By Alex Zimmerman, Chalkbeat New York
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters
In the wake of his decision to double down on selective admissions, New York City schools Chancellor David Banks offered a blunt argument in favor of that approach: Students who work “really hard” should have priority access compared with “the child you have to throw water on their face to get them to go to school every day.”
Speaking in front of corporate, nonprofit, and education leaders at a forum hosted by the Association for a Better New York, Banks said: “We made a decision, after hearing all the arguments, that merit really should matter.”
“If you’ve got a child who works really hard on weekends, and putting in their time and energy and they get a 98 average — they should have a better opportunity to get into a high-choice school, then, you know, the child you have to throw water on their face to get them to go to school every day.”
Banks added that “all children are valuable,” but “if you have a child, who you’ve noticed putting that extra effort, they ought to have that opportunity.”
The remarks immediately drew fierce criticism from some educators, parents, and advocates who said they were insensitive and reflect the view that some children vying for middle and high school seats are less worthy of quality schools than others.
“When you’re talking about admissions screens for middle school students, you’re talking about 8- and 9-year-old kids,” said Nyah Berg, the executive director of New York Appleseed, a group that pushes for school integration. The comments, she said, “lacked empathy,” as some students might have trouble getting to school for reasons out of their control.
Compared with other large school districts, New York City allows a greater degree of screening based on academic achievement, which concentrates lower-performing students on the same campuses and contributes to the city’s status as one of the most racially segregated in the country.
Banks’ statements come at a particularly contentious moment, as his administration recently announced that middle schools will once again be allowed to use metrics, such as grades, to admit students after a pause on competitive admissions during the pandemic. Regional superintendents are currently in the process of determining how middle school screens will work on individual campuses.
For high schools, students must score in the top 15% of their class or top 15% citywide with at least a 90 average in their core subjects to get first access to selective schools under Banks’ admissions policy.
Asked by a reporter about what message his comments might send to parents about who the city’s public schools are for, he said “it wasn’t meant to cast aspersions.” The description of a student who needed to be doused with water to wake up for school “came from a parent who said it to me,” Banks said, adding that his own four children had varying levels of motivation.
He also referenced the Eagle Academy schools he helped launch in 2004, which are geared toward young men of color and do not screen students based on academic ability. “My entire career has been spent working with the least of these, trust me,” he said. “But I do know that we have some kids who are more motivated than others.”
A few observers defended Banks’ comments, including Robert Pondiscio, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a former public school teacher in the Bronx.
“If this outrages you ‘because equity’ there’s a good chance you’ve never taught low-income kids of color who work hard and get good grades,” he wrote on Twitter. “They are legion. And we teach them they’re chumps when we don’t recognize and reward them for it.”
This isn’t the first time Banks’ comments about academic screening have drawn scrutiny. In announcing the new middle and high school admissions policy, he made comments that some argued were similarly insensitive.
“If a young person is working their tail off every single day and they get a 99% average … that should be honored,” Banks said. “I think it’s really important that if you’re working hard and making the grade, you should not be thrown in a lottery with just everybody.”
Alex Zimmerman is a reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Finally! A chancellor who speaks the truth!
“will once again be allowed to use metrics, such as grades, to admit students after a pause on competitive admissions during the pandemic.” – Astonishing that “grades” will be “allowed” to be considered….at least there is progress.
Shocking! Hard work + performance = accomplishment! Kudos to the chancellor
Well, it may help with the teaching to the test issue.
He’s right.
Amen. I am glad we finally have a chancellor who seems to have some common sense. Life is a meritocracy, and teaching is better done in an environment with students of similar abilities. I have issues with elementary school G&T programs because differentiating kids at that age doesn’t make a lot of sense, but by middle and particularly high school, the variance in academic levels is large.
He is not arguing for ignoring kids who are not top performers. I think that everyone agrees that they are deserving of the exact same level of resources as every other kid, if not more. But strong academic performers should be further challenged and put in the best learning environment, much as the best future basketball players, cellists or electricians should similar be challenged.
Also, using the word “integration” is inaccurate when looking at this from a racial perspective. All students have the opportunity to get into all schools. The only thing holding them back is academic performance. That is in no way discriminatory. “Integration” and “segregation” are very loaded terms that do not accurate describe the situation.
In an ideal world, we would have a model that resembled suburban schools where there is tracking so that there are different classes in the same building being taught at different levels, but students interact with other students of different academic levels in lunch, home room, activities, etc. This way it would be less of a bubble. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
He’s not wrong.
His detractors basically peddle the racism of low expectations.
It’s amazing that his comments would be considered even remotely controversial.
Of course, some students are better and smarter than others. Stop this we are all equal. Do we have just anybody play sports or go to the Olympics, or do we have the best? Why don’t we care about education?
The only problem is the Banks leaves the decision to the districts’ superintendents . There are too many of that are still BDB people who only look at what will bring less heat from the ultra-progressive, grades are racist folks. It looks like in the UWS Samuels still thinks that grades are bad for society and luck is more important than merit.
To quote John F. Kennedy – 1961 –
“Life ain’t always fair”
Disgusting. He’s talking about children under ten!
(Here come the white parents who don’t make enough to send their kids to Trinity to say how great this is…I often wonder how much of the UWS’s racism is driven by the people who wish they could live on the UES, or Westchester, like their friends do, but don’t quiiiiite have enough money, and take it out on the people around them.)
Not everyone who wants a rigorous public school education wishes they were in private school. Nor do they wish to abandon our vibrant city for greener pastures.
Do you know what the acceptance rate at a school like Trinity is? Good luck getting a seat there unless you are a sibling or a legacy or fulfill a (laudable) goal of increasing diversity. Some can afford private school but choose not to do so out of principle.
A rigorous education should not be a luxury item that costs $60,000 a year. It should be the right of every single child in New York City.
Actually this is primarily focused on high school age kids. Anyone with children know that at this age, effort and being diligent at school is not universal.
I find it both ironic and frightening that you accuse people of all of your “-isms” yet you traffic in them even more. Do you know us? Do you know our backgrounds? Do you know that a lot of minority people are strongly in favor of this? And do you know that there are many people on the UWS who choose to live here, even though they can afford to live elsewhere? Though the prevalence of knee-jerk wokism in the neighborhood scares many rational, moderate Democrats away.
Also, please explain how this is racism? I want my high performing child to be in a class with other high performing children. I do not care what their background is. I just want them to be going at roughly the same pace and have the same passion for learning that my child and my family have. Are you saying that minorities are not capable of achieving academically? That seems to be your argument, which is actually more racist than what you are accusing us of.
Your attitude is really destructive and cruel. It seems like you are convinced you are so virtuous but in reality you are being almost as hateful as MAGA Republicans. Though I strongly agree with this policy change, I can see why others might not and have a respectful argument with them. Your attitude is not respectful.
David Banks is 100% correct. I salute him for taking a brave stance despite not being a particularly popular stance.
“Everyone gets a trophy” is destroying us. I went to a great school, but I met people who were way smarter than I am.
This is great. Next step, airline pilots. In case you have not heard, one airline wants to make the acceptance program of pilots more diverse. I don’t care what gender or race you are, I just want to be flown by the smartest, best qualified pilots possible. I have this pet peeve about not wanting to die due to a pilot error.
Same comment can apply to many professions…like doctors & engineer.
Makes a great distraction and if course the press and twittersphere eat it up.
The real problem is a severe shortage of good well-rounded schools like you find everywhere but impoverished areas.
Shortages bring out the worst in us.
Amazing. People objecting to use of academic achievement to differentiate performance in NYC. Only in NY. Do you think everyone can become a doctor or engineer? Do you want a below average doctor or engineer? There are career opportunities for everyone but that doesn’t mean that everyone should qualify for all the opportunities.
The thing everyone ignores is 1. top schools are really hard and 2. they don’t work when kids are sent there because its a “good school” and can’t keep up. The academics slow down to the lowest denominator which means presto its not a “good school” anymore. Nobody wins. Not the kids suffering through courses above their level and not the kids who deserve a challenging academic environment after years of elementary education at a painfully slow pace.
Dear good neighbors, we are talking about children here, not college admissions or beyond. Nowhere else in the country is so much at stake for one’s 4th and 7th grade grades.
It’s a shortage of good schools problem. Until this is addressed parents of kids who aren’t in the top 15% of being focused or able to pass the “marshmallow test” will either have to get an ADHD IEP or leave the system if they can.
Think back to your younger self and peers. How many are in that 15%, and where are they today? And where would they be if not in the same quality school as those 15% til age 18?
Outrageous that anyone might say that anyone who actually achieves something by working hard deserves what they achieve over someone who for whatever reason does not work as hard or fails. Why should superior commitment and performance not merit what they earned?
It is interesting that these self proclaimed activists no longer demand equality. Rather they incessantly demand equity. It is as though equality is the antithesis of equity.
It seems that they are actually tacitly conceding that they really do not believe that they posses the the capacity or the competence to compete on an equal basis. Therefore, they demand “equity,” that is, the same things others would get through achievement without having to suffer equality burdens of merit achievement.
True for adults, not children.
You want a society where 85% are basically told they suck at ages 10 and 13?
” Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” Joe Biden
Meritocracy is not the problem. The problem is that there are not enough available seats at “good” schools for all the qualifying students. The high school qualifier above (top 15% citywide w grades 90+) is thousands more students than there are seats. The pre-pandemic meritocracy regularly resulted in students being in the 2000th place on wait lists. This quickly erodes a child’s motivation — imaging working hard and making the grades for 8 years, only to be relegated to schools that cannot serve them adequately.
Similarly the gifted and talented program had a qualifying score of 90th percentile, but the seats were allocated from the top (100s, 99s, 98s, etc) and the seats ran out by 96th percentile or so. So the majority of those who qualified did not get placed.
DOE should stop reformulating admissions algorithms and start building schools. Lots of them. At least 5 per year. Imagine how many more students would be motivated to work hard to attend a bright shiny school. And imagine how much better it would be to actually have the infrastructure and seats to be able to reward meritocracy in practice instead of patting each other on the back for embracing the theory.
or start doing what every other school district does — have zoned elementary, middle and high schools. crazy to me that, in some instances, kids have to travel the lengths of their district to go to middle school and then travel the lengths of the city to go to high school.
1000% this. Principled discussions on rewarding hard work are not the issue. Let the kids who deserve go to Stuy or Beacon etc. the question is how as a society do we serve the rest?
In short the Chancellor may be right, but the job is so so so much more than being fair to those whose hard work is measured via grades at ages 10 and 13.
The chancellor is absolutely right. The kids who skip school do not deserve a better one. The kids who don’t do their homework do not deserve a better one. The kids who disrupt the class do not deserve a better one. The kids who are a danger to others should be weeded out, not given space in the best programs. That’s just common sense.
Screened middle schools mostly look at the child’s performance in the FOURTH grade. How you “perform” at that age is almost entirely due to factors beyond your control— are your parents able to house and feed you? Are they mentally and physically healthy? Are they checking your school work, reading with you, meeting with your teacher, ensuring you get an IEP if you need one? If so, you are probably in pretty good shape. If not, I guess you don’t “deserve” a good middle school. The lack of empathy for VERY TINY CHILDREN is just appalling.
Problem is, you bring up massive issues like homelessness, lack of food, special education etc. but THE MAJORITY of kids are failing the tests that the Education Department writes, administers, and grades!
“pretty good shape?!” The majority of kids are failing these tests! Stop referencing the 2% who have legitimate issues to excuse the 60% who are failing…..at $20,000 a kid.
Please consider WHY a child might skip school or homework before you declare what they deserve. They have an unstable home or no home at all. They suffer from trauma. They have to take increasingly unsafe public transportation to get to school — some high school students commute 2 hours each way, because the public schools in their borough are inadequately matched to the student needs especially for high achievers. They are being bullied at school, by students or teachers. They have mental health diagnoses and cannot get needed services or meds because there are too many other kids ahead of them on the waiting list. They see no point to studying since they already did that and it got them nowhere — they did not get into desired schools for which they were highly qualified, they studied hard for an entire year for state tests or Regents exams only to have the state waive the test (free pass for all) at the last minute, again and again over multiple years…… I could go on. These kids have been through the wringer.
I agree with you. I feel bad for these kids. It doesn’t mean though that academic expectations for the rest of the kids have to be lowered.
What we need is more schools, more involvement of social workers at schools and definitely more free tutoring programs for underachieving students.
The problem is if you send a child like that who is unprepared for whatever reason into a school like Stuyvesant they will flounder. Stuy has nothing to catch them when they fail or to help them. When you get there is sink or swim. Do you want the child to fail?
Why criticize an empirically true statement?
I mean, really now. Admissions process gets this much outrage??
How much does NYS spend per student?
In the 2018-19 school year, Warren notes, New York shelled out $25,139 per kid, “more than any other state and nearly twice the national average of $13,187.” And New York City spent $28,004 per student, “easily the most” among major US urban districts.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/30/new-york-keeps-spending-more-on-schools-and-getting-less-results/
Even if these numbers are biased somehow, where’s the journalism and discussion on this?
Sorry original reply was this:
Because it’s only part of his job. Fairness in assigning a scarce resource is like only coaching for defense.
I agree that attacking the fairness point is incoherent at best.
Then think about why are there so few good schools here. Especially given the $$$ spent.
When we lived in the Village, our kids went to an outstanding Public School (PS 41) with a compromise “tracking” system. Depending upon test scores, kids were tracked in Maths and Science but there was no tracking in English and Social Studies. This worked out well in a school in which many kids were poor or homeless and others were children of NYU faculty members. It worked out well and friendships spread across the board.
Good for him. The fact is that human progress is driven by the best of us, and it is of the utmost importance that the brightest kids have access to an education that fully nurtures their talents and abilities. Excellence matters.
My grandparents did not speak English when they came to this country. Now I have a PhD in English. It took 2 generations, but success in education came because people WORKED. Here is a Chancellor saying that grades and motivation COUNT, and he’s not wrong. Yes, there are other factors. But we are speaking of ACADEMIC success, so why is requiring an academic screening wrong?
So nice to hear a statement of truth. Sick and tired of mediocre being the standard. Metaphorically speaking, why does anyone believe that sitting on the bench for an entire season entitles you to a trophy?
I have a student with a 98% average who didn’t get matched to any of the 12 high schools she applied to because she didn’t have a good lottery number this year. Instead she got placed at a low performing school with metal detectors that no one wants to attend. Her grades were not considered at all this year. Whats the point of doing well if your future is based on a randomly generated lottery number? Also we know at least 6 kids in our small circle this also happened to. The whole process is disgusting
DOE used the pandemic as an excuse to abandon grades for HS admissions, after DOE abandoned grades for all students when DOE could not deliver adequate remote education. But even prepandemic, kids with top grades were thrown into a defacto lottery, and many did not “win” a seat and ended up like your student
DOE failed your student (and many more) because the last chancellor (and mayor) rejected meritocracy. This chancellor apparently believes in meritocracy, but DOE will still fail students, because there are not enough top school seats to implement meritocracy.
DOE makes short term philosophical flip flops rather than long term investment in infrastructure matched to students and society who are playing the long game.
Perhaps it is better to remove or reduce mayoral control of NYC schools. Kids need a consistent 13 year-plus education that is not at the mercy of a revolving door of mayors and chancellors.
Christine,
Worth. noting: Mayor De Blasio’s daughter attended Beacon and his son attended Brooklyn Tech.
Of course they did. And my kid who likely had similar or better grades/scores was 2000-something on Beacon’s wait list.
You hit the nail on the head here: DOE has historically addressed long term problems with short term fixes—probably because most DOE leaders (especially in the recent past) have to be aware their tenure (and ability to see plans to fruition) is likely to be short.
In the past 15 years, under three mayors, there have been seven Chancellors of Education.
We can all “in a perfect world” it, but no DOE leader seems willing to tell the public “here is what we need for lasting change” because taxpayers/voters care most about education when their families are directly impacted; if I have a 10-year-old in public school, a solution that may take 10-20 years to implement may not matter as much as “what are you doing today.”
It feels like the current system that ties DOE and the mayor’s office is by its very nature incapable of being anything other-than self-limiting. I don’t know what the right answer is, but it seems like the status quo has been given plenty of time to prove itself… and consistently failed to do so.
What about the students who try really hard and are motivated, but don’t have great grades? And/or those with an IEP?
You mean merit will once again no longer be a politically incorrect metric? Bravo!
We can’t let them off so easily. Not everyone who merits a quality education (if you actually think that) can get one. This is just a little less stupid than the preceding policy. Pretty silly to give it unconditional praise.
The poor immigrant Asians had the same hardships of other poor but work hard to achieve their place in top schools
By placing low achievers with high ones you set the lowest common denominator for the classroom
I speak from personal experience in the NYC educational system
Thank goodness for this chancellor – someone finally speaking common sense! I am myself an equity researcher. I am ALSO a racial/ethnic minority & product of the largest housing project west of the Rockies, of grinding poverty, family mental illness, food insecurity… I find it condescending and frankly discriminatory of these supposedly-equity-driven parents and educators to demean people like myself in the name of…what? Dragging us down to the lowest common denominator? Spare me your faux-equity crocodilo tears.
Why drag those of us down who worked hard DESPITE our circumstances and often BECAUSE of our circumstances. I fought tooth and nail from the time I was very young to get out of my situation – I thought getting on a decent education track with other motivated (& minority, impoverished) kids from my ‘hood was a chance. I got that chance because of gifted and talented tracks, and standardized tests. We did it through grit, blood, sweat & tears – two childhood friends became doctors, I got my PhD and a wonderful opportunity to get an decent education which shaped my entire life. I defied my background only because gifted and talented tracks existed, only because I got to show my stuff in standardized tests. How dare you deny me and others who face a flood of social risk factors the chance to track with other hard-working and motivated children?? How dare you deny us the opportunities to rise beyond our inequitable start in life ?!?
So refreshing to hear somebody actually speak common sense and truth! Ridiculous anyone would even criticize the comments