(no subject)
Dec. 22nd, 2016 12:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyGreat divide: How extreme academic segregation isolates students in New York City’s high schools
So, on the one hand, I think the city's got the right idea limiting the creation of new screened-only schools. On the other hand, screened programs are extremely popular, precisely because parents want to get their kids into "the best programs" and there is this idea that screened = better. (Whenever I say this, somebody pops up to go "Well, the city should just open more really good schools", but even a minute's thought will show that this is ridiculous. Most of what we consider to be "really good" about a high school is what sort of students it attracts, and, aside from the fact that there is no magic spell to only get the great students, the fact is that those other students deserve schools too!) This is not going to be a popular decision.
The article alludes to the fact that most "ed. opt." programs (and a great many "limited unscreened") largely are filled with low-performing students. There's an exception, though - schools with two related programs, one of which is screened. It is, of course, a lot easier to change programs within a school than to change schools.
Really, though, what the city ought to do is close the least-popular and lowest performing small schools and dramatically re-organize to open up more large and middle-sized schools with multiple programs. Small schools are good, but they are perforce limited in what they can offer students. It also needs to seriously limit zoned priority and zoned preference in those parts of the cities which are wealthy, white, or filled with a large number of high-performing students. (I'm looking at you, District 2 in Manhattan!)
And, most importantly, NYC needs to seriously fix the middle school situation. Forget smaller high schools, what we need are smaller middle schools, preferably more of which are joined on to either an elementary school on one end or a high school on the other. Taking preteens in groups of 1,000+ and isolating them from both older and younger kids for three years is ludicrous and possibly the worst thing you can do for them developmentally. Smaller classes, smaller schools, and with either younger kids to "set a good example" for or older kids to look up to. If more kids do well in middle school, they won't be behind when they start high school and more of the high schools will be "good schools". (No joke, I actually took a glance at the middle schools on Staten Island last month, and every one of them had a student population with over 400 students per grade. Not one of the schools we chose for Ana had that many students in the entire school, and high school is a year longer!)
So, on the one hand, I think the city's got the right idea limiting the creation of new screened-only schools. On the other hand, screened programs are extremely popular, precisely because parents want to get their kids into "the best programs" and there is this idea that screened = better. (Whenever I say this, somebody pops up to go "Well, the city should just open more really good schools", but even a minute's thought will show that this is ridiculous. Most of what we consider to be "really good" about a high school is what sort of students it attracts, and, aside from the fact that there is no magic spell to only get the great students, the fact is that those other students deserve schools too!) This is not going to be a popular decision.
The article alludes to the fact that most "ed. opt." programs (and a great many "limited unscreened") largely are filled with low-performing students. There's an exception, though - schools with two related programs, one of which is screened. It is, of course, a lot easier to change programs within a school than to change schools.
Really, though, what the city ought to do is close the least-popular and lowest performing small schools and dramatically re-organize to open up more large and middle-sized schools with multiple programs. Small schools are good, but they are perforce limited in what they can offer students. It also needs to seriously limit zoned priority and zoned preference in those parts of the cities which are wealthy, white, or filled with a large number of high-performing students. (I'm looking at you, District 2 in Manhattan!)
And, most importantly, NYC needs to seriously fix the middle school situation. Forget smaller high schools, what we need are smaller middle schools, preferably more of which are joined on to either an elementary school on one end or a high school on the other. Taking preteens in groups of 1,000+ and isolating them from both older and younger kids for three years is ludicrous and possibly the worst thing you can do for them developmentally. Smaller classes, smaller schools, and with either younger kids to "set a good example" for or older kids to look up to. If more kids do well in middle school, they won't be behind when they start high school and more of the high schools will be "good schools". (No joke, I actually took a glance at the middle schools on Staten Island last month, and every one of them had a student population with over 400 students per grade. Not one of the schools we chose for Ana had that many students in the entire school, and high school is a year longer!)
