I am a recent-ish Latino/Black Stuy grad and I would echo most of what is said here. But, I wouldn't say that I ever experienced the stigma that is mentioned here. Not to say that it doesn't exist but it is certainly not pervasive.
Late to the conversation, but as I read through this and other discussions, I can't help but think there's an insurmountable philosophical divide between the camps, and that people (understandably) want to pretend there isn't a fundamental tradeoff here. Getting into these specialized schools looks like a magic ticket to a great education, _and it is_, but it only works because you've chosen the right students to make it work. Make it a lottery and the magic goes away.
As the CEP folks wrote wrote years ago in https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/04/acc-entry-does-the-education-system-adequately-serve-advanced-students, it just seems like there's a deep hope in the de-tracking world that you can somehow get your cake and eat it. _Of course_, if acceleration doesn't help anyone, then what feels morally right (student equality) is aligned with what's academically "right": there's no complicated moral calculus to work through.
This seems obviously silly if we consider an individual - put me in a advanced French literature seminar on the nuances of le subjunctif in Proust and either I suffer confusion or everyone else suffers boredom - but we tend to hand-wave it away as we consider bigger groups. At the same time there are real moral objections to stratifying education. It's not a farce to imagine those in lower brackets initially suffering worse education, widening whatever gap we started with.
It seems like we'd be on stronger footing if we admitted that this tension was _unavoidable_. That is, we can imagine there are better ways to run schools then we do now, but in the limit, where do you put your effort? Imagine you have a school system which is run *perfectly*, every student is getting an "optimal" education (whatever that means for the moment). If you suddenly get a massive infusion of cash, do you invest it in the top 10% of students, hoping they have an epsilon higher chance of making some great breakthrough? Or try to bring up your weakest students, in the idea that a more equal education will result in a happier & more robust society? Or do you go nuts and try to break the societal link between academic success and our sense of status and dignity?
Specialized schools feel like a real attempt at answering that question. Let's do our best to give everyone a good education, but yes, let's also invest in our best and brightest in the hope they can be even brighter. It's a shame many people can't view it this way, as a nuanced attempt to navigate a complex problem about how we view society.
Quibble: it is no longer true that Lowell HS in SF uses a lottery system. Instead, because all SF governing bodies reflexively overcomplicate absolutely everything, there is a Rube Goldberg points formula that incorporates grades and test scores, as well as a percentage of seats set aside for Discovery-like subjective judgments. If you care about the gory details, here they are:
This isn't as good as the plain old test based system, and has all kinds of tweaks in it clearly designed to smuggle in "equity" at the expense of excellence, but it is not nearly as bad as the pure lottery which prevailed for a couple of years.
(I am the parent of an SF middle school student, so have a personal interest in understanding the details here).
I did have a few qualms with it. But thank you for sharing, good food for thought.
First off, it assumes or states in various places that the only way to inspire greatness is to have intense competition and ranking (instead of, as I would hope of these brightest minds, a true love for the subjects, a collaborative spirit, and an understanding of the possibilities their skills bring to create a life of opportunity and contribution in community, not just personal material success). I know that is a common belief, so I imagine I'm on the far end of extreme in my assumption that many, if not most, kids/people have *something* in life they can be extremely passionate about and great at, and that they, given the right support and exposure, would drive themselves to it naturally, not purely out of a desire to be top of the class, get into the most lucrative career or whatever.
Secondly, it also (to some degree) says the quiet part out loud, which is that the people we should trust to create a better world for everyone are those who are intensely academically gifted in the particular subjects that these schools support. For some reason, I rarely see similar arguments or debate about schools that are very focused on social sciences like nursing, caregiving, early childhood education, etc. Or the arts, like LaGuardia etc. On both sides of this debate, to be clear!
Anyway. I do actually agree that a standardized test is a fairer way to control admissions into an institution with the mission of driving this very specific kind of excellence, and the arguments and historical thread he pulls in are convincing.
However, I disagree with the weakly implied assumption that these kiddos should by default be our glorious future leaders, and that they'll be as good at that as they might be at curing cancer or building rocket ships, if you get my jist.
I heard all about Bloomberg's educational policies back when I was a kid, but I never heard of De Blasio's policies after I became an adult. Mayors will continue to get away with such tragedies so long as schooling remains an unfashionable topic among those old enough to vote on them.
I am a recent-ish Latino/Black Stuy grad and I would echo most of what is said here. But, I wouldn't say that I ever experienced the stigma that is mentioned here. Not to say that it doesn't exist but it is certainly not pervasive.
Glad to see educators speaking against misinformed policies. Well written and a great read!
Great post.
Late to the conversation, but as I read through this and other discussions, I can't help but think there's an insurmountable philosophical divide between the camps, and that people (understandably) want to pretend there isn't a fundamental tradeoff here. Getting into these specialized schools looks like a magic ticket to a great education, _and it is_, but it only works because you've chosen the right students to make it work. Make it a lottery and the magic goes away.
As the CEP folks wrote wrote years ago in https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/04/acc-entry-does-the-education-system-adequately-serve-advanced-students, it just seems like there's a deep hope in the de-tracking world that you can somehow get your cake and eat it. _Of course_, if acceleration doesn't help anyone, then what feels morally right (student equality) is aligned with what's academically "right": there's no complicated moral calculus to work through.
This seems obviously silly if we consider an individual - put me in a advanced French literature seminar on the nuances of le subjunctif in Proust and either I suffer confusion or everyone else suffers boredom - but we tend to hand-wave it away as we consider bigger groups. At the same time there are real moral objections to stratifying education. It's not a farce to imagine those in lower brackets initially suffering worse education, widening whatever gap we started with.
It seems like we'd be on stronger footing if we admitted that this tension was _unavoidable_. That is, we can imagine there are better ways to run schools then we do now, but in the limit, where do you put your effort? Imagine you have a school system which is run *perfectly*, every student is getting an "optimal" education (whatever that means for the moment). If you suddenly get a massive infusion of cash, do you invest it in the top 10% of students, hoping they have an epsilon higher chance of making some great breakthrough? Or try to bring up your weakest students, in the idea that a more equal education will result in a happier & more robust society? Or do you go nuts and try to break the societal link between academic success and our sense of status and dignity?
Specialized schools feel like a real attempt at answering that question. Let's do our best to give everyone a good education, but yes, let's also invest in our best and brightest in the hope they can be even brighter. It's a shame many people can't view it this way, as a nuanced attempt to navigate a complex problem about how we view society.
Interesting and informative. A worthwhile use of the time spent reading. Thank you.
Quibble: it is no longer true that Lowell HS in SF uses a lottery system. Instead, because all SF governing bodies reflexively overcomplicate absolutely everything, there is a Rube Goldberg points formula that incorporates grades and test scores, as well as a percentage of seats set aside for Discovery-like subjective judgments. If you care about the gory details, here they are:
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/apply/applying-lowell-high-school#:~:text=Acceptances%20are%20based%20on%20seat,%2C%201%20B%20per%20semester)%20.
This isn't as good as the plain old test based system, and has all kinds of tweaks in it clearly designed to smuggle in "equity" at the expense of excellence, but it is not nearly as bad as the pure lottery which prevailed for a couple of years.
(I am the parent of an SF middle school student, so have a personal interest in understanding the details here).
Interesting perspective, much of it resonates.
I did have a few qualms with it. But thank you for sharing, good food for thought.
First off, it assumes or states in various places that the only way to inspire greatness is to have intense competition and ranking (instead of, as I would hope of these brightest minds, a true love for the subjects, a collaborative spirit, and an understanding of the possibilities their skills bring to create a life of opportunity and contribution in community, not just personal material success). I know that is a common belief, so I imagine I'm on the far end of extreme in my assumption that many, if not most, kids/people have *something* in life they can be extremely passionate about and great at, and that they, given the right support and exposure, would drive themselves to it naturally, not purely out of a desire to be top of the class, get into the most lucrative career or whatever.
Secondly, it also (to some degree) says the quiet part out loud, which is that the people we should trust to create a better world for everyone are those who are intensely academically gifted in the particular subjects that these schools support. For some reason, I rarely see similar arguments or debate about schools that are very focused on social sciences like nursing, caregiving, early childhood education, etc. Or the arts, like LaGuardia etc. On both sides of this debate, to be clear!
Anyway. I do actually agree that a standardized test is a fairer way to control admissions into an institution with the mission of driving this very specific kind of excellence, and the arguments and historical thread he pulls in are convincing.
However, I disagree with the weakly implied assumption that these kiddos should by default be our glorious future leaders, and that they'll be as good at that as they might be at curing cancer or building rocket ships, if you get my jist.
I heard all about Bloomberg's educational policies back when I was a kid, but I never heard of De Blasio's policies after I became an adult. Mayors will continue to get away with such tragedies so long as schooling remains an unfashionable topic among those old enough to vote on them.