Author: ashleymeitorrenti

The two readings, School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation: Where White Parents’ Good Intentions, Anxiety, and Privilege Collide and Is Demography Still Destiny, both explore the relationship between school “choice” and its impact on students of different backgrounds (in particular white families and students of color) and neighborhoods.

Roda and Wells briefly discussed the impact of magnet schools, which does pertain in some ways to Jamaica H.S. since the opening of magnet school Townsend Harris resulted in a “brain drain” from Jamaica H.S. Additional, the idea of “bad” and “good” schools (as defined in the minds of white families) does pertain to Jamaica H.S. and the four new schools since they are deemed as a “poor performing” school by more endowed and privileged families that have “better” options available to them. However, between the two readings, the study conducted by Annenberg Institute for School Reform relates most our school profile of Jamaica High School. This study looks at the relationship between neighborhood, demographics, family background, and the impact they have on the schools they attend. Additionally, the study sought to explore the impact of the Bloomberg administrations new policy of allowing a “choice” of high schools, in which students could apply to attend a high school that they were not zoned for. The study showed that most students first choice schools were less racially isolated than their middle school, however, the school they actually ended up attending were more similar to their middle school. The study concluded that while there were more choices, it did little to increase the “systematic equity of opportunity” for students of color, low socio-economic status, or students that came from poor middle schools or families with a low educational background.

The major difference between the four new high schools of Jamaica and the original Jamaica H.S. is the student achievement. Student achievement of the four new schools compared to Jamaica H.S.  is significantly higher. This is due to the type of students coming into the school, who are required to meet a certain cut off in terms of academics. This new admissions policy is contrary to the original acceptance policy where students have to apply or were zoned. The new schools are strictly schools of choice. In the Annenberg study, a suggestion to help address creating more opportunities to disadvantaged students (within the Bloomberg policy of school choices) was the ed. opt. Through this, schools kept a certain amount of seats open for students who might not meet the schools’ criteria, but could still do well in the school given the proper resources. While we do not know where the students of the four new Jamaica H.S.s are applying from, we do know that they are more ethnically diverse and still have a high percentage of students that are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (indicated by the percentage of students that qualify for FRL). All four school’s admission policy is through ed. opt. and, to some form of limited screening.

Past readings explored how disadvantaged students (racial, economic, social, or neighborhood wise) lack the opportunity to study in a school that they were not assigned to. However, these two readings show how even provided with the choice of schools (or the illusion of choice), this policy still fails to create systematic equal opportunities.

My understanding of the notion of “busing” in relation to school desegregation changed after reading Delmont’s chapter in many ways. My original perspective was that busing was a positive alternative for New York City public schools to provide for African American students who were seeking admittance to better-funded schools that provided better opportunities. What I did not know was the extent of the “white backlash” to this alternative. Additionally, I did not realize that the argument involving this “busing” policy dominated the debate of integrating schools rather than the original protest of African American families calling for better-funded schools and equal opportunities in the New York City public education system.

I was really surprised to learn in Delmont’s chapter the extent of backlash this policy received from white families and even how it was portrayed to the public. Through this reading, I gained the understanding that this policy was only a small provision provided by the Board of Education, but the issue was interpreted as a policy that would affect all New York City students resulting in students commuting for an hour or longer. Additionally, many discouraged parents from partaking in “bussing.” Even the “open enrollment policy,” while it portrayed the Board of Education as compliant and in agreement with efforts to integrate schools, this option was not widely accessible and led to little integration.

A large part of this is due to the way it was portrayed in the media. “Busing” dominated a lot of articles in various media outlets such as in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Additionally, the coverage of the Harlem protests in comparison to the white family protests was filmed in such a way that created  “point-counterpoint interview segments.” This insinuates the equivalency between the protests of civil rights activists and the demands of white parents who opposed school desegregation.  Delmont stated, “Instead of seeing school segregation as an issue that necessarily involved changing structures of racial discrimination, “busing” enable parents, schools’ officials, politicians, and the media to frame the story around the preferences and demands of white parents.” Ultimately this diverted the attention towards better education opportunities and instead made integration a focal point.

I believe that this was the crux of this article, the idea that busing became the focal point of white families, masking the true demand of African American parent’s protest for better schooling options.

This reading to show how this school addressed issues such as multiethnic communities and low-income background students to get an idea of how schools can try to reform their own system. Some of these failed and many succeeded. I also thought it was important to see how funding and federal cooperation plays a critical role. An example of this is how Benjamin Franklin had little funding to actually help with, not only the beautification of the school but also the development and maintenance of various programs and facilities such as bathrooms. An example of federal policy clashing with educational reform within East Harlem is when they instated the WPA rule of letting go of those who worked over 18 months. This move would cripple Benjamin Franklin’s WPA Program leaving teachers understaffed (even more so than they already were.

This long article had a lot of features that have tied into our other readings. The reading didn’t draw too much attention to it but briefly brought up the idea of school zones being drawn a certain way to exclude or include a particular demographic. The school’s attendance zone would be drawn so to as to “avoid a large influx of Negros from the Central Harlem District.” Additionally, the reading also talked about how “…educators also sought to adjust the high school curriculum to the perceived talents and destinies of children with different backgrounds.” This type of issue, within the context, seemed similar to tracking which is often debated on when discussing education policy.

This reading fits into the course because of how this was a school that was created to help alleviate certain concerns pertaining to the existing education system of that time and location. Some of those issues included trying to increase high school enrollment within East Harlem, but also provide relief for overcrowded schools. However, it also had to juggle different issues such as low attendance, high dropout rates, different ethnic groups, and students coming from low economic backgrounds. Benjamin Franklin is an example of a school that attempts to remedy these issues through various programs and revolutionizes the education system in East Harlem by creating a “community-centered schooling.” Some of these programs succeeded and other failed. The failure for this often arises from issues with funding, federal cooperation and lack of aid.