A Question of Education and Excellence: An Inquiry into the Causes of School Segregation

Op-ed as originally posted by the West Side Rag

We are parents. And we have a very difficult question to answer.

The question is not what to do with PS199 or PS191. The question is not whether to move the lines or share the zone or, as proposed by myself and a small group of parents, to split by grades across now two and eventually three schools. The question is not even about diversity. While all of these questions are central to our children’s futures, there is one question underlying them all. And that is, how do we define excellence in education?

As parents struggling to answer this question and all others that stem from it, we are all doing what we think is best for our children. And getting that right is extremely hard.

As parents trying to ensure a positive future for our children, we are constantly wrestling against all odds, despite the fact that not all of these odds are within our control. From putting rubber stoppers on corners of tables to choosing reputable schools with proven track records, we try as best we can to continuously shift these odds incrementally in our children’s favor.

And why wouldn’t we? It is only natural to want what’s best for our children. It is only natural to want them to get into a good school, get good grades and get involved. It is only natural to want them to share the company of other families who share those very same goals.

But what if.

What if, in limiting the odds in our child’s favor, we’ve somehow limited something else that is just as precious?

What if, in ensuring that our child goes to a good college, goes on to a good career and then goes on to something even better, we have overlooked something that is just as vital along the way?

What if, in pursuing our own definitions of education and excellence, we’ve shifted the odds too far?

Given what is at stake, coming to a definition of excellence that we are comfortable with is of an understandable degree of importance. It’s also not an easy thing to determine.

Lacking any single, universal barometer of excellence, we, as parents, can only work with what we have, making leaps of logic and faith based on admittedly imperfect information. Having said that, there are some metrics that have seemingly gained broader acceptance than others. High test scores, national awards and even, regretfully, demographics are some typical metrics that we have taken on as proxies for excellence.

Without any more revealing data than what is available and lacking any better proxy to date, this seems to be the best definition a majority of us can agree upon.

But is this the best that we can do?

In assuming this definition, in shifting the odds so our children have the best chance of attending those institutions deemed excellent based on these limited measures, what are the potential risks?

If we assume an institution is excellent based on the aforementioned measures, is it then safe to assume an institution which is missing one or more of those measures is not? If we direct all our energies at preserving those institutions which have accumulated these metrics over time, do we risk isolating and abandoning those that have not? And perhaps, most critically of all, if we assume that the children within these institutions are capable of excellence, is it just to assume that children that are not within their walls are not equally capable of excellence?

Is it right to presume that, while a family may not have the means, the access or the prestige to attend such an institution, they are any less willing to achieve or any less likely to excel if given the proper resources to do so?

In pursuing a definition of excellence in education based on the qualities of the institution rather than the qualities of our children, does this best serve our children? Or the institution? For what is the true measure of excellence in education if not to reach out beyond our typical enclosures and nurture excellence in all its forms and variance?

If we accept this definition going forward, then, in the same way we shift the odds to protect our children, we incrementally shift the odds in favor of systems and processes and structures that protect this presumed definition of excellence at all costs.

But what, indeed, are the true costs of doing so?

What if, in shifting the odds to accommodate this presumed definition of excellence, we had excluded a representative segment of our district? What would be the risks involved with this separation? I believe the following quote from a teacher in Hartford, CT most clearly describes the potential costs of doing so:

“I think that children can overcome the stigma of poverty. I think children can overcome the stigma of their ethnicity. But what they cannot overcome is the stigma of separation. That is like a damned spot in their being, in their self-image. And that’s what segregation does to children. They see themselves as apart and separate because of the language they speak, because of the color of their skin, the origin of their parents.”

This is the cost. This is the collateral damage of collectively shifting the odds.

Is this a truly excellent outcome? Does this cost fit neatly within our presumed definition of excellence?

So what to do? Not an easy question or an easy answer.

But, perhaps, we can start with the uncomfortable process of introspection. Forget the rhetoric. Forget the camps, the titles, the roles. Just collectively and individually consider our own values, our own principles. What do we stand for? What do we strive for? Then perhaps, after this reflection, we, as a community, can make a decision as to how we *choose* to define excellence in education.

Alternatively, we can continue to methodically shift the odds in favor of certain institutions that exhibit these traits, and, over time, naturally limit access to those very same institutions as they become more and more taxed.

If given a choice, would you accept this definition and this outcome?

It is my sincere hope that my son enters a school system which not only tolerates diversity, and the naturally varied discourse that comes with that, but wholly embraces it as an integral part of its own definition of excellence.

I have hope that the New York City Public School System, rather than being the most segregated in the country, could instead be the most transformative.

The hard work put forth by a small group of parents from within our community was never intended to force a proposal upon others, but rather to present it as an option and a choice. This option, in summary, is as follows:

Starting in 2017, all incoming Kindergarten students currently zoned for either PS199 or PS191 would enroll at PS191 (or an incubated PS342) as a zone-wide “Super Class”. These students would have a crucial opportunity, over the next 3 years, to grow together as a community prior to moving to PS199 for grades 3–5. For parents with current students at PS199 or PS191, your child would graduate from their current school with zero disruption. For parents with younger siblings about to attend PS199, sections could be formed specifically for siblings at PS199 to maintain continuity. These “Sibling Sections” would reunite with the larger “Super Class” when they all enter grade 3 at PS199. (See map below.)

Admittedly, for this choice to work, it would necessarily take all of us to commit, because, without the collective support of the community as a whole, any such decision of this magnitude would inevitably be met with strife and discontent. However, I must believe that applying our collective energies towards realizing this solution must be more favorable than the trauma and discord resulting from our current battles.

So an option and a choice has been presented which could potentially resolve multiple concurrent issues. By distributing demand across PS199, PS191 and, eventually, PS342, this proposal could immediately address overcrowding at PS199. By increasing seat utilization at PS191, it could guarantee all children a spot in Kindergarten rather than subject them to the 50/50 odds of a waitlist or lottery. By directly addressing the perception of “winners and losers” with the elimination of zone lines altogether, it avoids the heartache and trauma of future rezoning processes. By allocating our students based on grades rather than class, color or geography, it could take a small but momentous step towards reversing decades of de facto segregation. It could achieve all of these and, what’s more, depending on the definition of excellence that you prescribe to, even provide a more excellent education than what some of us are grateful to have today.

However, in the end, after this option and this choice has been presented and duly considered by all stakeholders, it is then at the discretion of the community itself to determine our path forward. If we collectively decide this choice, this more expansive definition of excellence, and all the potent possibilities that it brings, is not for us and that we, instead, prefer the status quo, then, ultimately, we have no one else, absolutely no one else to blame, not the DOE, not the CEC, not 191, not 199, not each other.

We have no one else to blame for the impact this decision will have on our children but ourselves.