That is not the topic or stance of the post, which is NYC's recent announcement of planned changes from the present system (which has been discussed on the forum over time, I will look to see if I can readily find old threads/posts).
Not of the post, no (I appreciate your position is always that of a positive advocate), but I’ve been following mainstream and social media about ‘screened’ and ‘selective’ schools in the US and they sound much like similar schools here in Australia, where there is very little crossover between streams, so students are effectively locked in or out. I gave my own example of how challenging it can be for gifted students, not only to get support in the ‘nonselective’ schools, but even just to clear active barriers preventing them from working at their natural pace ahead of their classmates, because the prevailing ‘wisdom’ amongst education administrators seems to be that gifted kids are provided for by selective schools and so in nonselective schools, the main aim is simply to ensure everyone meets minimum benchmarks, whereas I am advocating for fluid streams everywhere so that everyone can be supported across the broad range of subjects of the curriculum.
Ironically, these are no longer issues for my immediate family but that is possibly why I feel comfortable sharing this feedback about screened admissions/selective vs nonselective schools, especially since the new set of staff at our school have shown that nonselective schools are certainly able to support a broad range of students to maximise their potential.
