This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
By Michael Elsen-Rooney, Chalkbeat New York
In a Manhattan district with a history of contentious battles over school admissions, two dozen principals have come out against the return of academic screens at district middle schools, according to a copy of a petition obtained by Chalkbeat.
The message to district leader Kamar Samuels from 24 out of 30 elementary and middle school principals in Manhattan’s District 3, which spans the Upper West Side and parts of Harlem, comes as superintendents across the city decide whether their middle schools will once again be allowed to select incoming students on the basis of academic performance.
Admissions screens existed at hundreds of middle schools before the pandemic, but were paused the past two years because of COVID-19 and the shift to remote learning. Schools Chancellor David Banks has given superintendents until this week to decide if and how middle school screens will resume in their districts, with applications set to open for students Oct. 26.
In District 3, where schools are sharply divided by race and class, the debate is particularly fraught. Proponents argue that screens help match high academic performers to schools that can meet their needs, but critics say the competitive admissions standards unfairly divide students at a young age and drive segregation.
“We know that reintroducing academic screens for a few of our middle schools will lead to inequities and a lack of student diversity,” wrote the coalition of 24 principals in a letter dated Oct. 14.
“Ranking and sorting our students goes against a celebration of the rich diversity of cultures and races our students bring with them to the schools across District 3,” the letter continued.
Before the pandemic, roughly 40% of all city middle schools used some form of selective admissions criteria for at least a portion of their students, with 112 schools screening all their incoming students, and 196 using screens for specialized programs, according to the education department.
But the metrics middle schools traditionally used to select kids, including grades, test scores and attendance records, went out the window during the pandemic, leading former Mayor Bill de Blasio to pause screens at all middle schools starting in 2020.
That led to a modest increase in the share of low-income students and English language learners admitted to the city’s 46 most selective middle school programs, according to the education department.
The removal of screens had the potential to make an even larger impact in District 3 because of a district-wide diversity plan adopted in 2018 that required each middle school to prioritize low-income students for 25% of their seats. The original diversity plan did not require middle schools to remove screens. Set-asides for underrepresented students generally have larger effects when they’re paired with the removal of screens, integration experts say. The education department didn’t immediately share how the removal of screens affected demographics in District 3 schools.
Late last month, Banks announced that superintendents could decide whether middle schools in their districts resume screening kids based on their fourth grade academic marks. The education department gave little guidance on how superintendents should make those decisions, other than engaging with the community first.
“It puts the district office in the pressure cooker,” said Naveed Hasan, a parent of elementary schoolers and member of the Community Education Council for District 3.
Education department spokesperson Art Nevins said this year’s process for deciding on middle school screens is an example of the agency’s “commitment … to engaging with families and communities around the types of programs and schools they desire.
“The intention of this process is not to get to any predetermined result, but to have a decision based on a thoughtful consideration of the needs of each district and school community,” he added.
Samuels, who is in his first year leading District 3 and previously oversaw a districtwide middle school integration plan in Brooklyn’s District 13, has held two public discussions with parents and has another planned for Tuesday.
Lucas Liu, the president of the District 3 Community Education Council, said the “vast majority” of parents who have responded to the CEC’s survey have expressed support for some middle school academic screens, though the CEC said the full survey results wouldn’t be shared until Tuesday’s meeting.
One District 3 principal, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press, countered that the survey sample is likely not “representative of everyone … there are a number of parents in our communities who disagree with screens,” but who may have less “time and energy and agency to come together.”
Liu, who is also the co-president of the Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education, or PLACE, which supports academic screens, argued that the lottery system in place for the past two years has sent lower-performing elementary school students “into competitive schools they’re not prepared for.”
He added that he’s heard from some parents who say they will pull their kids from the district if they don’t find a middle school option they view as sufficiently rigorous.
“You have your letter from the principals, but it’s the parents who decide whether their kids are going to enroll or not,” he said. “It’s the parents who we’re supposed to be serving.”
The principals also pointed out that, according to education department data, 97% of this year’s sixth grade class got into one of their top three middle school choices, and 76% got into their top choice.
The education department declined to make Samuels available for an interview.
Final admissions rules will be made public by the time middle school applications open on Oct. 26.
Michael Elsen-Rooney is a reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Michael at melsen-rooney@chalkbeat.org.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
@WSR I’m glad to see these cross-posted articles from other sites that are relevant to our neighborhood, thanks for keeping us informed!
Oh no…matching academic performance with the appropriate curriculum; how racist because not all races have performed at parity. Straight out of the Ibram X Kendi Anti-Racist playbook: abolish anything that does not result in equal results across racial categories. No need to analyze why results are what they are or what might be done to help underperformers or even show specifically how academic screening is allegedly racially segregationist– just throw it all out in name of ‘diversity.’ If it hurts kids who are now no longer going to realize their full scholastic potential, well I guess someone has to pay for the ‘diversity’ experiment.
Truly frightening the extent to which the Anti-Racist Progressives have embedded themselves into our kids’ education.
Respectfully, I think the issue of admissions reform for selective high schools is more complicated than just “throw it all out in the name of diversity.”
Judging from your comment, I think we might agree on the core issues here: first, we both want all students to be able to reach their true scholastic potential, and second we both want a system where the most kids get a chance to do so as possible.
So how do we give the most students the best chance of learning? That’s where we might disagree.
First, before get worked up about Anti-Racism, or politics, we should start with base facts. I’d encourage you to read this article about the history of segregation in NYC selective high schools. shorturl.at/HQ246
The truth is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time researching the questions that you listed, but the answers are usually unpalatable to the people currently benefitting from the system: changing the way resources are shared, spending more money, and intentional integration. Try listening to this podcast for more information: shorturl.at/ayBM8
Either way, the bottom line is that in 2019, before the change, of the 4800 students admitted to selective high schools, only 190 were black students. That’s 25 times more non-black students than black students. It just can’t be that black students are 25 times less intelligent. It can’t be that black students are 25 times lazier.
Most importantly, it can’t be that 25 times as many non-black students have more scholastic potential than their black friends and classmates.
The underlying problem is complex, it has to do with socio-economnics, politics, institutional biases, resource allotment, history, and the rest, but it basically boils down to inequality of access. Inequity of access to quality, productive learning.
So where do we adjust things to create more equity of access? We already have universal pre-k, but we’re not going to change the way elementary schools are funded, staffed, or organized any time soon. So what is left? Widening the pool of students with access to the best high school educations.
Ben — what a thoughtful and comprehensive post! This community college prof thanks you.
I am not in favor of performance admissions. But I think the real issue is that people want their children to be around other high-performers because they think that high-performing students are less likely create problems/distractions in class. Parents of all races share this concern. I don’t think parents care what race the high-performer or low-performer is, at least not for the large majority of parents. To me, there would be a lot less concern about performance admissions if schools did their jobs in keeping students safe and focused by disciplining those that cause disturbances.
Truly frightening is right.
“Ranking and sorting our students goes against a celebration of the rich diversity of cultures and races our students bring with them to the schools across District 3,” the letter continued.”
How can anyone objectively justify that? Is the celebration of the rich diversity etc…. more important than allowing students who merit places to be told that the race of her fellow students is paramount?
We have to stop these discriminatory practices.
The title should read: “24 Principals against academic achievement “.
It sounds from the way the article is written that for a lot of the principals involved, “fits into my vision of diversity” is a higher-ranking admissions criterion than “among the best-prepared academically.” One can argue that kids who are academically qualified, even if not among the more qualified, benefit from and convey benefit to the kids who are (or at least, whose test scores put them) among the “better qualified.” On the other hand, the “less well qualified” can hold back progress and, in my experience as an educator, often coincide with “behavior problems.”
I’m only a retiree, but I don’t think diversity quotas should trump grades, test scores, attendance, and other admissions criteria.
“Ranking and sorting our students goes against a celebration of the rich diversity of cultures and races our students bring with them to the schools across District 3,” the letter continued.
This is the kind of nonsense that is killing NY. Instead of facing the music and saying, “we really have poor education for low-income families and we need to focus on that”, *they* are going to tell you about “sorting our students”…. Same people will tell you that math is racist.
We definitely have to focus on education for low-income families and children who are simply neglected by their families. We spend a lot of money per student. Where does it all go?
This focus needs to start in Elementary School. By the time the kids reach Middle School it’s too late. But then, trying to change admission requirements for Middle and High School is so much easier than putting in the hard work of fixing the Elementary Schools.
I completely agree with you. That was my point actually.
Meritocracy does not equal segregation. Segregation by definition means that there is a legal barrier to integration. It is an extremely loaded word that should be used sparingly. The only barrier to more diverse schools is achievement. Which is not a legal barrier. It is largely a barrier of parental engagement.
I find it horrifying that the opinions of parents are not listened to because only those who have time and energy and agency respond. For many parents, education is their number one priority. The might not have the time and energy but they find it by sacrificing other things. I don’t care how many jobs you are working to feed your family – you can find the time to support your child’s education. if you can’t, perhaps you shouldn’t be having children.
I would also like to note that there are many parents with kids at underperforming schools who are for whatever reason OK with the situation. There are a lot of do-gooders who want to shake things up to help those who do not want to be helped. This is not “equity” – it is a race to mediocrity.
I would like to note that I think that screens for elementary school G&T programs are problematic as they are based on virtually nothing useful, as much as people claim the tests are valid. By the time students get to fourth grade, there is much more of a sense of academic ability so screening is justified.
If the Board of Ed does away with middle school admissions screens there will inevitably be a vast exodus of middle class students from the public school system and likely from NYC as well.
Social engineering comes with a price.
Ah yes. The “we can’t share the (insert object: school, park, swimming pool) with THEM. And if you make us, we’ll leave and blow up the system. America has a long and tawdry history of white flight. A good read on the topic: The Sum Of US by Heather McGhee. https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-sum-of-us-what-racism-costs-everyone-and-how-we-can-prosper-together-heather-mcghee/14618549?ean=9780525509561
So principals in the district don’t want their students to be screened and the true value of education the students got at the school discovered. I guess it is easier to blame the luck of the draw than have the parents coming to you as a principal and demanding accountability.
As surprising as the sun rising in the east.
Shame on them.
why are school admissions performance based? NOWHERE in the country does this take place that I’m aware of. Kids everywhere go to schools that are close to where they live and are zoned for in our country. Doesn’t matter if you are smart or not! Get performance out of middle school and high school admissions. Its a disgrace and totally unfair to children who are poor performers, not interested, or lack the help to get high grades. Let’s say I’m not smart or motivated. Should I suffer with a school that is concentrated with low performers, many of which tend to create problems in school?
Also, prohibit parents from contributing money or things of value to their schools or teachers. It is totally unfair. Obviously the more money you make, the better chances your child has of doing well (support) and the more money you donate to the school! Performance admissions are a nasty little secret that’s been going on for a long time, started with the ridiculous gifted and talented program.
And if people are afraid that zoning alone won’t create the diversity that is needed, than do what it takes to create diverse student body, but leave PERFORMANCE out of it. Why should smart or wealthy kids who can buy support and have parents stay at home to help (and there are MANY who fit that bill) have there own little universe paid for by the taxpayers of the city of New York? Never could understand how such a practice could take place in a supposed “liberal” city.
To add to my earlier post: Let’s say that my child is not particularly interested in school. He does his homework, and gets middling grades. I don’t have the time myself to tutor him and can’t afford to pay someone to tutor him. But even if I could, he is not willing to work that hard to get high grades and pushing him to do so will probably be unproductive if not harmful. So, it is what it is, my kid is a mediocre student.
So, as a NYC taxpayer paying just as much as everyone else, why should my kid go to a school with other mediocre students? What exactly is the point of that? (We all know the point is to weed out the “problem” students, but we can’t say that, can we?). So why should my child go to a school concentrated with people who do not do well in school?
Schools across the country are able to provide accellerated children with suitable courses that they can take alongside other high achieving students. Do they need their own school?
The truth being performance admissions is that parents want their children to avoid other “problem” students. Can’t say I blame them actually, The real problem is that NYS does not allow effective and immediate discplining of problem students. THAT is what needs to be fixed, not some system that allows certain students to avoid problem students. It’s not fair to those who are not high achievers but who are not problem students.
I’d be fine with non-achievement based entrance requirements if honors classes were still a standard part of NYC middle schools. Their elimination coincided with the drop in the number of black and hispanic kids in specialized high schools.
Fyi, that is PS 452 in the picture above. PS 191 moved down the block to a new building about 5 years ago.
Our educators are radically out of step with the families they educate.
The superintendent is/should be primarily accountable to the parents in the neighborhood who fund the schools and trust their kids in them.
The teachers, principals and their unions don’t seem to understand this system is at the brink.
Let the educators run the schools. Not the parents. I know that hurts to hear. But you don’t run into the hospital and start telling doctors & nurses what to do? Superintendents, principals, and teachers know what works best they have years of experience, education and knowledge to make these decisions. How does shoving all the high performing students into a few schools and all the low performing students into the rest of the schools make sense?! Ha! What could possibly go wrong? Wait a minute… we know already since D3 was the most segregated district in the US in 2017 (google it if you don’t believe it)
A parent speaking on this issue will only serve the interest of their own child not every child. Its evident at the CEC3 meetings. It is evident in this comment section. I don’t fault the parents for this, it’s human nature to want what is best for your own child. Scr*w those other peoples kids. Its their parents fault they don’t have tutors, don’t have resources, don’t try hard, are not disciplined! Let them sink. “My kid studied for the state test and should be rewarded.”
Unfortunately that is not going to work this time. Screens will be gone for good hopefully.
Most parents teach their kids something every day. They don’t operate on their kids, because performing surgery requires way more unique skills than teaching.
This isn’t to devalue teaching, but it’s laughable that this comparison is part of the teachers union propaganda.
The world is a rat race enough as it is, do we really need to start separating out our children before college? Is that what things have come to? Everyone is being pushed into pushing their children harder and harder. The last thing I want to support is that! I couldn’t care less that those wealthy enough or tiger-mom ambitious enough want their own playground for their child.
Performance-based admissions is much less popular than people think, but there is a very vocal minority who are in favor of it. But can these people articulate ANY reasonable reason, with a straight face, for why their children should be in a “special” school with other high achievers? Of course, you could come up with 10 reasons, but none to be taken seriously. No other middle or high schools in the country do this . And if you NEED to have your kid separated from the masses, there is a thing called “private school”, and its been servicing people like your child for over 100 years.
There are many people in this city who have children who are mediocre students. Such children do not deserve to be placed with other mediocre students so that ambitious high achievers can have their private school at public taxpayer expense.