should Brooklyn Tech get more economic resources than “inferior” schools in the area? The Roda and Wells reading cites a study that addresses this issue in further detail. It states: “There is also some evidence that the process of sorting students through choice polices leads to self-fulfilling prophecies of “good” and “bad” schools, as those enrolling the most students from advantaged families are automatically seen as “better” (see Bifulco et al. 2009; Holme 2002; Wells et al. 2009).” In addition, even though many white parents claim that they want to see more diversity within their schools, they continue to participate in practices that go against these beliefs, such as by sending their children to expensive private schools that are almost entirely white, giving them a leg up in the educational hierarchy (284).
What if there was no such thing as a bad school? What if every school had an equal amount of resources? If every school in Brooklyn was given the same amount of funding per student that Brooklyn Tech was given, would this not be a way to rectify the lack of equity in racial opportunity? The next step in ridding New York City schools of segregation has to invoke a demolition of the concept of “good” and “bad” schools. Rather, the New York City government must ensure that all schools in New York City are good, which can be done by giving each school an equal amount of economic and academic resources.
Annmarie, I like how you related the articles to your research topic and school of choice, Brooklyn Tech. You raise many important questions. To me, it was not surprising to learn from “Is Democracy Still Destiny?” that students prefer schools with students of similar backgrounds (demographics, academics, etc). However, it was surprising to me that although this is what these students prefer and rank as their top choice, they end up going to high schools more similar to their middle schools. As this also came up in class, perhaps the problem lies in middle schools; maybe we need to diversify middle and elementary schools so that those students could end up going to high schools that are diverse like them.
In addition, while reading the “School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation…,” I also had the same questions as you! “Why are majority white schools often deemed as being better than other schools? What makes them better? What exactly does a school need in order to be considered a good school?” Having thought about it, I deem a school good if the students in it produced high grades, if they get into good proceeding schools (whether it be middle school, high school, college, etc), and if there is a rigorous academic program as well as many after school programs/opportunities for students to excel in every way. Another question that arose to me while we were discussing “screening” in class is do “good” and “bad” schools screen in the same manner? How is it that “good” schools are most of the time predominantly white?
Thanks for both of your posts. It does seem that we cannot ignore racism when talking about school quality. Why are schools with more white students perceived as “better” schools by white families? Is there such thing as an objectively-good school? The Bloomberg administration tried to identify “good” schools as those that improved students’ test scores, but many families rejected that measure because schools with high-scoring students often did not raise their scores that much, and thus received a lower rating than schools with fewer high-scoring students. But since we know that economic status predicts student test scores, we end up in something of a tautology. A “good” school is a school with high-scoring students; and high-scoring students make a school good. So, is there a better way to identify a “good” school? Or is there another way forward?