The relationship between school choice and racial diversity has been a common theme throughout our discussions this semester. Allison Roda and Amy Stuart Wells’ “School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation” explores how so-called “colorblind” school choice policies often lead to the opposite, further stratifying already segregated schools. Norm Fruchter’s “Is Demography Still Destiny?” discusses the correlation between college readiness and race, and how Bloomberg’s policy of school choice was designed (and failed) to narrow this racial achievement gap. This theme is also relevant to the school profile Christina, Kashaf, and I are developing about Staten Island Technical High School and New Dorp High School. The SHSAT was designed to admit students based solely on test stores and not on race, and yet the specialized Staten Island Tech is much less diverse than the neighboring New Dorp High School.
Roda and Wells examine how parents will almost always want their children to attend the “best” schools over the racially diverse schools. A majority of the parents they interviewed valued diversity and stated that race was a factor in deciding on schools; however, they felt like they were limited in their school choice options. One mother described how she selected the school “that [she] felt had the best educational program even though [she] would like a school to be more diverse” (278). These schools with better educational programs became deemed the “good” schools.
Classifying certain schools as “good” naturally classifies other schools as “not good.” This social construction of deeming certain schools as “good” schools “was often based more on who was enrolled in each school as opposed to what was taught” (Roda and Wells, 282). The Bloomberg administration enacted the policy of school choice to give equal access to these “good” schools. Yet, as the Fruchter report illustrates, the “strategies of school choice and school creation are not sufficient to create the equity that the administration has envisioned” (1). This is relevant to our group’s analysis of Staten Island Tech and New Dorp High School. The specialized high schools like Staten Island Tech often boast about their students’ success, noting high Regents and SAT scores and college readiness. However, it is important to observe the prior achievement of these students. Would these so-called high-achieving students perform just as well if they attended a neighboring, non-specialized school like New Dorp?
I agree with your statement that school choice and racial diversity has become an overarching theme in this semester’s discussion and it is also the focus of many school profiles our class is doing. The two readings this week both served as to show how many school policies become a double edged sword after they have been implemented. Many times these policies serve to solve one problem while simultaneously feed a different problem. After reading these pieces and reflecting on my own experience it is amazing to see how much struggle and politics went through what seemed like a streamlined school progression for me.
Fruchter’s report was especially interesting to read because of an oversight by the Bloomberg administration when establishing the school choice policy. You mentioned that Bloomberg hoped to give all students an equal opportunity at “good” schools. However, the report found that when students’ top choices were typically “good” and more advantaged schools. However, their final choice were schools that were similar to their feeder schools. To an extent, I could also relate because a large amount of my friends and classmates from middle school also ended up attending the same high school as me. And the racial makeup of my high school was very similar to my middle school.
You also mentioned that in the Roda and Wells piece, how a mother described her school selection as selecting the school she “felt had the best educational program even though she would like a school to be more diverse.” When I was in elementary school, half way through, I transferred to another school because of a magnet program that placed me in a different school. I can say that my experience was very consistent with what the mother in the piece described. Although the schools itself may have seemed similar as a whole in terms of diversity, I could see the difference in the demographic make up of my classes. In my first school, my classes seemed more diverse and equally proportioned with students of all backgrounds. At my new school, my class was now dominated by mostly asian and white students.
Both of you do a nice job linking the articles to your own project and/or experiences. The question is, is there another way? Can we create an “objective” school admissions process that produces more equitable access? If not, which of these two values do we prioritize?