DeBlasio thinks basing admissions on merit is "segregation" and that random chance is better

[Derec]

Mayor Shifts Admission Screens in Effort to Address Segregation in NYC Schools

Middle schools throughout the city that rely on a screening process to admit students will pause the practice for at least one year, the mayor said Friday. In its place, a lottery system will be implemented to target equal opportunity for student applicants.
That means that academic records, auditions and other assessments will no longer be used by schools to skim off the top-performing elementary school kids and segregate them from other children.

Using a lottery makes mockery of the idea of having a selective school.

Note that he is blaming the pandemic, but he has been trying to get rid of merit-based admissions long before COVID. He has just become more brazen and open about it now.

DeBlasio is truly the worst think to happen to NYC since 9/11.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Mayor Shifts Admission Screens in Effort to Address Segregation in NYC Schools

Middle schools throughout the city that rely on a screening process to admit students will pause the practice for at least one year, the mayor said Friday. In its place, a lottery system will be implemented to target equal opportunity for student applicants.
That means that academic records, auditions and other assessments will no longer be used by schools to skim off the top-performing elementary school kids and segregate them from other children.

Using a lottery makes mockery of the idea of having a selective school.

Note that he is blaming the pandemic, but he has been trying to get rid of merit-based admissions long before COVID.

What would be wrong with "selective" schools open to all students who make the choice to attend them? with no exclusion of any?

It would be understood that these schools would make greater demands on the students, that there would be more testing, more work required. Wouldn't this then automatically screen out those who should not be there?

Are these "selective" schools more costly? having superior teachers? more resources provided?

If some students are privileged by having more spent on them, what's the criterion for choosing who is to benefit from such inequality? The premise in general should be that the cost for each student should be about equal, with none getting privileged status over others, or entitled to a larger $$$$ investment by taxpayers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mayor Shifts Admission Screens in Effort to Address Segregation in NYC Schools

Middle schools throughout the city that rely on a screening process to admit students will pause the practice for at least one year, the mayor said Friday. In its place, a lottery system will be implemented to target equal opportunity for student applicants.
That means that academic records, auditions and other assessments will no longer be used by schools to skim off the top-performing elementary school kids and segregate them from other children.

Using a lottery makes mockery of the idea of having a selective school.

Note that he is blaming the pandemic, but he has been trying to get rid of merit-based admissions long before COVID.

What would be wrong with "selective" schools open to all students who make the choice to attend them? with no exclusion of any?

It would be understood that these schools would make greater demands on the students, that there would be more testing, more work required. Wouldn't this then automatically screen out those who should not be there?

Are these "selective" schools more costly? having superior teachers? more resources provided?

If some students are privileged by having more spent on them, what's the criterion for choosing who is to benefit from such inequality? The premise in general should be that the cost for each student should be about equal, with none getting privileged status over others, or entitled to a larger $$$$ investment by taxpayers.

When you let in students who aren't as good you either utterly leave them behind (hurting them) or you slow the whole class down (hurting everyone else.) The closer in ability the students are the better the education will be.

 

[Trausti]

What makes a school (or anything else) elite is selection. It’s not the brick and mortar or faculty. This war on meritocracy will lead to a dim future.

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing in the linked OP article shows that Mr. DeBlasio thinks basing admissions on merit is segregation. There is no quote or statement that indicates anything of the sort.

He may think it but there is no evidence he actually thinks it. Just setting the record straight.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does "select" have to mean exclusionism?

What would be wrong with "selective" schools open to all students who make the choice to attend them? with no exclusion of any?

It would be understood that these schools would make greater demands on the students, that there would be more testing, more work required. Wouldn't this then automatically screen out those who should not be there?

Are these "selective" schools more costly? having superior teachers? more resources provided?

If some students are privileged by having more spent on them, what's the criterion for choosing who is to benefit from such inequality? The premise in general should be that the cost for each student should be about equal, with none getting privileged status over others, or entitled to a larger $$$$ investment by taxpayers.

When you let in students who aren't as good you either utterly leave them behind (hurting them) or you slow the whole class down (hurting everyone else.)

Let's assume that's true (though it might not always be). In that case, those less "good" can be separated to a different section going at a slower pace. They are still taking the same subject matter, but at a slower pace, and maybe their grade is lower, or they take longer to complete that course. But if they want to take that subject matter, why should they be excluded just because they're slower? It doesn't have to mean that others can't also learn it faster.

The closer in ability the students are the better the education will be.

But the "ability" can change. A student who wants that same education, but learns at a slower pace, should not be excluded. Those ones could be routed to a slower program, but still pursue the more elitist subject matter.

If the student has no ability for the subject matter, can't we assume s/he would choose not to take that class? or attend that select school?

There is a case to be made for a kind of "elitism" -- but it should not be a kind which excludes a student who wants to learn that subject matter.

The exclusionism should be only the kind which the student chooses.

-- For public schools. There's always elitist private schools for those who can afford it, like rich liberals -- Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, Karl Marx, etc. Of course the rich should be allowed to segregate their children into elitist schools at their expense, to get one-up on the common masses.

In the final analysis -- in the ideal education system of the (near) future -- anyone who wants to learn "ROCKET SCIENCE" should be admitted to a "rocket science" school. For some, starting at a low level, or who are slower, it would mean first learning some algebra or some other basic knowledge before getting to the physics of designing rockets. But all subjects should be open to all aspiring students, regardless of their learning speed or "ability" when they first show up to enroll.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is something odd about only 9% of a certain demographic getting into top schools in an areas where they make up 66% of the population. I doubt that very large degree of disparity can be attributed solely to differences in individual academic merit.

I suspect that one factor is that behind the scenes, because admissions are based on a single, high-stakes written test, the wealthier parents often pay for test preparation tutors and courses. It is commonly said here (where there are such tests at the end of primary school and where wealthier parents routinely pay for test coaching) that such coaching artificially boosts test scores, and that as a result, some children who get a high mark because they were coached for the exam subsequently struggle in the school they get into. Also, I read that in the USA, feeder schools with mostly white students get more money. So I'm really not sure at all that the status quo is actually a meritocracy.

But all subjects should be open to all aspiring students, regardless of their learning speed or "ability" when they first show up to enroll.

Maybe. Possibly unrealistically idealist (and personally I'm not against merit-based academic criteria). That said, there is the not entirely dissimilar and currently proposed temporary lottery arrangement, partly because of disruption to exams as a result of Covid, though I'm not sure of all the details of that.

In any case, what has also been recently proposed in NYC, it seems, is that a percentage of places are offered to the top percentiles of students in each school in the catchment area, and/or that 20% of of places be offered to economically disadvantaged students who "just missed the test cut-off". A student doing well in a more challenging school/social environment may be a better indicator of both academic potential and motivation than a student doing slightly better in a less challenging school/social environment, especially if the latter has been coached for the exam.

Bear in mind also that if a minority or socioeconomically-disadvantaged student either does not do well in or drops out of studies early, it may not necessarily be because they are not academically capable or motivated, since there may be other issues particularly facing such students and many other factors involved generally.

 

[Toni]

It's middle school, FFS.

Lottery is a lot more fair than supposed merit.

Much, much better still is that ALL schools be brought up to the standard of the most prestigious.

 

[Trausti]

It's middle school, FFS.

Lottery is a lot more fair than supposed merit.

Much, much better still is that ALL schools be brought up to the standard of the most prestigious.

Students are not of equal ability.

 

[repoman]

The temporary IQ drop that happens from distractions must pile up for kids of economically deprived households, also from a toxic family and from worrying too much about racial and social issues (be it thinking about oppression by being black or centuries of guilt for being white)

So what they really don't want is white kids and soon asian kids who just don't care and are not also weighed down with Harrison Bergeron task shifting penalty distractions.

https://hbr.org/2014/07/the-cost-of-continuously-checking-email

Shifting our attention from one task to another, as we do when we’re monitoring email while trying to read a report or craft a presentation, disrupts our concentration and saps our focus. Each time we return to our initial task, we use up valuable cognitive resources reorienting ourselves. And all those transitional costs add up. Research shows that when we are deeply engrossed in an activity, even minor distractions can have a profound effect. According to a University of California-Irvine study, regaining our initial momentum following an interruption can take, on average, upwards of 20 minutes.

Multitasking, as many studies have shown, is a myth. A more accurate account of what happens when we tell ourselves we’re multitasking is that we’re rapidly switching between activities, degrading our clarity and depleting our mental energy. And the consequences can be surprisingly serious . An experiment conducted at the University of London found that we lose as many as 10 IQ points when we allow our work to be interrupted by seemingly benign distractions like emails and text messages.

.........

And yet each time we shift our focus, it’s as if we’re taking a trip to the store. Creativity expert Todd Henry calls it a “task-shifting penalty.” We pay a mental tax that diminishes our ability to produce high-level work.

Bring back school uniforms so that is one less distraction.

 

[Toni]

It's middle school, FFS.

Lottery is a lot more fair than supposed merit.

Much, much better still is that ALL schools be brought up to the standard of the most prestigious.

Students are not of equal ability.

What does that have to do with bringing all schools up to the same rl of excellence as the best school(s)? Are you saying that students who have disabilities or who are not academically gifted do not deserve the best possible education?

 

[Trausti]

It's middle school, FFS.

Lottery is a lot more fair than supposed merit.

Much, much better still is that ALL schools be brought up to the standard of the most prestigious.

Students are not of equal ability.

What does that have to do with bringing all schools up to the same rl of excellence as the best school(s)? Are you saying that students who have disabilities or who are not academically gifted do not deserve the best possible education?

What makes a school excellent is the students; not the building or faculty. Give children the best educational opportunity, sure. But that will not make them equal academically. Nature always wins. Don’t punish high achievers so that all get a trophy.

 

[Toni]

What does that have to do with bringing all schools up to the same rl of excellence as the best school(s)? Are you saying that students who have disabilities or who are not academically gifted do not deserve the best possible education?

What makes a school excellent is the students; not the building or faculty. Give children the best educational opportunity, sure. But that will not make them equal academically. Nature always wins. Don’t punish high achievers so that all get a trophy.

Oh, bullshit.

Excellent, caring faculty and staff are there to bring out the best in students, to open doors and windows and universes for them and to teach them to open these for themselves.

Academically gifted students can languish in poor schools and internalize the message that they are not very smart because their brains are bored by being expected to do endless worksheets for two grade levels behind.

Mediocre students can be taught to excel, students who are behind can be brought up to grade level and beyond.

No one, least of all me, is talking about holding any student back so that those are behind can catch up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's assume that's true (though it might not always be). In that case, those less "good" can be separated to a different section going at a slower pace. They are still taking the same subject matter, but at a slower pace, and maybe their grade is lower, or they take longer to complete that course. But if they want to take that subject matter, why should they be excluded just because they're slower? It doesn't have to mean that others can't also learn it faster.

The closer in ability the students are the better the education will be.

But the "ability" can change. A student who wants that same education, but learns at a slower pace, should not be excluded. Those ones could be routed to a slower program, but still pursue the more elitist subject matter.

No, the ability doesn't change--putting inferior students in faster schools doesn't work. If they're a small enough number they just fall behind, if they are too many they drag the school down. (This is why white flight happens, parents understand what an influx of poor students means.)

If they want the same education they need to spend more time in a slower-paced school.

If the student has no ability for the subject matter, can't we assume s/he would choose not to take that class? or attend that select school?

Students have a bad track record in that regard. Parents are even worse.

-- For public schools. There's always elitist private schools for those who can afford it, like rich liberals -- Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, Karl Marx, etc. Of course the rich should be allowed to segregate their children into elitist schools at their expense, to get one-up on the common masses.

I'd like to see public schools offered at different paces. That requires a lot of care to avoid it being used to discriminate--have fixed standards for when students can move up and when they must move down.

In the final analysis -- in the ideal education system of the (near) future -- anyone who wants to learn "ROCKET SCIENCE" should be admitted to a "rocket science" school. For some, starting at a low level, or who are slower, it would mean first learning some algebra or some other basic knowledge before getting to the physics of designing rockets. But all subjects should be open to all aspiring students, regardless of their learning speed or "ability" when they first show up to enroll.

I'm not saying that any subject should be excluded. Offer the same material at different paces!

 

[laughing dog]

What does that have to do with bringing all schools up to the same rl of excellence as the best school(s)? Are you saying that students who have disabilities or who are not academically gifted do not deserve the best possible education?

What makes a school excellent is the students; not the building or faculty. Give children the best educational opportunity, sure. But that will not make them equal academically. Nature always wins. Don’t punish high achievers so that all get a trophy.

Let's examine that reasoning of "don't punish high achievers" more closely. Even among "high achievers" there is a hierarchy of ability. So the ones with the most ability are being punished by being mixed with the ones with slightly less ability.

So, using that logic, it is not impossible to avoid punishing even high achievers, since there will always be students with slightly less ability "dragging" them down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is something odd about only 9% of a certain demographic getting into top schools in an areas where they make up 66% of the population. I doubt that very large degree of disparity can be attributed solely to differences in individual academic merit.

It's simply showing the effects of how much education is valued at home and in the community. You're assuming a disparate result proves discrimination. Remember that a small difference in the average translates to a large difference on the tails.

I suspect that one factor is that behind the scenes, because admissions are based on a single, high-stakes written test, the wealthier parents often pay for test preparation tutors and courses. It is commonly said here (where there are such tests at the end of primary school and where wealthier parents routinely pay for test coaching) that such coaching artificially boosts test scores, and that as a result, some children who get a high mark because they were coached for the exam subsequently struggle in the school they get into. Also, I read that in the USA, feeder schools with mostly white students get more money. So I'm really not sure at all that the status quo is actually a meritocracy.

It's commonly claimed the white schools get more money, but it's more that white schools can spend more money on education rather than security and they have fewer troublemakers.

In any case, what has also been recently proposed in NYC, it seems, is that a percentage of places are offered to the top percentiles of students in each school in the catchment area, and/or that 20% of of places be offered to economically disadvantaged students who "just missed the test cut-off". A student doing well in a more challenging school/social environment may be a better indicator of both academic potential and motivation than a student doing slightly better in a less challenging school/social environment, especially if the latter has been coached for the exam.

A standard dodge to discriminate while pretending not to.

Bear in mind also that if a minority or socioeconomically-disadvantaged student either does not do well in or drops out of studies early, it may not necessarily be because they are not academically capable or motivated, since there may be other issues particularly facing such students and many other factors involved generally.

When you don't discriminate in admissions the dropout rate doesn't show a difference, either.

 

[Trausti]

What does that have to do with bringing all schools up to the same rl of excellence as the best school(s)? Are you saying that students who have disabilities or who are not academically gifted do not deserve the best possible education?

What makes a school excellent is the students; not the building or faculty. Give children the best educational opportunity, sure. But that will not make them equal academically. Nature always wins. Don’t punish high achievers so that all get a trophy.

Let's examine that reasoning of "don't punish high achievers" more closely. Even among "high achievers" there is a hierarchy of ability. So the ones with the most ability are being punished by being mixed with the ones with slightly less ability.

So, using that logic, it is not impossible to avoid punishing even high achievers, since there will always be students with slightly less ability "dragging" them down.

Increasing Access to Selective High Schools through Place-Based Affirmative Action: Unintended Consequences

 

[Trausti]

Asians dominate NYC elite schools. Why?

Parental influence and cross-country gaps in human capital

Using both PISA and US Census data, we therefore relate the educational performance of second-generation immigrant students to the average PISA performance in their parents' country of origin, controlling for socio-economic status and for the characteristics of the school or educational system of the host country.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's examine that reasoning of "don't punish high achievers" more closely. Even among "high achievers" there is a hierarchy of ability. So the ones with the most ability are being punished by being mixed with the ones with slightly less ability.

So, using that logic, it is not impossible to avoid punishing even high achievers, since there will always be students with slightly less ability "dragging" them down.

Increasing Access to Selective High Schools through Place-Based Affirmative Action: Unintended Consequences

My point was that it is unavoidable to "punish high achievers" even when being selective. For some obscure reason, you feel that is a rebuttal to my observation even though it has nothing whatsoever to my point. I made no argument for affirmative action nor random placement.

 

[Trausti]

Let's examine that reasoning of "don't punish high achievers" more closely. Even among "high achievers" there is a hierarchy of ability. So the ones with the most ability are being punished by being mixed with the ones with slightly less ability.

So, using that logic, it is not impossible to avoid punishing even high achievers, since there will always be students with slightly less ability "dragging" them down.

Increasing Access to Selective High Schools through Place-Based Affirmative Action: Unintended Consequences

My point was that it is unavoidable to "punish high achievers" even when being selective. For some obscure reason, you feel that is a rebuttal to my observation even though it has nothing whatsoever to my point. I made no argument for affirmative action nor random placement.

So reduce everyone to remedial classes?