***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
October 28, 2015

Dear Chancellor Farina,
We are a group of parents, students, educators, advocates, and elected officials who are
passionate about school diversity. Persistent segregation perpetuates inequality, fails our
students, and undermines our democracy – while diverse schools offer a proven path to
student success.
As documented by The New York Times’ “A System Divided” series, and the UCLA
Civil Rights Project, New York City is one of the most segregated school systems in the
nation. While much of this is due to residential segregation, and amplified by
demographic changes across the city, it is exacerbated by school admission and
assignment policies (some long-standing, others adopted during the Bloomberg
administration), and by our failure over decades to confront the issue.
Together, we worked for the passage of the School Diversity Accountability Act (Local
Law 59 of 2015 and City Council Resolution 453). We were encouraged that the
Department of Education supported the bill, and inspired by Mayor de Blasio’s heartfelt
remarks when he signed the bill into law. We look forward to the first annual report
under the new law, due December 31st 2015, on school demographics, school assignment
and admission policies, and the DOE’s efforts to encourage diverse student bodies.
This is an urgent moment for action. Many schools in New York City have requested
permission to utilize Constitutionally-sound admissions policies to create and preserve
diverse schools, but do not yet have an answer from DOE. Several community school
districts are engaged in district-wide diversity planning, exploring strategies (including
“controlled choice”) for school assignment to undo segregation. The scant numbers of
black and Latino students in the specialized high schools remains the subject of a lawsuit
and federal review. The first School Diversity Accountability Act report is therefore an
important opportunity for the DOE to outline the steps we will take moving forward. As
the DOE prepares the first annual report, we write to urge you to adopt a set of specific
policy commitments (attached to this letter) to advance our shared goal of more diverse
schools.
We are not naïve to the political, legal, and logistical challenges to efforts to confront
segregation. However, these cannot be excuses to meet this solemn responsibility. Cities
around the country have dealt thoughtfully with these challenges. We specifically address
the legal concerns in our attached summary of proposals. Many of our proposals come
directly from NYC schools and districts, and have the support of their educational
communities. While contentious zonings in gentrifying and growing areas of the city
demonstrate the challenges, they also show that inaction is not a real option. With
thoughtful policy, good planning, and a strategy for sustained outreach and engagement,
we can make significant progress.

1

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
The policies that we are proposing will help New York City address the shameful legacy
of segregation that has plagued our school system for many decades. But they can also be
viewed through a much more positive lens. Many of us are educators, students, or parents
at elementary, middle, and high schools that have made diversity a centerpiece of joyful,
inclusive, excellent schools. The strategies that we are proposing will expand the
opportunity to attend such schools to tens of thousands of students. We have a window of
opportunity to lead in an inspiring and inclusive direction.
We respectfully request the opportunity to meet with you and your team in the coming
weeks – in advance of the first SDAA report due on December 31, 2015 – to discuss
these proposals (as well as any others you may considering) in the hope that many of
them can be incorporated into the first report.
We look forward to that meeting, to the first SDAA report, and to working together in
concrete ways to meet the goal that Mayor de Blasio set out when he signed the SDAA,
to “ensure that our schools are as diverse as our city, and people of all communities work,
live, and learn together – and will ultimately play an important role in addressing the
inequality gap in education, as well is in our society as a whole.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Goldsmith (CEC 13*)
Ed Brown (CEC 13*)
Maria Farley (CEC 14*)
Naila Rosario (CEC 15*)
Rachel Porter (CEC 15*)
Nicole Job (CEC 17*)
Lisa Donlan
Ujju Aggarwal
Parent Leadership Project
Donna Nevel
PARCEO
David Jones
President and CEO
Community Service Society

Esmeralda Simmons
Founder and Executive Director
Center for Law and Social Justice
Medgar Evers College
Jackson Chin
Senior Council
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
David Tipson
P.S. 372 Parent
Executive Director New York Appleseed
Melissa Moskowitz
Park Slope Collegiate Parent
Parents for Middle School Equity D15
Sarah Camiscoli
Founder and Director
on behalf of IntegrateNYC4me
Kevin Ryan-Young
PTA President, P.S. 133

2

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
Liz Rosenberg
Brooklyn New School, MS 447 Parent
Parents for Middle School Equity D15
Co-founder NYCpublic
Dionne Grayman
Midwood High School Parent
Co-founder NYCpublic
Kemala Karmen
Institute for Collaborative Educ. Parent
Co-founder NYCpublic
Miriam Nunberg
Parents for Middle School Equity D15
Reyhan Mehran
Parents for Middle School Equity D15
Rene Kathawala
Pro Bono Counsel, New York Appleseed
Michele Greenberg
P.S. 372 Diversity Committee*

Noleca Radway
P.S. 146 (BNS) Diversity Committee
Brad Lander
Council Member
Ritchie Torres
Council Member
Inez Barron
Council Member
Rosie Mendez
Council Member
Carlos Menchaca
Council Member
Stephen Levin
Council Member
Laurie Cumbo
Council Member

*For identification purposes only

3

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
Recommendations for NYC Policies to Promote Diverse Schools
As Part of School Diversity Accountability Act, First Annual Report
10/28/2015
1. Adopt a formal policy/Chancellor’s Regulation of promoting school diversity.
At present, DOE has no formal policy of supporting or working toward diversity in its
schools. While Chancellor’s Regulation (A-830) prohibits discrimination and
commits DOE to “equal educational opportunities,” there is no affirmation of
diversity as a value. We urge you to officially commit the Department to the pursuit
of school diversity as a matter of policy (either by amending A-830, or adopting a
new Chancellor’s Regulation) and to providing specific guidance to schools and
school districts on how to comply. This request was also made to the DOE in City
Council Resolution 453, passed as part of the SDAA.
2. Work with interested Community Education Councils (beginning with CECs
1 and 13) and their broader communities to develop district-wide
diversity plans, including “controlled choice.”
The Community Education Councils for Community Schools Districts 1 and 13
are seeking to implement district-wide diversity plans, based on comprehensive
community engagement. We are pleased that the DOE partnered with them and
were awarded funding under the New York State Education Department’s
Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program.
One strategy they wish to explore in this planning process is “controlled-choice”
admissions policies, which allocates seats using an algorithm that includes both
family choice and diversity in determining admissions. Controlled-choice
policies are utilized by school districts around the U.S. (Cambridge, MA; San Jose,
CA; Montclair, NJ). This would be an especially effective strategy for District 1’s
elementary schools, which are already un-zoned, and for District 13’s middle
schools, where only 42% of children attended their zoned elementary school in
2011-2012. Parent leaders, educators, and advocates in Districts 3 and 15
(especially for middle-school choice) are also interested in exploring districtwide diversity planning.
It is critical that these conversations be broad and inclusive, explore districtwide strategies, and be thoughtfully structured to address the challenging issues
of race, class, and neighborhood – and building great schools for all kids. We do
not prejudge how they will conclude; however, it is essential that they begin.
3. Utilize Constitutionally-sound admissions policies for individual
elementary and middle schools to achieve diverse student bodies (in
Community School Districts without a district-wide diversity plan).

4

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
a. Allow interested schools to adopt versions of the “P.S. 133” model: P.S. 133 is a
school located in Park Slope, Brooklyn. It previously had a small, geographic
zone, serving only students in District 13. When it was rebuilt and tripled in
size in 2012, its admission policy was changed, with the support of the
principal, school leadership team (SLT), and the CECs for Districts 13 and 15.
Now, it serves students throughout District 13 and 15, who apply by lottery.
Most important, 35% of the seats are reserved for students who are either
English Language Learners, or eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch.
Thus far, the admission policy appears to be working effectively to draw a
diverse student body to the school’s general-education sections.
As you know, a number of other schools, especially those who accept
students from throughout a district (rather than a narrower geographic
zone), have specifically requested permission to utilize this policy. We
strongly urge you to allow them to do so (in districts that are not working on
district-wide initiatives). We also urge you to utilize this model when
building new schools. Finally, for zoned but undersubscribed schools, we
encourage the use of these (or similar) filters for the remaining seats.
b. When the DOE creates new schools or rezones existing ones, increasing school
diversity should be one of the formal goals of the process (with diverse
stakeholders included early in the process). Just a few weeks ago, the doors
opened at the new K437 building in Kensington, Brooklyn, just a few blocks from
the very diverse P.S. 130. The DOE’s initial proposal was to create a new school
zone, which would have resulted in two schools, each more segregated than the
existing P.S. 130. This impact was not initially considered in DOE’s proposal.
Thanks to the advocacy of parents and educators at P.S. 130 (and with the support
of CEC 15), DOE agreed to revise its admissions plan, and allow the creation of a
“split-sited” P.S. 130 – with students attending Pre-K to 2nd grade at the older
building, 3rd to 5th grade at the new one – thus preserving this diverse school
community.
The impact on diversity and segregation should be considered and, wherever
possible, addressed as part of every school rezoning. We know that this will not
always be easy, as the current rezoning proposal for Brooklyn’s P.S. 8 and P.S.
307 clearly shows. But with a formal policy, along with early inclusion of diverse
stakeholders, and thoughtful and consistent practices that help to address
concerns, we believe it can be successful.
4. Address the lack of diversity at the specialized high schools under the DOE’s
jurisdiction.
African-American and Latino students are dramatically under-represented at New
York City’s specialized high schools. Mayor de Blasio has rightly said that the
SHSAT should not be the only way to gain admission, and that reforms are necessary
to increase the enrollment of black and Latino students. While the State Legislature

5

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
would need to amend Hecht-Calandra law to change admissions procedures at
Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech, the NYC Department of Education
has the power to reform admissions procedures at the other six specialized high
schools: Brooklyn Latin; High School for American Studies; High School for
Mathematics, Science and Engineering; LaGuardia; Queens High School for the
Sciences; Staten Island Tech.
A strong method for increasing diversity at the specialized schools would be to
guarantee the highest-performing students at every public middle school an offer to
attend one of the specialized schools. As a New York University study of proposed
admissions changes concluded, a policy which guarantees admission to highachieving students from every middle school is “the only simulated admissions rule
that would substantially change the demographic mix of the specialized high schools
– and reduce the concentration of offers in a small number of middle schools.”
Another potential strategy for increasing diversity at the specialized high schools is to
award seats based on multiple measures, including New York State test scores, which
all students already take and are better aligned with the middle school curriculum.
Finally, the City should revive use of the Discovery program – which allowed lowincome students who scored slightly below the cutoff for a specialized school to
enroll at that school if they successfully complete a preparatory summer program –
and target it to students in middle schools that have been least likely to send students
to the specialized high schools.
5. Promote diversity in high schools by expanding the number of Educational
Option (Ed-Opt) high school programs and requiring more high schools to serve
diverse learners.
The NYC high-school choice process is ripe for review and reform, to address issues
of equity, integration, and transparency. In the meantime, there are some things that
DOE should do.
a. Increase the number of Educational Option high schools: Ed-Opt high schools
admit a range of high-, medium- and low-performing students on the basis of their
prior-year ELA state test scores. While Ed-Opt schools have historically achieved
high academic results while maintaining racial and socioeconomic diversity,
many were closed under the Bloomberg Administration and replaced with schools
that use limited unscreened admissions policies. This trend contributes to the
extreme segregation of New York City public schools, and it should be reversed.
We encourage the DOE to meet with Ed-Opt high schools, along with existing
limited unscreened and screened schools who might be interested in becoming
Ed-Opt, to discuss needed policies (it may be appropriate to consider changes and
options that build on the existing model) and supports that schools need to make
these policies work.

6

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***
b. Require more schools (including screened schools) to serve diverse learners: For
screened high schools (and potentially middle schools as well), we recommend
implementing clearer requirements that these schools serve a diverse array of
learners. We should not allow schools to curate non-diverse student bodies based
on test scores.
6. Make more intentional use of the DOE’s existing Public School Choice (PSC)
program to maximize opportunities for students in low-performing schools to
transfer into better learning environments, with an eye toward strengthening diversity.
In the 2014-2015 academic year, approximately 6,600 students applied for PCS
transfers, filling only around 4,000 of 12,000 available seats. The Department of
Education should gather comprehensive data on PSC transfers, see what steps could
be taken to encourage more families to take advantage of this option, and consider it a
part of the Department’s diversity efforts.
7. Provide supports to schools working intentionally to achieve diversity: In order to
succeed, diverse schools require supports and resources. Schools with lotteries need
to conduct broad outreach. Schools with students across a wider geography need
additional transportation. More heterogeneous schools may require teachers and
support staff who speak multiple languages. And diverse schools benefit from
learning “best practices” in staff development, supporting diverse learners, and
creating space for real conversation about the challenges that go along with
confronting issues of segregation in the United States. The DOE should commit
resources to assisting schools with rapidly changing demographics to achieve these
goals.

These Proposals are Constitutionally-Sound
In several meetings, representatives from the DOE’s general counsel’s office have
expressed concern about the Constitutionality of some of these proposals.
Joint guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of
Justice entitled “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid
Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools”1 (issued after the Supreme
Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
No. 1, and affirmed after their decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin) makes
clear that all of the strategies proposed in this letter are Constitutionally-permissible
under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court.
Five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2007 that K-12 public school districts
have compelling interests in achieving diversity and in avoiding racial isolation.
Although he found that the specific cases at issue were not narrowly tailored to serve that
interest, Justice Kennedy, in his controlling opinion, went out of his way to reassure
school districts that they were free to adopt race-conscious integration strategies that did
not take into account the race of any individual student.
1

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.html

7

 ***CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION***

Based on this decision, the United States Department of Education and Department of
Justice issued their guidance on the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity and avoid
racial isolation in elementary and secondary schools in December 2012. That guidance
expressly notes that school districts are encouraged to consider race-neutral approaches to
promote diversity and reduce racial isolation. There are many school districts that
currently use socioeconomic status, instead of race, as a factor in school integration
(including LaCrosse, WI; Wake County, NC; and Cambridge, MA).
(None of the policies proposed in this letter consider the race of individual students; as
such, all are on extremely solid legal ground following PICS and Fisher. However, it is
worth noting that the U.S. DOE’s guidance goes even further, making clear – following
Justice Kennedy’s opinion – that “a school district may only consider the race of
individual students if it does so in a manner that is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling
interest.” That is a quite different standard than the “where required by court order”
standard per NYC DOE’s Chancellor’s Regulation A-101, footnote 1).
Additionally, it is worth noting that the requirements of NYSED’s Socioeconomic
Integration Pilot Program, to which DOE must adhere in fulfillment of the grant,
specifically instruct districts to follow the federal guidance and to use a “choice-based
admissions policy that will promote socioeconomic diversity in the school’s entry grade
through consideration of at-risk factors for each applicant as indicated in parent
questionnaires submitted with the application for admission.”
If DOE’s general counsel’s office disagrees with this analysis – and especially if it
disagrees with the U.S. Department of Education and NYSED’s guidance on these
matters – we request an explanation of the disagreement in writing. If not, then we hope
we can proceed to work together toward implementation, under the framework outlined
by the U.S. DOE’s guidance.

8