Category: Response 1

Looks like everything works

NYC’s DOE, “Equity and Excellence for All: Diversity in New York City Public Schools” is a great starting point for NYC to have a foundation to desegregate schools. It is better than not getting anything done, however, there are multiple flaws within the proposal itself.

On page 4, the DOE lists 3 goals to desegregate students and increase racial representation within the school communities. From a glance, they seem like great steps, but when we compare it to the actual data, the goals are pretty much low.  For example, goal #2 states: “Increase the number of students in a racially representative school by 50,000 within the next five years”.  Currently there are 1.1 million students attending NYC public schools. If we calculate the ratio, the DOE plans on just increasing representation by 5%. That number is going to decrease as more students are getting enrolled into the school system each year. As defined by DOE, “a racially represented school is considered if blacks and Hispanics make up at least 50%, but no more than 90% of the student population. That potentially means that a school can technically have 89% black and Hispanic student population while still be referred to as racially represented. In my opinion, that school is not considered, “racially represented”, but in fact segregated. They quote, “30.7% of our schools are racially represented, but they never mention the percentages within each school. This data is very vague and does not tell us anything.

While I while reading, I noticed there was no mention of the word “equity” despite it being included in the name of the proposal. It was never defined or incorporated into the goals to increase diversity. It seems like it was just another fancy filler word that showed there was improvement and changing coming. Diversity is constantly mentioned, but the concept is still a little vague for me. On page 6, the DOE has begun implementing actions to increase diversity. One of which is to, “eliminate the”limited unscreened” method for admission into high schools” and instead replace it with “admission methods” to promote greater diversity.  In this particular section, the DOE states that many high-need students are not given priority into these high schools because they are faced with a barrier of resources and time. By replacing a new admission method will increase their chances. But, there is no reference as to what this new method will look like. There is no specific plan as to the step in creating this method and how can we be positive that it will actually increase diversity.

Overall, I feel that this agenda create my DOE is a great starting point, but much of there goals are too low and really vague. There are no guidelines as in how they will be able to address the multiple issues within our school system, but it is better than nothing.

The Department of Education’s report Diversity in New York City Public Schools released in 2017 outlined goals to achieve “Equity and Excellence for all.” Their goals are to increase the number of students in racially representative schools, decrease the number of economically stratified schools, and increase the number of inclusive schools to serve English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. The DOE assigned a School Diversity Advisory Group to work with the community and help New York City achieve these goals.

The report doesn’t address New York’s segregation problem by name. The word segregation is never mentioned, but it’s referred to in roundabout phrases like “increased diversity” and “racial representation.” The way data is represented also goes out of its way to avoid talking about segregation. It uses the phrase “economically stratified” to define schools that don’t have students from integrated income levels, but won’t say that schools without racial integration are segregated or even racially stratified. Instead it says “30.7% of schools are racially representative today,” leaving readers to infer that the rest are segregated. The report doesn’t mention that a significant percent of economically stratified students are also minority students. The language purposely leaves out politically loaded words like “segregation” and “integration.” There doesn’t seem to be a reason not to call the plan an attempt at integration until you check the date of its release, in June 2017, and remember that the mayor was in a reelection campaign and that integration is a controversial problem.

A major concern when reading this report is that the bar seems really low. The first goal in the plan is to increase the number of students in racially representative schools by 50,000 over the next five years, but there are 1.1 million students in NYC public schools, and there are no plans mentioned to continue this success after the first five years. The second goal is to decrease the number of economically stratified schools by 150 in the next five years, but there are over 1,700 schools and again there’s no mention of change after that. The third goal in the plan is to increase the number of inclusive schools for English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities and this goal doesn’t even have a number goal to strive for.

While the proposals for how to achieve these goals might be criticized for not adequately addressing the problems of NYC schools, the report and case studies of various other schools make it seem like desegregation is best solved on a case by case basis. “The larger, long-term work of making our schools more diverse must be driven by meaningful community discourse and debate,”  and this statement probably refers to community efforts to integrate their local public schools. Most of these proposals would be amazing for New York City schools as a whole, like online applications and increased STEM/AP participation, but the most important work of integrating NYC schools is still left to be done at the community level with the support of the DOE.

From the NYC Department of Education report, “Equity and Excellence For All,” we can see NYC’s endeavor to create a classroom with equity and diversity. It shows that NYC is trying to remove its title of having “the most segregated schools in the country”. DOE states its goal clearly in this report: 1. To increase the number of students in a racially representative school by 50,0002. To decrease the number of economically stratified school by 10% 3. To increase the number of inclusive schools which allow ESL students and students with disabilities to attend.

The general purpose of this report is pretty much straightforward: To address the current problems regarding diversity and equity in our education system. According to the report “New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction, and a Damaged Future,” NYC has “the most segregated schools in the country,” where many students are not only isolated by race, but also by income. It is ironic that NYC, which is considered as the most diverse city in the world, has failed so completely to represent such diversity in its education system. Therefore, the diversity stated in this report does not only refer to race and ethnicity but also refer to different socioeconomic statuses such as income, family education, and occupation. The goals of this report can be summarized as to stress diversity during school admission, to help students who come from a lower income family, to provide funding for students who have special needs such as ESL (English as second language) students, to create a friendlier school environment to students from every background, and, most importantly, to eliminate educational inequality among students. The report has made it clear that the DOE is working on letting students from diverse backgrounds receive equal access to better education. It is an important step toward the desegregation and equity of our education system.

However, some of its policies still remain in question. For example, in Policy 10 DOE is really vague on how do we create a more welcoming school climate for all students. Even though implementing a restorative approach is a good start, it is only a small part of having a welcoming school atmosphere to all students. As far as I am concerned, a good school climate is one of the most important things to a school and DOE should be really clear and specific on how to make this happen.

Even though many of the DOE policies have many flaws, it shows DOE’s determination to promote equality and diversity among many of the public schools in NYC. I hope that when DOE gradually implements those policies, it can also find the many drawbacks in these policies and improve them.

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.

This report was very eye opening to me because of how little I know about the diversity statistics of NYC public schools especially after having attended them my whole life. To read that the NYC DOE’s expects only an 80% high school graduation rate and only 2/3 of graduates being college ready after the implementation of these policies was shocking. In my high school, not going to college was not an option – we spent all four years preparing for college. Reading that at least a third of students are not ready and that the reasoning behind that number is tied to a lack of diversity in NYC schools is disappointing. It is 2018 and I believe that this report was very well overdue.

I think that the comprehensiveness of this report is what people liked about it. The DOE provided goals and defined them, as seen on page 4. I think another good feature of this report is the hopefulness of the NYC DOE. It lists many steps to achieve diversity and provides descriptions as to how diversity will be achieved. It also continuously promises throughout the report that they will prioritize making schools diverse. As a specialized high school alum, I am glad to see that SHSAT preparation courses are being provided in certain middle schools through the DREAM program. It takes a lot of money to send a child to SHSAT preparation courses and having the courses provided at schools for free is a great help for the parents and for the child’s future.

This report has a lot of plans for the future, but it seems that some of these may be easier said than done, which may be why people have criticized this report. For example, Policy 8 reminds me of the New York Times article we read by Nicole Hannah-Jones, “Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City”. Just like the parents of the children attending P.S. 8 did not agree with the re-zonings and called a meeting with school officials, who is to say there will not be a great pushback on the re-zonings mentioned in Policy 8. The report also uses a lot of numbers to show statistics to validate the legitimacy of the DOE’s statements, however some are not that promising. For example, the 10^th policy is vague and includes numbers of staff trained and number of schools these programs have been implemented in (which is 400 out of the 1,800 schools). The approach to increase these numbers is unclear and there are no specifications as to what creates a welcoming school climate or what the reform in school discipline is.

While this report is hopeful, there is still a lot that the DOE can clear up on their end and expand further upon.

The NYC Department of Education’s report, “Equity and Excellence for All,” outlined their approach to foster learning environments that reflect the diversity of the City.  While the report was praised for its inclusive efforts, it was still met with some criticism.  Although it outlines potentially successful and beneficial efforts, the report is only a beginning step in changing the landscape of the public school system and tackling issues of diversity.

The general purpose of this report is to inform the public how the Department of Education is addressing the problems schools face with respect to diversity. The report begins with the statement that “the Department is reinforcing school diversity as a priority” (3).  On the surface, this appears to be an important priority of the DOE.  The word diversity encompasses many different forms, including racial background, socioeconomic status, and immigration status.  All forms of diversity need to be addressed, and the report subsequently proceeds to discuss them.  However, my biggest issue with this statement is that it implies diversity was not always a priority.  New York is a melting pot, with people from all different backgrounds living together as neighbors; this is what makes it such a great place to live.  Having the largest school system in the country, New York should have already had its schools be reflective of its vastly diverse population.

In my opinion, one of the more controversial policies was Policy 7; in it, the DOE plans to open new, high-quality schools and programs to foster diversity (11).  They “aim to open 15 new schools or programs over the next three years that have specific plans to serve diverse populations beginning with schools or programs opening in 2018.”  There are many benefits to this; namely, it will create more diverse classrooms.  Students at these schools will have access to great programs such as bilingual programs and STEAM, career, and technical programs.  These would greatly aid students coming from neighborhoods where these programs are not readily available.  However, a large controversy with this policy is that funds will be dedicated to building new schools and not allotted to fixing older, dilapidated ones.  Many schools are in desperate needs of refurbishing and upgrading.  While it is certainly a positive that these new schools will give students greater access to new programs, it comes at the expense of other students who could not attend them.  Instead of building new schools, funds should be used to increase STEAM and bilingual programs at existing schools who lack them.

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.