Author: Sophie Huang

“Is Demography Still Destiny?” and Roda and Wells’s article approach the issue of racial imbalance from two very different angles. Focusing on policies developed by the Bloomberg Administration, “Is Demography Still Destiny?” reveals that despite the effort put into narrowing the racial achievement gap, college readiness is still highly correlated to demographics and neighbourhoods.  The research suggests that the underlying cause is the algorithms designed to match students and high schools. On the other hand, Roda and Well’s article discusses the racial achievement gap by analyzing the definitions and causes of “good” school and “bad” school.

“Is Demography Still Destiny?” brings up two potential solutions: small-school system and in-school counselling system. According to the research, investing in these two systems into high schools may help decrease the racial achievement gap. And increasing the counselor-to-student ratio can increase the degree of attractiveness to students, parents, and future high school employees.  This is directly connected to what is discussed in Roda and Wells’s article (and the article somehow contradicts the solution mentioned in the research). According to Roda and Wells, many parents have a stereotype that schools with white as a major population perform much better than the schools with Latino and African American as major population. Sadly, whether a school was good or bad “was often based more on who was enrolled in each school as opposed to what was taught” (282). If that’s the case, increasing the counselor-to-student ratio will not make a big difference since parents only focus on the existing student demographics.

In my opinion, destructing existed stereotypes on our educational system and building confidence in parents and students are the keys to decrease the racial achievement gap. I went to an absolutely “not-special” public high school in Queens. The school is neither a specialized school nor a magnet or charter high school. The school has no special affiliation with religions. My high school hosts more than 3,500 students, and there are only 4 college advisors. But what made my parents pick that high school? The answer lies in the demographics of the school – approximately 46% of the student population is Asian. I am an Asian. My parents feel more comfortable and safer putting me in an environment where there are a lot of Asian peers. Therefore, from my personal experience, changing people’s mindsets is more important than setting up mandatory policies.

Although organized within an extremely short period of time (only one summer), Benjamin Franklin High School was perhaps one of the most important milestones throughout the U.S. history of education. Benjamin Franklin High School was built under a unique situation: it faced the turmoil left by the great depression, the obstacles came with the politics and legislation, and the increasingly diversified and populated neighborhoods.

After the Depression, the government budget for school maintenance was cut back. At the same time, child labor and delinquency were brought to the spotlight along with the rise of civil services. The government had to think of a way to direct children and teenagers to schools from the streets. East Harlem, where the school located, was a very diverse community. The neighborhood was the home to Italians, Irish, Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and many other races.

With such interesting historical background, a serious problem came up when Leonard Covello and his colleagues tried to build a school “for all children of all people” (115, Johnek and Puckett). How to build a school that suit all children from all backgrounds? I was very impressed by Covello’s invention of “Street Unit” – “a unit that functions literally in the street” (125). In order to rebuild and strengthen the bond between school and community, Benjamin Franklin High school served not only as a public high school for kids, but also as a community playground for neighborhood children and a community center for adults. In this way, the benefits of education were not limited to children enrolled in the school. The execution of “Street Unit” reflected the optimistic atmosphere of East Harlem – parents and teachers formed numerous community clubs; recreational activities were frequently housed throughout the neighborhood; not only teachers and government officers, but also neighbors joined various campaigns to promote school and community beautification. It was heart-warming to see all people were working for a better future for their family, home, and community.

While reading Johnek and Puckett’s piece, I realized that without Covello, his colleagues, and all neighbors’ effort and determination, it was impossible to build a school “for all children of all people” at that time. All of them contributed in their ways and that made Benjamin Franklin High School a school for all people.

From the “Equity and Excellence for All” agenda, one can see that the Department of Education has tried very hard to create equity inside the classrooms of New York City public schools. People cheered for it because it’s a grand idea to make underrepresented students’ dreams come true. And at the same time, the DOE took a significant step toward equity by expanding the definition of diversity: not only students with different racial backgrounds, but also those who with different housing status and sexual orientations are included in this agenda.

Although I believe “Equity and Excellence for All” is a wonderful program, I have some questions on its ability to maintain equity in public schools with limited capital and space in a long run.

First, more funding for magnet schools in New York City can backfire. Since magnet schools have a large number of educational resources, they will attract more students to apply to the schools. As a result, students who come from better family backgrounds and have access to better educational services are more likely to stand out from the pool of applicants. This can negatively affect the admissions of the underrepresented students. Since the agenda does not specify, how should the diversity grants work toward selecting students? 

“Equity and Excellence for All” provides many helpful approaches to improve equity in NYC public schools, but it overlooks the major influence that comes from the students’ families. Many underrepresented students come from low-income, single-parent, or even abusive family backgrounds. Pressure from the family can cause the students to give up college education after high school. In order to help students further their education, “Equity and Excellence for All” can add a proposal that connects students’ family conditions to the DOE. Savings for post-high school education should be emphasized in the proposal. Giving out after-school job offers to students of low-income is also a great way to help set up future funds for them.

Both “equity” and “excellence” are the goals of the plan. I hope the target schools do not rush to meet student quota and neglects the quality of the education provided to the underrepresented students. Will more teachers be assigned to the incoming students? Will funds be distributed evenly among students from all kinds of different backgrounds? Overall, “Equity and Excellence for All” is a great program and it is not easy to implement it into our education system. I look forward to seeing its positive results in the next few year.