Author: Annmarie Gajdos

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.

The Delmont reading stresses the hypocrisy of forced efforts toward desegregation in the South and practically legalized segregation in the North. Often times the South is condemned for their racist and segregated ways. Although there is a reason for this, the North should not have been exempt from most desegregation efforts as they also have many racist policies pertaining to segregation, which still exist today. When over ten thousand New York mothers marched in protest against desegregation via busing on a snowy day in 1964, they demonstrated their refusal to end racism in the North. New York, which was being watched by the rest of the country through incessant media coverage, showed that whites would do everything in their power to postpone the efforts of desegregation. The most absurd part of their movement was the fact that they called themselves, “Parents and Taxpayers,” as if white families were the only ones who paid taxes in New York City.

I had not realized how large of an impact anti-busing movements had on the desegregation efforts in New York City. I could understand white parents’ anger if their children were to be shipped off to schools at extremely lengthy distances from their neighborhoods. However, instead Kenneth Clark, a member of the Commission on Integration, said that this was never an option or goal. He stated, “It was not long before we became aware of the fact that these distortions and rumors were not accidental. They seemed to have been planted and they received wide circulation throughout the city and the nation…. Systematic study of the report on zoning revealed that at no place in the report is there a suggestion that young children be “bused” any considerable distance in order to facilitate integration….” (35). Furthermore, in the past, white students had been bussed from black to non-black schools that were further away from their homes, but no protests had broken out about such busing efforts. This shows that the white rioters were not opposed to busing; they were opposed to giving equal educational rights to students of all races.

Due to a fear of the power of white families in New York City, Superintendent Jansen watered-down his zoning report in July 1957, much to the dismay of other members on the commission. Just like Chancellor Carmen Fariña’s recent Diversity Report which did not mention the word “segregation,” once, “Many other northern school officials, politicians, and parents shared Jansen’s distaste for the word segregation, preferring words like separation and racial imbalance” (32). Officials refused to acknowledge their racist policies, believing that they were morally-superior to that of the South, when in reality they were one in the same.

Moreover, northern whites’ protests of busing, which only represented one portion of the desegregation efforts, was an attempt to ensure that schools remained segregated. They used busing as a rallying cry for racist Americans everywhere. Their concerns were amplified through the efforts of the media. As a result, in terms of our segregated school system, we are no better off today than we were in the 1960s. Anti-busing efforts effectively stalled desegregation in New York.

This reading discusses Leonard Covello’s decision to found Benjamin Franklin High School, a school for the residents of East Harlem. Schools in the area, such as DeWitt Clinton High School, were overcrowded and insufficient for the community’s needs. The desire to improve the lives of the people who lived in this area, which was considered a subpar school district, motivated Leonard Covello to build a school that would have “industrial, commercial, and cultural training for all children of all people” (115). Thus, the creation of this community-centered school was connected to the neighborhood in which it was located, which is a topic that we have been discussing at length in our course. Furthermore, this reading was assigned because it analyzes the strong ties between racial and ethnic makeup of a neighborhood and that of the neighborhood’s schools.

In the 1920s, Italians comprised the largest ethnic group in East Harlem. By the 1930s, other areas of Harlem were made up of Finnish, Negro, and Puerto Rican residents, as well as smaller numbers of American, German, Irish, and Jewish residents. The Puerto Rican population in the area grew greatly in the 1940s. However, much like blacks in the 1950s, poor working-class groups were marginalized when they tried to enter the school system in order to turn their lives around. “School leaders across the country recoiled at the onslaught of young people who were deemed unfit for the high school” (112). Schools attempted to Americanize the growing population of immigrant youth in the area, which caused many students from East Harlem to be turned off by the negative treatment they experienced in school, resulting in a high dropout rate.

In order to combat this phenomenon, Leonard Covello and other politically active Italians, lobbied for the creation of a school that would better serve the residents of East Harlem, especially its growing Italian and Puerto Rican populations. He focused on the creation of a community-centered school that would help develop the district over time. His vision for the school was for it to be more than an academic institution, but rather a living center for everybody in the neighborhood to take advantage of. In addition to the creation of Benjamin Franklin High School, he created street units, an afternoon community playground, and an adult evening community center in order to blur the lines between the school and the rest of the community.

Benjamin Franklin High School was built to show the residents of East Harlem that they were just as smart as the students whom attended other prestigious universities in New York City. Sharing similar racial ideologies to that of Du Bois in, “Does the Negro Need Separate Schools?”, Covello wanted to change the negative psychological perception of East Harlem residents’ abilities. However, interestingly, in March 1936, only two years after the school was opened, East Harlem residents made up a mere 44% of the students at the school. They eventually became the majority group, but in the school’s early years, the existence of many students from other boroughs seemed to be contrary to Covello’s goals. This is quite worrisome since it appears as if Covello might have admitted students from more promising school districts to Bejamin Franklin High School for the purpose of enriching the academic success of the school.

Despite grappling with low attendance rates, the school eventually went on to become a pillar of life in East Harlem. Rather than trying to change its students, it showed them that their differences were valuable. For instance, Puerto Rican students were able to take classes in Spanish and had a wide range of cultural extra-curricular activities that they could participate in, which helped spread tolerance in the local community. Benjamin Franklin High School’s greatest achievement was its ability to teach students about actively effecting change within their own communities, which is something that policymakers of today should be focusing on.

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.