David E. Kirkland, who runs NYU’s Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and The Transformation of Schools, made this claim in a press release circulated by the mayor’s office: “We’ve known for some time that the exclusion of Black and Brown students from the City’s specialized high schools and the kinds of opportunity hoarding enjoyed by more privilege (sic) racial and ethnic communities were in fact de jure consequences of lingering legacies of racism and white supremacy.”
Possibly David Kirkland is uninformed.
Regarding the demographics of the population served by the specialized high schools...
- regarding race/ethnicity,
- regarding socioeconomic status:
Under the current system, Asian kids predominate at the city’s top high schools. They make up 74 percent of the population at Stuyvesant, 66 percent at Bronx Science and 61 percent at Brooklyn Tech. At Queens HS for Science at York College, 82 percent are Asian.
...
State Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky, a former Brooklyn Tech teacher... “Many Asian-American students come from families who live in poverty.”
At least 60 percent of kids at three of the specialized schools are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, according to DOE data.
And regarding what factors influence degree of student success, according to the NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and The Transformation of Schools:
“At the end of the day, the most overwhelming key to a child’s success is the positive involvement of parents”
- Jane D. Hull
I am particularly unimpressed with the broken English in David Kirkland's recent tweet on this topic.
One might expect better communication from a leader in education reform and
associate professor of English:
Of course, the ideal plan would be to abolish specialized high schools altogether and make all our school in the city special. But as long as they exist, we must end the reality opportunity hoarding that specialized high schools allow for elite parents and students.
In addition to apparent grammatical errors, this tweet uses the word "elite" in an ambiguous or undefined manner. Based on the context of Kirkland's other statements, it appears to divide by "privilege", however it perhaps more accurately acknowledges and decries the existence of various levels of outcomes/achievement/performance/ability, as expressed in this statement by Carranza -
“Why are we segregating kids based on test scores?” he asks.
To answer Carranza's question, I would say -
For continuing growth and development, kids need:
1)
appropriate academic challenge2)
true peers For typical kids, these needs may be met in a general ed classroom, however for children with higher IQ/giftedness, these needs may not be met without intentional effort in providing advanced curriculum, and grouping for instruction with academic/intellectual peers.
