Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students School Diversity Advisory Group • February 2019 1 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Executive Committee School Diversity Advisory Group Amy Hsin Queens College, City University of New York Hazel Dukes (Co-chair) NAACP Jose Calderon (Co-chair) Hispanic Federation Maya Wiley (Co-chair) New School Richard Kahlenberg The Century Foundation Alexa Sorden Concourse Village Elementary School Amy Stuart Wells Teachers College, Columbia University Andrew Averill The College Academy Ashley Valente P.S. 396 Asya Johnson Longwood Preparatory Academy Cassandra Baptiste The Children’s School Celia Green Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Committee (CPAC) David R. Jones Community Service Society of NY (CSSNY) David E. Kirkland NYU Metro Center Debbie Almontaser Bridging Cultures, Inc. DeKaila Wilson Pelham Lab High School, IntegrateNYC Dennis Parker National Center for Law and Economic Justice Diana Noriega The Committee for Hispanic Children and Families (CHCF) Frances Lucerna El Puente Frantzy Luzincourt IntegrateNYC Henry Rubio Council of School Supervisors & Administrators (CSA) James Merriman NYC Charter School Center Janella Hinds United Federation of Teachers (UFT) Kim Sweet Advocates for Children of New York LaShawn Robinson* School Climate and Wellness, NYC DOE Liam Buckley NYC Lab High School; Chancellor’s Student Advisory Council (CSAC) Lois Herrera* Office of Safety and Youth Development, NYC DOE Marco Battistella Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Committee (CPAC) Marisol Rosales Executive Superintendent, Manhattan Matt Gonzales New York Appleseed Matthew Diaz Bronx Academy of Letters, IntegrateNYC Meisha Ross Porter Executive Superintendent, Bronx NeQuan McLean Education Council Consortium (ECC) Noah Angeles York Early College Academy Rebecca Rawlins* Office of District Planning, NYC DOE Ryan J. S. Baxter PASSNYC (Promoting Access to Specialized Schools in Sarah Kleinhandler* Office of Student Enrollment, NYC DOE Sarah “Zaps” Zapiler IntegrateNYC Shino Tanikawa Education Council Consortium (ECC) Sister Paulette Good Shepherd Services New York City); REBNY LoMonaco Sonia C. Park Diverse Charter Schools Coalition Vanessa Leung Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF) Wayne Ho Chinese-American Planning Council Yolanda Torres* Division of Family and Community Engagement, NYC DOE Yousof Abdelreheem John Bowne High School, Chancellor’s Student Advisory Council (CSAC), IntegrateNYC, Teen Take Charge *DOE staff did not have a formal vote on recommendations. 2 School Diversity Advisory Group Contents »» Letter from the Executive Committee »» Letter from NYC Students 6 8 »» Letter from NYC Parents 10 »» Executive Summary 12 Why school diversity matters. 22 How did we get here? 40 What do things look like today? 50 Our recommendations for school diversity & integration. 60 Goals, Metrics & Accountability Race, Socioeconomic Status & Enrollment Resources Relationships Restorative Justice & Practices Representation Our path forward. 96 »» Appendix 98 »» Glossary 106 3 LLI 615 8 3 Figures & Tables Figures Tables 5 Student Racial Dot Density Map 20 Boroughwide Town Hall Feedback 38 NYC Racial Demographics Over Time 42 Historical Enrollment Data 45 Diversity in Admissions Pilot Programs 48 New York City Student Poverty 52 Bronx Student Poverty Brooklyn Student Poverty 53 54 Manhattan Student Poverty 55 Queens Student Poverty 56 Staten Island Student Poverty 57 Student Race 59 Kindergarten G&T Program Demographics 71 3rd Grade G&T Program Demographics 71 Screened Programs Citywide 73 High School Program Demographic Comparison 75 NYC DOE Revenue Sources and Expenditures 79 Per Pupil Funding by Borough 80 Student Poverty by Borough 81 Student Suspension Racial Demographics 90 Teacher Racial Demographics 93 Low-income Student Academic Performance 26 Student Demographics 58 Kindergarten-5th grade Assigned Zone Attendance 69 Assigned District & Home Borough Attendance 69 Letter from the Executive Committee New York City is not only the largest city in the country, we believe, as New Yorkers, that it is the greatest city in the country. One reason is that it is a truly global city. With an estimated 800 native languages and almost forty percent of our friends and neighbors born abroad, we are much more than just the home to the United Nations. We are the United Nations. Our city’s history is as complicated and troubled as that of our country. We are immigrants and migrants, documented and undocumented. We are descendants of slaves. We are from the West Indies. Our city is home to the highest number of Native Americans of any US city, the original descendants of North America and New York City. We are new to New York City, and we are multigenerational New Yorkers. And this is our great pride and our great strength. When we, five members of the Executive Committee of the School Diversity Advisory Group, first came together, it was with a conscious resemblance of this history and present. We came together not all knowing each other and not all knowing the other members of the Advisory Group. However, we share a sense of the tremendous importance of the questions before us. This country is experiencing a time of deep division along racial lines. From solving climate change, to managing technology, the rapid shifts of people and economies and the desperate need for social unity and collaboration, the world is making new and more complicated demands of our children. We recognize that as a city, as a people, we can only meet our challenges and improve our lives if we find ways to do it together. 6 School Diversity Advisory Group Sixty-five years since Brown v. Board of Education declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional, New York City has taken only very modest steps to live up to these challenges. In fact, a 2014 study by the UCLA Civil Rights Project found that New York State schools are the most segregated in the country – more segregated than the schools in Alabama or Mississippi. This fact ought to horrify every member of our proud city. Segregation by the color of our skin, the language we speak, our income, our physical ability or the way we learn robs all children of the chance to improve their ability to think critically, to work collaboratively, to engage globally and to benefit from the city as the classroom. Researcher Eugene Garcia has noted, “When a child comes to school for the first time he/ she comes with a little suitcase full of experiences (language and culture) that he/she had before coming to school.” All students benefit when a teacher says, “Welcome, let’s open that little suitcase and see what you have so you can share and we can learn from you.” Segregation also robs children who have been robbed already by a society that dictates where they can live based on the race, income or language of their parents. Our societal decisions about public housing and private housing, our history of creating and believing stereotypes about race and immigration and income have created neighborhoods and zoned schools that mirror housing discrimination and poverty. On average, racially and socioeconomically segregated schools have fewer resources – less experienced teachers, higher concentrations of need, and lower academic standards, despite the talents of the children in the building. Nationally, low-income students in mixed-income schools are as much as two years ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in math. In New York City, 44.6% of lowincome students in mixed-income schools (where 3070% of students are low-income) earned proficiency on the English Language Arts exam, compared to 30.7% of low-income students in predominantly lowincome schools (where more than 70% of students are low-income). On the math exam, 44.0% of lowincome students in mixed-income schools earned proficiency, compared to 27.4% of low-income students in predominantly low-income schools. New York City is a leader. It is also our broad and deep diversity that puts us in the best position to lead the nation on unity and excellence by addressing segregation in all its forms – race, wealth, language, immigration status, ability, religion and much more. We have more opportunity to lead the change than at any time since the Brown decision in 1954. We have a mayor who ran against the “tale of two cities,” a Schools Chancellor who has declared that school desegregation should be a top priority, and an engaged and multi-dimensional group of leaders and institutions willing to work towards a shared future. And, because the number of middle-class families choosing to send their children to public schools has increased in recent years, the possibilities for creating integrated schools in many parts of the city are greater than in years past. As an Advisory Group, we have worked to model what all people must do across this city. We have engaged, built relationships, looked at data, argued with respect and worked on understanding each other’s various experiences and perspectives. We sought to be engaged beyond the Advisory Group, not just with the Department of Education (DOE) and its committed staff of educators and administrators, but with students, parents and interested members of our amazing city. Our community engagement will not end with the publication of this report. We welcomed the Chancellor’s request to work beyond 2018, and we 7 will produce additional recommendations later this year. We will continue to examine critical practices with troubling histories, like screened schools and gifted and talented programs. Their use raises real questions about how to ensure all of our children are recognized for their talents, supported with high expectations, and welcomed into challenging academic environments. We recognize that not all of New York City’s schools can be racially and economically integrated immediately, which is why most of our recommendations apply to every school in the city, whether or not they are likely to become integrated soon. Inspired by students, we adopted IntegrateNYC’s 5Rs of Real Integration – Race and Enrollment; Resources; Relationships; Restorative Justice; and Representation – four of which apply to all schools, irrespective of enrollment. However, because not all schools can be integrated quickly does not mean that some shouldn’t be. We estimate, for example, that nine of New York City’s 32 community school districts have sufficient socioeconomic diversity to meet our goals for economically integrated schools. These nine community districts are just a subset of New York City schools, but they educate 330,338 students. Taken together, these nine community districts would constitute the fifth largest school district in the nation. Last year, Chancellor Richard Carranza said of desegregation, “We’ve been admiring this issue for 64 years! Let’s stop admiring and let’s start acting.” We agree, which is why this report lays out a bold and practical blueprint for change and why we aren’t stopping. The Executive Committee of the School Diversity Advisory Group: Amy Hsin, Queens College, CUNY Hazel Dukes, NAACP Jose Calderon, Hispanic Federation Maya Wiley, New School Richard Kahlenberg, The Century Foundation Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Letter from NYC Students We, the students of IntegrateNYC, stand for integrated schools that value students of color. We believe diversity initiatives that do not invest in cultural competency, disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline, recruit and retain diverse teachers and staff, and equitably fund all schools, are insufficient. In 1954, the Supreme Court held that “separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal.” In 2019, separate is #STILLNOTEQUAL, so how much have we really progressed since the desegregation movement and passing of Brown v. Board of Education 65 years ago? Segregation affects us, our siblings, loved ones, and generations to come. But we will never be successful in achieving Real Integration if adults are unwilling to create space for the empowerment and leadership of young people. Youth voice and presence is often tokenized, ignored, or silenced when discussing integration. Young people are directly impacted by segregation, and should be leading the movement to achieving Real Integration in our city’s schools. Youth leaders across the city - including Teens Take Charge, Urban Youth Collaborative, Asian American Student Advocacy Project (ASAP), and many more - are leading the charge for educational equity in NYC. IntegrateNYC is a youth-led organization that stands for integration and equity in New York City schools. Over the past five years, IntegrateNYC has created space for public school students to organize, build coalitions, and design solutions to school segregation. Students developed the 5Rs of Real Integration, a framework that redefines integration as more than the movement of bodies. The 5Rs of Real Integration: We reclaim our right to: Racially integrate our schools through admissions processes that prioritize diversity by race, class, ability, and home language. Resource our schools through equitable distribution and monitoring of resources and opportunities. Relate through supportive relationships and culturally responsive curriculum and professional development for educators. Restore justice by interrupting the school-to-prison pipeline through community-building and appropriate responses to conflict that do not disproportionately remove students of color and those with disabilities from the classroom. Represent diverse communities through school faculty and leaders that reflect the cultures and identities of students and families. 8 School Diversity Advisory Group This framework was created by students, for students, and we believe it is necessary for all five components to work in conjunction to transform our schools into spaces that affirm, empower, and educate young people. As members of the School Diversity Advisory Group, we are proud to see the 5Rs be a collective framework that all stakeholders - parents, educators, advocates, and researchers- have gotten behind. We would also like to acknowledge Teens Take Charge for their work in developing Student Voice recommendations endorsed in this report. We call for continued authentic student leadership in the process of creating policies that affect us most. We urge Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Carranza to take action on the recommendations in this report. Segregation has no place in New York City. On this 65th Anniversary of Brown v Board of Education, it is time New York City finally retire segregation. We look forward to representing and standing by the voice of students as these initiatives take shape. Sincerely, Students of IntegrateNYC Source: IntegrateNYC 9 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Letter from NYC Parents Behind most (if not every) failed education policy lies the absence of parent involvement at the creation stage of the policy. In order to create positive and supportive policies we need parents’ voices — not the formal parent engagement that rubber stamps decisions already made by others, but true involvement in the planning and the making. Yet parents have often been left out of the development and implementation of new policies, even those that affect them directly. Our experience as parent members of the School Diversity Advisory Group was positive and enriching. While there are other SDAG members who have children in public schools, we are the only members who participate as parent representatives. The four of us have shared our perspectives not only as parents of children currently in public schools but also as parent advocates who have volunteered countless hours working with other parents to improve our schools for all the children of the city. We must recognize the key position parents hold in school integration, particularly with regard to their ability to exercise school choice, and engage them far and wide as we move forward with school integration efforts. We also believe actively seeking parents who have traditionally been left out or ignored by the system, and empowering them to participate in the process is important. We believe we can achieve an equitable school system and we believe it can be achieved by improving the school experience for all children, but to make it happen we need the help, the experience, and the collaboration of all parents. Admittedly the parents of 1.1 million students in the New York City public schools are not all in agreement about how to integrate our schools, but we call on all parents to bring their voice, seek information, look for what’s best for all children and, ultimately, constructively challenge us to improve the work that the SDAG is carrying forward. Sincerely, Celia Green (CPAC), Marco Battistella (CPAC), NeQuan McLean (ECC), Shino Tanikawa (ECC) 10 School Diversity Advisory Group 11 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School StudentsSource: NYC DOE Executive Summary In June 2017, as part of the Equity and Excellence for All: Diversity in New York City Public Schools plan, the DOE established a School Diversity Advisory Group (SDAG) to make formal policy recommendations to the Mayor and Chancellor. The report named three Co-chairs - José Calderón, President of the Hispanic Federation, Hazel Dukes, President of the NAACP New York State Conference and Maya Wiley, Senior Vice President for Social Justice and Henry Cohen Professor of Urban Policy and Management at the New School. The three co-chairs and two additional members - Amy Hsin, Associate Professor of Sociology at Queens College and Richard Kahlenberg, Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation - make up the group’s Executive Committee. The broader SDAG includes over 40 members, who bring a range of personal and professional perspectives to the group. Members include city government stakeholders, local and national experts on school diversity, parents, teachers, advocates, students, and other community leaders. The SDAG members were identified by the City and the Executive Committee and began meeting in December 2017. The SDAG met as a full group and in sub-committees to advance discussions and also engaged in public sessions in every borough. From December 2017, through the publication of this report, the SDAG and its subcommittees have collectively held nearly 40 meetings, including one day-long retreat, and town hall meetings with over 800 New Yorkers, to facilitate research and discussion of a number of key policy areas related to diversity. Upon its formation, the SDAG defined a set of shared principles to govern its work. These principles serve as the lens through which all recommendations, current and future, are filtered: • • • Diversity means something different in each community and recommendations should speak to that broad definition. The Advisory group operates with respect, transparency and an inclusive process. Advisory group recommendations will: increase equity, be based on research-supported approaches, seek to understand unintended consequences, and be based on what DOE can implement in the shortterm, with some longer-term recommendations. Decades of research has taught us that diverse, integrated schools offer academic and social benefits for all students. Researchers have identified three major advantages to integrated schools: (1) all students benefit when they can learn from classmates who have different life experiences to share, 13 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students evidenced by higher academic outcomes, stronger critical thinking skills, and increased creativity; (2) all students benefit from reductions in prejudices and implicit biases and improved social-emotional well-being; and (3) all students benefit from experiences that prepare them for an increasingly diverse society. The SDAG’s recommendations first discuss DOE’s existing diversity plan and are then organized using the framework developed by students of IntegrateNYC, a youth-led organization that stands for integration and equity, called the 5Rs of Real Integration. The 5Rs is a collective impact framework to address the manifestations of segregation in public schools which speaks to a broader set of questions we need to ask ourselves when we look at whether our schools are diverse, equitable, and integrated. The 5Rs are: Race and Enrollment, Resources, Relationships, Restorative Justice & Practices, and Representation. Between now and the end of the school year, the SDAG will continue to meet to explore further recommendations based on community input and engagement, and continued analysis and research. We commit to releasing a subsequent report with additional recommendations on school screens, gifted and talented (G&T) programs, and school resources by the end of this school year. Recommendations Goals, Metrics, & Accountability We recommend that DOE be more ambitious and more realistic. This means, in the short-term, setting racial and socio-economic diversity goals by considering neighborhood opportunities, in the medium-term looking at borough averages, and in the long-term looking at the city as a whole. • • • • • • • 14 Short-term and Medium-term: Elementary and middle schools should be measured against their district’s racial, economic, Multilingual Learner (MLL), and Students with Disabilities (SWD) percentages. Upon hitting these targets, individual schools should work towards reaching their borough percentages in the mid-term. Long-term: DOE should aim for all schools to look more like the city. This will encourage the DOE to challenge the neighborhood segregation that exists and support schools in further diversifying their populations. Racial representation should consider all races. Socioeconomic integration should incorporate research-backed goals. MLL and SWD targets should also be narrowed. Adjust goals for schools located in areas with concentrated vulnerability. Track and publish a single set of metrics. School Diversity Advisory Group • • • • Create a Chief Integration Officer position. Create mechanisms for students to hold the system accountable. Add metrics to School Quality Report related to Diversity and Integration. Consider incentives to secure charter school commitments to diversity and integration. Race, Socioeconomic Status & Enrollment The School Diversity Advisory Group supports a more equitable set of admissions processes that will help ensure quality learning environments for our children by supporting more schools and classrooms that reflect the city’s diversity. • • Require all nine districts with sufficient demographic diversity of population to develop diversity and integration plans (Districts 1, 2, 3, 13, 15, 22, 27, 28, 31). Require that districts analyze controlled choice, screens, gifted and talented and other admissions policies and programs in terms of improving or perpetuating racially schools that are isolated based on race or other factors. Accessibility and integration of students with disabilities • • • • All admissions fairs and events should be held in fully accessible buildings. School staff should be trained to welcome and accommodate students and family members with disabilities as well as immigrant families, and students and families who need interpreters on tours and school visits, as well as at school fairs. All Family Welcome Center staff should be trained to support students with disabilities and should be prepared to help students consider all school options within their community. As the City moves more of its admissions processes online, all applications should utilize the Universal Design for Learning Framework for presenting information and increasing accessibility. Resources This report broadens the definition of resources beyond dollars to the efforts funded. The DOE must address funding formulas that lead to uneven distribution of money and, therefore, inequitable opportunity in schools for programs, staff and facilities. 15 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students School Diversity Grant Program • • • • Make resources available for any district to receive support for planning diversity, if it receives more applications than the $2 million can support. Permit districts to apply jointly. Consider a separate pot of funds for districts that have not yet begun conversations about integration. Consult the SDAG on the roll-out of the grant program. System-wide recommendations • • • • • • • • • • Support efforts in Albany to collect all Campaign for Fiscal Equity funding owed to the City’s schools. Launch a Task Force to recommend equitable PTA fundraising strategies. Examine Title 1 and its relationship to integration. Gather information from schools to determine what resources and changes in policies they feel they need to create greater diversity in their communities. Develop and invest in accelerated enrichment programs in elementary schools. Invest in programming that intentionally creates diverse populations. Invest in programs and offerings that will attract more diverse families to schools they might not have considered before. Invest in program offerings to ensure high poverty schools have the same curricular, extra-curricular and after school opportunities as schools in more affluent communities. Invest in college and career prep resources. Invest in growing and strengthening high-performing schools outside of Manhattan. Relationships Diversity, as students have demanded, includes how students’ unique backgrounds and experiences are valued and how they are supported in developing relationships. Relationships between students, parents, teachers, guidance counselors, parent coordinators, and other school staff play an important role in supporting student success and creating environments where all students feel supported and empowered and learn from each other. Student Empowerment • • 16 Every school should have the resources for a high-quality student council. Borough Student Advisory Councils should be expanded to include seats for student council representatives from every high school. School Diversity Advisory Group • • • • • A General Assembly should be created with representatives from every high school to develop a citywide student agenda and vote on key issues. The Chancellor’s Student Advisory Committee should be transformed into a leadership body that utilizes youth-adult committees to promote authentic partnership. Create a Student Leadership Team, comprised of one student from each BSAC to meet monthly with the Chancellor. Create a new leadership position within the central DOE office to focus on student voice. Create a standing committee on high school admissions to advise the Chancellor in decision-making. Pedagogy & Curriculum • • • • • • • • Provide culturally responsive pedagogical practices at all schools and for all students. Adopt a common definition of Culturally Relevant Education (CRE) that will inform and shape work across the DOE. Create partnerships with institutions of higher education to ensure CRE is an essential component of all pre-service teacher training efforts. Collaborate with the New York State Education Department and Alternative Certification Programs (i.e. NYCTF/Americorps/Teach for America/NYC Men Teach) to utilize CRE principles as part of teaching certification. Work with NYSED, under the state’s ESSA plan, to secure additional funding to train and support teachers and staff in culturally responsive instruction. Implement ethnic and culturally responsive courses for all students that include religious literacy and disability studies. Utilize trauma-informed research to guide the development and implementation of curricula. Seek partnerships with qualified vendors who supply Culturally Responsive instructional materials, training, and resources. School Climate • • • • • 17 Assess the roles and responsibilities of School Safety Agents in school communities. Analyze the benefits and drawbacks of moving School Safety Agents to DOE supervision from NYPD supervision. Train School Safety Agents, and Family Welcome Center, DOE central-, field- and school-based staff in CRE. Bolster school-based equity teams and ensure they include parent and student reps to advance welcoming school climates. Require all schools to monitor student discipline practices and develop a plan to reduce disparities in how students are disciplined. Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students • • Expand community schools initiative and other models that connect schools to community based organizations. Include metrics for accountability related to school climate directly on Quality Review/School-wide Comprehensive Education Plan (CEP) Goals. Parent & Teacher Empowerment • • • • • • • Utilize varied outreach efforts to meaningfully engage parents in school decision-making processes with the goal of including families that have not participated in prior activities. These may include altering the time, location, setting, or language of the gathering to reflect family needs. Ensure families are meaningfully engaged in decisions about changes to admissions policies and procedures in their native language. Ensure families without internet access or a computer at home are able to utilize all tools related to application and enrollment. Consider cultural relevance or acceptance of new tools for families and students (e.g., online application and enrollment) before release and establish supports for families who will likely not utilize new tools. Ensure that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are translated and provide interpretation and translation support for IEP-related meetings. Support current efforts to share best practices between teachers, administrators and parents on CRE, school climate, and parent empowerment. Collaborate with the Division of Teaching and Learning alongside the UFT so that School Based Mentors, Teacher Leaders, Chapter Leaders/ Delegates, and Instructional Coaches can participate in the sharing of best practices citywide. Restorative Justice & Practices In 2015, the Mayor, in partnership with the DOE, the Police Department, and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, convened the Mayor’s Leadership Team on School Climate and Discipline. This working group ultimately made a set of recommendations, which are included in this report at a summary level. The SDAG endorses these recommendations and calls upon the DOE and its partner agencies to provide an update on the implementation of these recommendations. We urge you to read their full reports: Safety with Dignity and Maintaining the Momentum: A Plan for Safety and Fairness In Schools. 18 School Diversity Advisory Group Representation We encourage the DOE to further its efforts to create a diverse workforce— including principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, and all other school staff— and expand its definition of that diversity to include all race and ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, gender identities, languages, and abilities. • • • • • • 19 Report diversity of staff by position (e.g., teacher, administrator, para, other staff) as part of the school quality report. Study the impact of current initiatives and make targeted investments to expand them. Monitor diversity of workforce, to the extent possible, based on race, ethnicity, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Explore career pipeline opportunities for parent coordinators within the school system. Explore opportunities to build an educator career pipeline for high school students. Launch a task force to investigate the current state of the DOE’s workforce in greater detail and make recommendations about best practices learned from existing efforts. This task force should also look at examples of success from other school districts and sectors. Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Figure 1. Student Racial Dot Density Map This map visualizes the racial demographics of students based on where they attend school. Each dot represents 25 students of the same racial demographic. The data represents students of all grades enrolled for the 2017-2018 school year. 1 dot = 25 Students Asian Black Latinx White Other 20 School Diversity Advisory Group Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 21 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Why school diversity matters. The Case for Integration We need schools that meet the learning styles and needs of all our students and to do that, our children must be learning together and from each other. Public schools are the bedrock of a democratic society. They are meant to support social cohesion and promote social mobility in our city and society. Racially and economically segregated schools undermine those fundamental goals and lessen the educational experience of all students. That is why, since the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Americans of goodwill have recognized that separate schools for different races and different classes are inherently unequal. In an increasingly global society, segregation as policy and practice is immoral and unsustainable. Decades of research has taught us that racially and socioeconomically diverse schools offer academic and social benefits for all students, and can lead to more inclusive classroom environments and increased overall school quality. Researchers have identified three major advantages to racially and economically integrated schools: (1) all students benefit when they can learn from classmates who have different life experiences to share, evidenced by higher academic outcomes, stronger critical thinking skills, and increased creativity; (2) all students benefit from reductions in prejudices and implicit biases and improved social-emotional well-being; and (3) all students benefit from experiences that prepare them for an increasingly diverse society. Integration is not just desegregation or simply providing access to white schools for nonwhite students. We seek 21st century integration rather than 20th century desegregation, a process that de-centers whiteness and aims for equitable access, opportunity, and success for all students. 23 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Shared Language School diversity is an important topic that raises strong emotions. Since we all come from different backgrounds and our varied life experiences inform our view of these issues, the SDAG believes it is critical that people come to the discussion with a common understanding of terms and definitions. As a group, we talked a lot about and struggled over the right language to use to discuss the critically important issues around high quality education in a city as diverse as New York. Our schools are shaped by a long history of decisions around race. From ghettos founded on racism, to poverty and housing costs, where we live too often dictates the quality of our schools. And if students are mostly Black and Latinx, assumptions about quality and education are often based on stereotypes. As a group, we recognize and embrace the effort to ensure representative schools that also take into account issues like language barriers, learning differences, physical ability differences, religion and gender identities. Often our students have more than one of these characteristics. They all have overlapping and sometimes unique barriers to the education they deserve, and unique histories in the city as well. As a result, we do not, as a group or a city, share a language to talk about issues of diversity, inclusion, integration and equity, although we do, as a full Advisory Group, embrace the values these words embody. We had complex and rich discussions about language in terms of how best to express how we got here, where we are, and where we want to go. It was clear that we do not use the same language and have different experiences with what language communicates our goals effectively - that race is too real a factor historically and today, in shaping how our schools look, our assumptions about students, and the opportunities they are denied. Our wide diversity of cultures and histories raised nuanced and important differences in how to communicate. Some in our group, for example, use the language of “white supremacy” to describe the very real history and present-day consequences of policies, practices and behaviors that harm education for all our children. Some agree with the “analysis” of those who use “white supremacy” but were concerned that members of the general public might feel blamed or even pushed out of the discussion. From an immigrant of color perspective, some stated that “race,” while understood as a factor, is not discussed in that way and that language and culture are more resonant ways to discuss the issues we face. We, therefore, acknowledge that none of us share a single vocabulary for talking about the complex way our schools create divisions and deny opportunity. 24 School Diversity Advisory Group Below, we share a glossary of terms as we have agreed to use them. We are intent on an inclusive and constructive public conversation that confronts bias in all its forms, from racism to unconscious stereotypes, to policies and decisions that shape assumptions and can serve to divide us by making the pie look small. We aspire to an “us” and whatever language we use, we believe the discussions are challenging and worth it. In the creation of these definitions, the group recognizes the importance of words to signal intentions and commitment, advance compassion and empathy, and promote long-lasting change. These definitions are bold, unapologetic and unambiguous. By sharing the definitions below, we acknowledge a long history of unequal educational opportunity. The themes below are prevalent in many aspects of our society. In this report we use them in the context of education. SDAG Definitions Equity is our goal. It means all people receive what they need to be successful in their education. It focuses on equal opportunities not equal inputs, recognizing that different individuals have different access, challenges, histories and needs. Diversity is the various backgrounds and races that comprise our communities and city as a whole. Diversity in this report includes diversity of background, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, language and ability. It also values inclusion of the experiences and perspectives this diversity represents, including representation of varying perspectives and thoughts in classrooms, schools and campuses and welcoming and supporting this diversity. Segregation is the state or condition of being separated or restricted within a school setting. Segregation keeps a group from accessing power and resources necessary to advance the group and achieve equity. Historically, segregation has been used to protect privilege and to reinforce racism and other prejudices. Integration is universal access to education environments like schools and classrooms, where power is shared by all groups. It brings people together through the expansion and fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and freedoms. Inclusion is authentically bringing traditionally excluded individuals and/ or groups into processes, activities, and decision/policy making in a way that shares power and makes all feel welcome. Power is the access to resources and decision-making to get what you want and define reality for yourself and potentially for others. 25 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students All students in diverse classrooms develop greater critical thinking skills Benefits of Diverse Schools Because students of different races and ethnic backgrounds often bring different cultural knowledge and social perspectives into schools, classrooms with racially diverse groups of students are more likely to enhance critical thinking by exposing students to new information and understandings.1 Researchers found that when white students are isolated in classrooms without the benefit of students who are different from them, no such cognitive stimulation occurs. “The mere inclusion of different perspectives, and especially divergent ones, in any course of discussion leads to the kind of learning outcomes (for example, critical thinking, perspective-taking) that educators, regardless of field, are interested in.”2 Students experiencing classroom diversity – specifically racial and ethnic diversity – “showed the greatest engagement in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and motivation, and growth in intellectual and academic skills.”3 The academic gains of diverse classrooms are stronger in younger students Desegregated schools showed positive impacts on reading achievement4, which researchers believe to be interrelated to students’ social relationships with others and motivation to succeed.5 On the National Assessment of Educational Progress assessment, low-income students in economically mixed schools are as much as two years ahead of low-income students in highpoverty schools. Table 1: Low-income Student Academic Performance A larger percentage of low-income students are proficient in ELA and Math at economically mixed schools. The percentage of low-income students who are ELA and math proficient is higher in schools with low-income student populations between 30% and 70% and in schools with less than 30% low-income student populations. # of Schools Avg. % Low-Income # Low-Income ELA Proficient % Low-Income ELA Proficient # Low-Income Math L34 % Low-Income Math Proficient 1. Less than 30% 72 17% 2,097 59% 1,944 57% 2. Between 30% and 70% 312 54% 32,542 45% 31,565 44% 3. More than 70% 732 87% 59,637 31% 53,268 27% % Low-Income Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 26 School Diversity Advisory Group Diverse classrooms are also linked to long-term success and life opportunities Research shows that attending integrated schools is related to an increased likelihood of completing high school for nonwhite students.6 Students of all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds who have experienced integration prior to attending a college or university, are also more likely to connect positively with diverse students, and take advantage of academic opportunities.7 Attending diverse schools also provides benefits for Black, Latinx and Asian students by connecting them to social and professional networks that help create job opportunities. In segregated settings networks are generally more accessible to white students.8 Graduates of racially diverse schools are less likely to harbor or perpetuate stereotypes or hold implicit biases based upon race. They are more likely to live in racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods and send their own children to diverse schools. They report a greater appreciation of cultural differences and have greater inter-cultural understanding. Furthermore, they note that they are better prepared for the global economy and for working in international companies and non-profit organizations. Overall, they are citizens, colleagues and community members who can best participate in a racially, ethnically and culturally diverse society.9 Cycles of segregation and disinvestment in disadvantaged communities concentrate poverty in their schools and restrict students’ access to highquality educational opportunities and outcomes. Research shows, however, that integrated schools can counteract these effects and expand opportunity and long-term success to all students. Integrated and equitable schools can open up access to the resources—like equipment and facilities, rigorous courses, and personal and professional social networks—that help students succeed later in life.10 Academically diverse settings provide benefits to students with and without disabilities Research shows that the benefits of inclusive schooling for children with disabilities are threefold, including benefits for the students with disabilities, benefits for typically developing students, and benefits for schools, because monies that were allocated for special education classes can be used elsewhere to fund inclusive schooling.11 A recent study also shows that students who do not have disabilities feel a greater sense of belonging in inclusive schools – schools in which students with and without disabilities learn together.12 27 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Linguistically diverse classrooms benefit student learning and support the development of positive social-emotional skills and behaviors Students who are white or in English-only households in dual-language classrooms expand their worldviews to include knowledge of and respect for the customs and experiences of others. It also improves how they perform in school. In Houston in 2000, native English speakers who had been in the twoway dual-language programs for four years scored much higher on reading than native English speakers in traditional English-only classrooms.13 A University of North Carolina study found that as more Spanish was spoken to a Spanish-speaking child by their classroom teacher, the child was less likely to be the victim of aggression, teasing or bullying by peers. The stronger the social relationships, attachments to teachers and adjustments to school, the better the academic success of the student.14 Diverse environments support students of all backgrounds in reducing prejudice To work together and solve our shared problems, no matter our race or background, we have to get past our mistaken views of one another. For instance, the American Psychological Association’s brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin15 reviewed evidence that “insufficient racial diversity” means that members of our society are more likely to have “implicit bias” – racial stereotypes and assumptions that make them treat people unfairly without realizing they are harming others. Implicit bias is learned and has been ingrained, thereby manifesting itself in behaviors unconsciously. Research cited by the APA shows that reducing implicit bias is not only good for society, but student academics as well. Prejudices and stereotypes hinder learning for all students, and by challenging students’ biases, we prepare them for success in school and the wider world. If we learn together, we reduce our prejudices. Other research includes analyses of how racially diverse educational settings are effective in reducing prejudice, by promoting greater contact between students of different races— both informally and in classroom settings—and by encouraging relationships and friendships across group lines. Researchers have concluded that while racial isolation in neighborhoods and schools are both important predictors of later racial attitudes, racially segregated schools play a more significant role in “inhibiting the potential development of social cohesion among young adults.”16 However, simply bringing diverse students together, without making deep investments in creating inclusive environments will undermine these benefits. 28 School Diversity Advisory Group Source: NYC DOE Source: NYC DOE 29 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students 29 30 School Diversity Advisory Group Source: NYC DOE Source: NYC DOE Society is becoming increasingly diverse, and students can better prepare for the professional and adult environment if they attend diverse schools Ninety-six percent of major employers, Wells, Fox, and Cordova-Cobo note, say it is “important” that employees be “comfortable working with colleagues, customers, and/or clients from diverse cultural backgrounds.”17 Diverse educational environments also enhance students’ leadership skills, among other skills that are helpful when working in racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse workplaces. A longitudinal study found that the more often first-year college students are exposed to diverse educational settings, the greater their “gains in leadership skills, psychological well-being, intellectual engagement, and intercultural effectiveness.”18 Diverse schools also exhibit greater levels of parental involvement A study by the National Research Council showed far higher levels of volunteers in integrated schools compared to heavily segregated schools.19 Integrated schools provide more resources for schools to engage and encourage best practices among all families and parents.20 Integrated schools can support all students by increasing access to equitable resources, such as highquality teachers, strong built environment, both public and private funding, and challenging courses Attending an economically integrated school is an effective academic intervention and an effective use of resources that are more limited than they should be. While there are high-poverty neighborhoods where there are high performing schools21, one study of students in Montgomery County, Maryland, found that students living in public housing randomly assigned to lower-poverty neighborhoods performed better academically than those assigned to higher-poverty neighborhoods and schools—even though the higher-poverty schools received extra funding per pupil.22 31 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Formation of SDAG In June 2017, as part of the Equity and Excellence for All: Diversity in New York City Public Schools plan, the DOE established a School Diversity Advisory Group (SDAG) to make formal policy recommendations to the Mayor and Chancellor. The report named three Co-chairs - José Calderón, President of the Hispanic Federation, Hazel Dukes, President of the NAACP New York State Conference and Maya Wiley, Senior Vice President for Social Justice and Henry Cohen Professor of Urban Policy and Management at the New School. The three co-chairs and two additional members - Amy Hsin, Associate Professor of Sociology at Queens College and Richard Kahlenberg, Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation - make up the group’s Executive Committee. The broader SDAG includes over 40 members, who bring a range of personal and professional perspectives to the group. Members include city government stakeholders, local and national experts on school diversity, parents, teachers, advocates, students, and other community leaders. SDAG members were identified by the City and the Executive Committee and began meeting in December 2017. *Several leaders from within the NYC DOE served as named members of the Advisory Group and participated in discussions. DOE staff also provided logistical and research support. All recommendations were made by the SDAG as an independent body charged with advising the DOE and the Mayor. DOE staff did not have a formal vote on recommendations. We are grateful to the additional students who have joined our group over the course of the last year through their commitment to and participation in IntegrateNYC and Teens Take Charge: • • • • Benji Weiss Coco Rhum Eliza Seki Julisa Perez In addition to the members officially named in Dec. 2017, several additional individuals contributed to the advisory group through their participation in meetings as critical friends and as representatives of the individuals and organizations named above. We wish to specifically acknowledge: • • • • • • Eduardo Hernandez, Community Education Council 8 Fred McIntosh, PASSNYC Kathy Gordon, Good Shepherd Services Laura Harding, Division of School Climate & Wellness, NYC DOE Lazar Treschan, Community Service Society Richard Gray, NYU Metro Center *DOE staff did not have a formal vote on recommendations. 32 School Diversity Advisory Group Executive Committee School Diversity Advisory Group Amy Hsin Queens College, City University of New York Hazel Dukes (Co-chair) NAACP Jose Calderon (Co-chair) Hispanic Federation Maya Wiley (Co-chair) New School Richard Kahlenberg The Century Foundation Alexa Sorden Concourse Village Elementary School Amy Stuart Wells Teachers College, Columbia University Andrew Averill The College Academy Ashley Valente P.S. 396 Asya Johnson Longwood Preparatory Academy Cassandra Baptiste The Children’s School Celia Green Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Committee (CPAC) David R. Jones Community Service Society of NY (CSSNY) David E. Kirkland NYU Metro Center Debbie Almontaser Bridging Cultures, Inc. DeKaila Wilson Pelham Lab High School, IntegrateNYC Dennis Parker National Center for Law and Economic Justice Diana Noriega The Committee for Hispanic Children and Families (CHCF) Frances Lucerna El Puente Frantzy Luzincourt IntegrateNYC Henry Rubio Council of School Supervisors & Administrators (CSA) James Merriman NYC Charter School Center Janella Hinds United Federation of Teachers (UFT) Kim Sweet Advocates for Children of New York LaShawn Robinson* School Climate and Wellness, NYC DOE Liam Buckley NYC Lab High School; Chancellor’s Student Advisory Council (CSAC) Lois Herrera* Office of Safety and Youth Development, NYC DOE Marco Battistella Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Committee (CPAC) Marisol Rosales Executive Superintendent, Manhattan Matt Gonzales New York Appleseed Matthew Diaz Bronx Academy of Letters, IntegrateNYC Meisha Ross Porter Executive Superintendent, Bronx NeQuan McLean Education Council Consortium (ECC) Noah Angeles York Early College Academy Rebecca Rawlins* Office of District Planning, NYC DOE Ryan J. S. Baxter PASSNYC (Promoting Access to Specialized Schools in Sarah Kleinhandler* Office of Student Enrollment, NYC DOE Sarah “Zaps” Zapiler IntegrateNYC Shino Tanikawa Education Council Consortium (ECC) Sister Paulette Good Shepherd Services New York City); REBNY LoMonaco Sonia C. Park Diverse Charter Schools Coalition Vanessa Leung Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF) Wayne Ho Chinese-American Planning Council Yolanda Torres* Division of Family and Community Engagement, NYC DOE Yousof Abdelreheem John Bowne High School, Chancellor’s Student Advisory Council (CSAC), IntegrateNYC, Teen Take Charge 33 Preliminary Report 2019 Shared Principles Upon its formation, the SDAG defined a set of shared principles to govern its work together. These principles serve as the lens through which all recommendations, current and future, are filtered. • • • Diversity means something different in each community and recommendations should speak to that broad definition. The Advisory group operates with respect, transparency and an inclusive process. Advisory Group recommendations will: • Increase equity • Be based on research-supported approaches • Seek to understand unintended consequences • Be based on what DOE can implement in the short-term, with some longer-term recommendations The SDAG operated in several ways to advance its work. The SDAG met as a full group and in sub-committees to advance discussions and also engaged in public sessions in every borough. From December 2017, through the publication of this report, the SDAG and its subcommittees have collectively held nearly 40 meetings, including one day-long retreat, to facilitate research and discussion of a number of key policy areas related to diversity. SDAG members began the process by examining three critical questions in response to the DOE’s diversity plan: • • • What does it mean for a school to be “diverse”? What does it take to create a desegregated school and classrooms? What should happen inside a desegregated school to make it truly integrated? To support its process, the SDAG hosted public town halls in every borough across in the City and a youth symposium to collect information from communities on the issues important to them. More information on this engagement - and what we learned by traveling across the City - is captured on the following pages. Initially, the SDAG was charged with concluding its recommendations by the end of 2018. Because the SDAG was working as a full group and engaging with the public in town halls, and because of the size and scale of the New York City education system and the commitment to research and consideration of unintended consequences, the SDAG felt that it would be in the public interest to take more time. Also, a new Schools Chancellor came on board and asked the SDAG to remain in place to advise the Administration on key steps it should be taking to tackle diversity in addition to recommendations. This report includes the group’s findings and recommendations to date. Additional recommendations will 34 School Diversity Advisory Group be released by the end of the school year. Many SDAG members intend to continue serving in an advisory capacity to DOE, although we anticipate that some shifts in membership may occur naturally. Connecting to Broader Policy Areas Recognizing the close connection between school segregation and housing patterns, SDAG members were invited to participate in Where We Live, a collaborative planning process led by the City of New York to better understand how challenges like segregation and discrimination impact New Yorker’s everyday lives. Through Where We Live NYC, the City of New York is developing the next chapter of fair housing policies that fight discrimination, break down barriers to opportunity, and build more just and inclusive neighborhoods. As part of this process, SDAG members explored the relationship among resources, neighborhoods and schools as well as between school integration and gentrification. Community Engagement & Outreach Over the past year, DOE worked with WXY, an urban planning and design firm with a focus on civic projects in NYC, to host one Town Hall in each of our five boroughs and a youth symposium. The goal of these sessions was to create a forum for community members to share their perspectives on issues related to school diversity to inform eventual recommendations. Over 800 people attended the Town Halls. Comments and feedback were also submitted to an email inbox. Each Town Hall was hosted in a local public school and drew participants from all over the respective borough. Attendees included students, parents, teachers, school leadership and staff, members of the SDAG and local elected representatives. Translators were provided in the most commonly spoken languages in each borough. To gather input from participants on issues of school diversity, integration and equity, facilitators led small group discussions. Each event was staffed by volunteers from the DOE. Volunteers were trained through a facilitator guide developed to help volunteers understand their roles, provide background on the goals of the Town Halls, establish expectations and community agreements, and familiarize facilitators with the discussion questions. Throughout the process, the content was revised to reflect participant and Advisory Group feedback. The most common responses when participants were asked “What do you think of when you hear school diversity and integration?” - can be found on the following pages. The ideal school environment was most commonly defined as equally resourced schools, consistent parent and student engagement, and supportive academic environments. Participants recommended the DOE move forward by implementing a culturally responsive curriculum and cultural competency training for teachers and staff. 35 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Bronx School Diversity Town Hall. Bronx School Diversity Town Hall. 36 School Diversity Advisory Group Queens School Diversity Town Hall. Brooklyn School Diversity Town Hall. 37 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students bias worry highstakes integration engagement celebration recognition community accessibility standardized testing accountable exclusion transportation Manhattan choice focus Figure 2. Boroughwide means gender Town Hall Feedback love race friends This diagram summarizes Town Hall responses when participants were asked “What do you think of when you hear school diversity and integration?” equity need resources access experiences teachers opportunities environment diversity administrators students schools shore equality opportunities others respect parent disabilities culturally help diverse allocation training accessibility Staten Island environment student resource island community intersectional welcoming parent issues support engagement academic admissions standards equity recognition participation empathy improved celebration 38 involvement transparent representation support compassionate bullying tests transportation teaching school access inequality segregation School Diversity Advisory Group social academic student voice parent giving intersectional resources integration culture gender perspectives inclusive education Bronx diverse identities religion equality language programming travel culturally responsive environments admissions engagement opportunities transportation welcome neighborhood styles accessibility equal celebration awareness inclusive parent engagement equal resources support student environment academic admissions scary identities guidance transparency Queens gender religion teachers inclusive accessibility Brooklyn resource allocation diversity equal admissions parent cultural diverse culturally responsive national identities sexual orientation curriculum transportation education community excellence responsive recognition schools segregation collaborative support management teacher training environment engagement accessibility intersectional administration counselors transportation diverse academic transparency 39 screening exposure empathy equity equality zoning exposure social equity Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students How did we get here? Rising to the challenge of addressing our segregated schools and developing a more culturally responsive curriculum requires a reflection on history that interweaves strands of both our national politics and our unique New York City past. We want to begin by acknowledging that our city was built on the foundation of European colonialism and the displacement of our region’s native peoples. It is instructive to consider how our school district has been shaped by the city’s enduring legacy of colonialism, battles over religion, assimilation of multilingual immigrants, race-based redlining of neighborhoods, civil rightsera tensions over school control and more recent admissions policies around school choice. The resulting policies and pedagogies have influenced where schoolchildren live and where they go to school, what they learn and who is teaching them – and in turn, these influences are part of a feedback loop that reinforces what our neighborhoods look like and what kind of city New York is. While it is difficult to create a brief summary of our district of 1.1 million school children, this framing can be divided into five major periods. The Emergence of Neighborhood Schools in the 19th Century As described in Figure 2, the racial diversity of today’s New York City did not start to develop until after the Second World War. But the inception of New York City’s public schools, and its initial structure and curriculum, was shaped by issues around religious and cultural tolerance. New York City’s first major organization for state-funded education began as the Free School Society, established in 1805. But the Catholic Church attacked the Free School Society and its successor, the Public School Society, for being unelected and antiCatholic.23 The debate became increasingly bitter through the mid-19th century as Irish immigration peaked and as Catholic leadership discouraged participation in the Public School Society. John Spencer, appointed by the New York State governor to respond to the growing crisis, “contended that the school should be whatever the community around it wanted it to be.”24 The extension of this proposition, formalized by a new bill in 1842, was that each ward should control its own school, elect its own trustees and handle its own funds.25 In 1853, the Public School Society quietly disbanded, and its schools were absorbed into a ward system where a school’s demographic composition was frequently tied to the cultural identity of its neighborhood. 41 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Mass Immigration: Schools for Assimilation at the Turn of the 20th Century While the Irish immigration in the middle of the 19th century changed the composition of New York City, it was small when compared to the influx of people at the turn of the 20th century. Millions of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, with a diversity of languages and political ideas, sparked fears exemplified by Woodrow Wilson’s racist belief that “hyphenated Americans have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out.”26 As a result, curricular changes were made to teach the English language, develop vocational skills and establish common values. Today’s aspirations for culturally responsive education stand in contrast to the efforts at assimilation emphasized in these early 20th century schools. Segregation By Government Action: Redlining, Restrictive Covenants, and Public Housing Shortly after the Depression, the National Housing Act of 1934 created the practice of “redlining,” which graded areas ranging from desirable to high risk in order to establish where insured mortgage loans could occur. The Figure 3: NYC Racial Demographics Over Time New York City’s racial demographics have shifted significantly over the last century. At the turn of the 20th Century New York City was 98% White, 1.8% Black, and 0.2% Asian. Since then, New York City has become increasingly diverse. In 2010, New York City was 12.6 Asian, 22.8% Black, 28.6% Latinx, 33% White, and 2% Multi-racial. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1900 1910 Asian 1920 1930 Black 1940 1950 Latinx 1960 White 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Other Source: NYC DCP & US Census Bureau 42 School Diversity Advisory Group determination of “high risk” areas was made on the basis of race, resulting in black people being unable to get loans in “desirable” neighborhoods and being forced to live in segregated areas where landlords had little incentive to improve their properties. At the same time two key factors were driving massive demographic changes in NYC: (1) The largest population of Black sharecroppers moving from the South to the North in the first half of the 20th Century’s Great Migration came to New York.27 (2) The new immigration law of 1965 allowed millions of Central American immigrants to move to New York. These newly resettled New Yorkers were steered into largely segregated neighborhoods in places like Harlem, Brownsville and Bedford-Stuyvesant as the white working class was offered federal subsidies to leave these same neighborhoods and move to the suburbs.2829 Actions by the New York City Public School system exacerbated the housing segregation as school zones were adjusted to keep black children out of nearby predominantly white schools, and “feeder” patterns from elementary to middle schools helped to maintain segregated middle schools. The neighborhood schooling concept that had emerged a hundred years earlier increasingly became the target of school integration advocates. Post-Civil Rights Era Immigration over the Last 40 Years Latinx and Asian immigration soared from the 1980s onward, with percentages of Latinx and Asian students rising to approximately 40% and 15% respectively of all Department of Education students today. These growing and newer groups attend the Department of Education schools at a higher rate than both white and black students, who are more likely to attend private, Catholic or charter schools. The “Choice” Paradigm: Re-segregation in the Early 21st Century In an effort to draw white students back into the New York City public schools, prior mayoral administrations implemented Gifted & Talented programs and used screens and choice-based policies rather than feeder patterns. The effort increased segregation because it didn’t build in fairness guidelines to ensure that choice would promote integration. Research strongly demonstrates that when school choice policies are implemented to foster more competition without any guidelines for integration, they will promote more racial, ethnic and socio-economic segregation. School choice policies are a means to an end – they have been used in the past to promote integration at the “end.” When they are only used to promote competition and privatization, they usually benefit investors more than children.303132 43 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students What has changed within the DOE since the diversity plan was released In its June 2017 Diversity Plan, the DOE made several commitments particularly around changes to citywide admissions policies. In the time since, the DOE has acted to implement these new policies. The SDAG is independent of the NYC DOE, and as a body, believes that the City has significant work still to do to create real equity and integration in the school system. To make recommendations about how the City can continue to move forward, the SDAG needs to be grounded in an understanding of how the DOE has continued to evolve since the 2017 report. Citywide policy changes In 2017, the DOE committed to eliminate “limited unscreened,” the high school admissions method that prioritized students who attended a school tour, open house, or demonstrated interest in another way. This was a barrier for families with less time and fewer resources to dedicate to the admissions process. On average, families were spending 25-72 hours navigating the process. As of fall 2018, all 245 high school programs that formerly used limited unscreened replaced their admissions method. The majority of these schools transitioned to “Educational Option,” an admissions method which fosters academic diversity. The DOE committed to develop strategies to increase access to screened schools for all students, especially high needs students. This is an area where the SDAG believes much more work needs to be done, as will be detailed in later sections of this report. However, the DOE implemented several changes as outlined in the June 2017 report. The DOE eliminated revealed middle school ranking. In fall 2018, the last three districts, District 1, 2, and 3, moved to “blind” ranking, so all 32 districts now have blind ranking for middle school. This may create a more equitable process for families, and limits the ways in which some may try to game the system to their advantage. However, it is too early to determine whether blind ranking alone, without changing the admissions method, will lead to any meaningful change. The DOE also eliminated school-based middle school admissions. Over 30 middle schools that previously used school-based admissions have now joined the centralized process. Families will now use one middle school application to apply to all DOE middle schools and all rising 5th grade students will receive one offer. This increases access for families, who might previously have 44 School Diversity Advisory Group Figure 4: Historical Enrollment Data New York City’s public school population has increased steadily over the last ten years. However, from 2016 to 2017, the public school population decreased by 5,500 students, from 1.140 million students to 1.135 million students. 1.15 mil 1.10 mil 1.05 mil 1.00 mil 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 been unable to navigate multiple processes, and creates greater transparency regarding who is selected and admitted. The DOE has taken steps to streamline the admissions processes and to deliver information to families in increasingly more accessible ways. This includes: • • • • the launch of an online, mobile-friendly tool for middle and high school admissions, and the first-ever online application for middle and high school admissions; expanded parent online resources, including maps and search abilities, for all admissions processes; streamlined school tours, open houses, and registration for schoolbased assessment and auditions; virtual tours; and a pilot arts consortium, where families can learn about arts high school programs across the Bronx and in Manhattan’s District 2 at one event. The Arts Consortium is working toward the goal of common auditions across programs. However, the SDAG is aware that the streamlining of processes requires a greater level of understanding of the cultures and realities of our most vulnerable families. Any new measure must be accompanied by extra supports for those families who may not benefit from them. 45 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students The DOE has continued to make changes to expand access for the families of the thousands of children living in temporary housing. For families in shelter, major transition milestones can be a challenge. Over 1,000 families were invited to attend shelter-based events during the 2017-18 school year, and families were able to submit 3-K, pre-K, Kindergarten, and G&T applications through shelter-based DOE Liaisons. Over 7,000 families were invited to attend fairs and info sessions and offered resources to get there. As a result, the percentage of eligible families in shelter participating in the Pre-K application process increased from 38% in 2016 to 48% in 2018 and the percentage participating in the Kindergarten process increased from 36% in 2016 to 52% in 2018. The DOE has taken some steps to increase access for students with disabilities. In December 2018, the Chancellor announced a new policy to give students with accessibility needs priority for accessible schools. Until all New York City school buildings are fully accessible, this is a necessary step to increase equity. Investing to make schools more welcoming and supportive of all students The DOE has continued to invest in and to grow initiatives focused on welcoming school climate. In May 2018, the DOE committed to training all 140,000 staff in implicit bias. Inherent in this training is a focus on culturally responsive practices as an approach to promoting greater systemic equity. The DOE has also provided additional social emotional supports in schools through increasing the number of social workers in schools, targeting lowincome students through the Single Shepherd program and students in temporary housing through the Bridging the Gap initiative. The Community School model of providing a Community Based Organization (CBO) as a partner in schools has expanded under the de Blasio administration. Built on the understanding that educating a child to be successful requires a holistic approach, these CBO partners provide academic supports, school-based health services, family engagement opportunities, and social emotional supports to students. The Community School program has grown from 45 schools in 2014 to over 245 schools today. (Several SDAG members work for organizations that are Community School partners.) These initiatives and many more mark the administration’s commitment to fostering welcoming and supportive environments in all schools. The DOE recently aligned many of the programs focused on providing a welcoming and supportive environment under the new Division of School Climate and Wellness, bringing together the Office of Safety and Youth Development, School Counseling Support Programs, Equity and Access, Community Schools, School Health, School Wellness, and the Public School Athletic League (PSAL). 46 School Diversity Advisory Group Supporting grassroots change The Diversity in Admissions pilot allows schools to create admissions targets for specific groups of students, including students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (FRL), Multilingual Learners (MLL), and Students in Temporary Housing (STH). The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limitations on the ability of school districts to use the race of individual students as a sole indicator in student assignment plans. It is legal to use race along with other indicators of disadvantage, although no plan or policy in New York City does this. In 2015, the Diversity in Admissions pilot launched with six elementary schools. Today, 87 schools are a part of the pilot. This includes all elementary schools in District 1 and middle schools in District 3. There are also now five NYC Early Education Centers (NYCEECs) participating. Change has also been happening at the district level. In 2017, DOE worked with local stakeholders to create the first district-wide diversity in admissions proposal in District 1. District 1 covers the Lower East Side and East Village, and does not have zoned elementary schools – meaning all families can attend any of the 16 elementary schools. The district is incredibly diverse, and yet some schools remain racially and socioeconomically segregated. The community led a dedicated effort to address this problem. The district had been awarded a grant in 2015 from New York State to create socioeconomic integration. After years of work, parent leaders and school principals, with support from the DOE, developed a plan to tweak the admissions priority structure at each elementary school for Pre-K and Kindergarten to try to move each school to better represent the district. For the students admitted for the fall of 2018, 67% of seats at every elementary school were prioritized for FRL, STH and MLLs – matching the district average. We saw encouraging signs in year 1 – most schools moved closer to the average. Almost as important as the admissions changes was the creation of the Family Resource Center, a physical center for families to seek admissions support within the district. If we want families to consider schools they may not have explored before, we need to support them. District 3, also led by parents and principals, implemented a middle school diversity in admissions program, which went into effect for families applying this fall to start 6th grade in 2019. District 3 includes the west side of Manhattan, from 59th to 125th Street. Currently, most of the middle schools in District 3 screen their applicants on the basis of academic performance. Under this plan, each middle school will prioritize 25% of seats for lowerperforming students, which will lead to more academically diverse schools and classrooms. 47 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Figure 5: Diversity in Admissions Pilot Programs This map visualizes public schools across New York City participating in a pilot initiative to increase diversity within their schools. 76 schools are participating the Diversity in Admissions pilot program for the 2017 – 2018 school year. Some of these schools give an admissions priority to Multilingual Learners, students in the child welfare system, students in families impacted by incarceration, students in temporary housing, and/ or students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch. The schools and programs that are participating will still make offers using standard admissions priorities. Program Locations Dissimilarity Top Quarter Dissimilarity Middle Half Dissimilarity Bottom Quarter Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 48 School Diversity Advisory Group In District 15, the community went through a year-long process, led by a working group of stakeholders representing the district, to examine middle school diversity. District 15 includes a diverse set of Brooklyn neighborhoods, including Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, Sunset Park, and Red Hook. Over a year, the working group convened public meetings to solicit feedback about how to increase diversity in middle schools. The meetings were well attended, and the group worked to make sure traditionally underrepresented neighborhoods showed up in large numbers. As in District 1, this work was not new – parents, advocates, and elected officials – had been organizing for years. And so in summer 2018, the working group presented recommendations to the DOE on how to change middle school admissions in District 15 and how to make the schools more inclusive. This included a recommendation that the DOE eliminate all admissions screens from the middle school process in district 15, and to instead use lottery-based admissions at all District 15 schools with a priority for FRL, ELL, and STH students that matches the district average. As families applied for middle school during the fall of 2018, the DOE organized a campaign to ensure every family receives a direct phone call with an offer of support. You can read more about this process at www.d15diversityplan.com. While these three communities were the first to propose new admissions policies, other districts are working at a grassroots level to push for change too. Fourteen districts have been awarded planning grants through the New York State Socioeconomic Integration Pilot and many will apply for implementation funds. This fall, while announcing the adoption of the District 15 recommendations, the City announced that a total of two million dollars in grant funding would be made available for up to 10 districts to engage in a similar type of planning work. Index of Dissimilarity: One way of measuring levels of segregation in the City’s schools is by considering how different or “dissimilar” the demographic make-up of schools within one district are from each other and from the district’s average. The index of dissimilarity is a commonly used statistical analysis used to measure segregation, or the relative separation or integration of groups across a specific geographic area such as a neighborhood, city, or school district. The concept of the index of dissimilarity is not a new one and has been used often, probably most famously as the measure for segregation indices for metropolitan areas produced for the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Censuses. When individual schools are near the district average, the dissimilarity index is low; when individual schools are far from the district average, the dissimilarity index is high. If all schools reflected the district average, the score would be zero, since they would all match the district average. 49 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students What do things look like today? Demographic Overview The New York City Department of Education is the largest school district in the United States. The school district serves 1,135,334 students in over 1,840 schools (as of September 2018), including 235 public charter schools. 16.1% of public school students are Asian, 26% are Black, 40.5% are Latinx and 15% are White. 74% are economically disadvantaged or qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. 19.7% of public school students are students with disabilities and 13.5% are Multilingual Learners. The following pages visualize student demographics for New York City and by each individual borough including: poverty by district and borough, race, Multilingual Learners, and students with disabilities. A table and visualization of racial demographics by district is also provided. Additional demographic information on teachers, principals, and suspensions is provided in the Appendix and referenced in later sections of the report. 51 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students New York City Figure 6: New York City Student Demographics 10 District Lines 11 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 6 9 81% - 92% Poverty 8 8 5 7 4 3 12 7 4 25 30 26 2 1 24 14 28 32 13 29 16 23 17 27 19 15 18 20 27 22 21 31 27 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 3% 15% Multilingual Learners 16% Asian Poverty 13% Black 20% Latinx 26% 40% 52 White Other 74% School Diversity Advisory Group Students with Disabilities Bronx Figure 7: Bronx Student Demographics District Lines 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 81% - 92% Poverty 10 11 9 12 8 8 7 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 4% 2% Multilingual Learners 5% Asian 27% Poverty Students with Disabilities 17% Black 23% Latinx 62% 53 White Other 85% Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Brooklyn Figure 8: Brooklyn Student Demographics District Lines 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 81% - 92% Poverty 14 32 13 16 23 17 19 15 18 20 22 21 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 2% 18% Multilingual Learners 16% Asian Poverty 13% Black 19% Latinx 28% 36% White Other 54 75% School Diversity Advisory Group Students with Disabilities Manhattan Figure 9: Manhattan Student Demographics District Lines 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 81% - 92% Poverty 6 5 4 3 4 2 1 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 3% 17% Multilingual Learners 12% Asian 23% Poverty Students with Disabilities 11% Black 20% Latinx White 45% 55 Other 67% Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Queens Figure 10: Queens Student Demographics District Lines 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 30 25 81% - 92% Poverty 26 24 28 29 27 27 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 3% 13% Multilingual Learners 28% Asian Poverty 14% Black 17% Latinx 38% 56 White 18% Other 72% School Diversity Advisory Group Students with Disabilities Staten Island Figure 11: Staten Island Student Demographics District Lines 49% - 60% Poverty 61% - 70% Poverty 71% - 80% Poverty 81% - 92% Poverty 31 Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 Race 2% Multilingual Learners 10% 14% Asian Students with Disabilities 6% Black 26% Latinx 46% White 29% 57 Poverty 58% Other Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Student Demographics Table 2: Student Demographics (Bottom) Figure 12: Student Race (Left) Table 2 and Figure 12 outline the racial demographics of New York City’s 32 community school districts. Total Enrolled Asian Black Latinx White Other (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) District 1 11,632 2,517 22% 1,800 15% 4,887 42% 2,022 17% 406 3% District 2 63,497 14,213 22% 9,391 15% 20,623 32% 16,360 26% 2,910 5% District 3 22,667 1,875 8% 4,873 21% 7,332 32% 7,349 32% 1,238 5% District 4 13,230 1,078 8% 3,196 24% 7,985 60% 615 5% 356 3% District 5 11,632 458 4% 5,708 49% 4,570 39% 575 5% 321 3% District 6 22,701 319 1% 1,608 7% 19,316 85% 1,200 5% 258 1% District 7 19,875 213 1% 5,336 27% 13,817 70% 295 1% 214 1% District 8 28,728 1,703 6% 6,307 22% 18,504 64% 1,766 6% 448 2% District 9 35,271 525 1% 9,808 28% 24,187 69% 463 1% 288 1% District 10 56,752 4,343 8% 8,772 15% 39,322 69% 3,461 6% 854 2% District 11 40,504 3,289 8% 15,734 39% 17,067 42% 3,582 9% 832 2% District 12 23,401 642 3% 5,760 25% 16,314 70% 341 1% 344 1% District 13 21,658 4,425 20% 9,493 44% 3,582 17% 3,495 16% 663 3% District 14 18,831 949 5% 3,934 21% 10,762 57% 2,819 15% 367 2% District 15 33,200 5,358 16% 4,642 14% 12,004 36% 9,995 30% 1,201 4% District 16 6,839 148 2% 5,068 74% 1,320 19% 178 3% 125 2% District 17 22,534 666 3% 16,882 75% 3,526 16% 917 4% 543 2% District 18 15,707 271 2% 13,406 85% 1,176 7% 531 3% 323 2% District 19 22,742 1,800 8% 10,012 44% 10,011 44% 450 2% 469 2% District 20 54,156 23,563 44% 1,536 3% 14,151 26% 14,301 26% 605 1% District 21 37,423 9,515 25% 5,391 14% 9,270 25% 12,535 33% 712 2% District 22 35,692 7,171 20% 10,851 30% 5,518 15% 11,415 32% 737 2% District 23 9,539 108 1% 7,111 75% 2,032 21% 129 1% 159 2% District 24 60,732 12,254 20% 1,574 3% 37,797 62% 8,295 14% 812 1% District 25 39,585 19,490 49% 2,968 7% 11,434 29% 4,969 13% 724 2% District 26 32,891 17,392 53% 3,706 11% 5,651 17% 5,382 16% 760 2% District 27 44,879 10,230 23% 10,085 22% 17,445 39% 4,689 10% 2,430 5% District 28 42,671 12,503 29% 9,100 21% 11,666 27% 6,972 16% 2,430 6% District 29 27,663 4,446 16% 17,027 62% 4,366 16% 508 2% 1,316 5% District 30 41,144 8,859 22% 2,674 6% 21,888 53% 6,784 16% 939 2% District 31 62,537 6,232 10% 7,975 13% 17,771 28% 29,163 47% 1,396 2% District 32 11,537 248 2% 1,948 17% 9,000 78% 254 2% 87 1% District 75 24,864 1,971 8% 9,014 36% 9,953 40% 3,316 13% 610 3% District 79 5,092 562 11% 1,963 39% 2,149 42% 313 6% 105 2% Source: NYC DOE, Demographic Snapshot, SY 17/18 58 School Diversity Advisory Group Student Race 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Citywide District 1 Manhattan District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 Bronx District 10 District 11 District 12 District 13 District 14 District 15 District 16 District 17 District 18 District 19 District 20 Brooklyn District 21 District 22 District 23 District 32 District 24 District 25 District 26 S.I. Queens District 27 District 28 District 29 District 30 District 31 District 75 District 79 Asian 59 Black Latinx White Other Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students 100% Our recs for school diversity and integration. The 5Rs Framework The Mayor and Chancellor asked two questions of the SDAG: (1) What we thought of the DOE’s 2017 diversity plan; and (2) What we recommend to advance diversity. For the first question, we provide a set of recommendations and plan on providing additional and final recommendations in spring 2019. For the second question we used the framework developed by students of IntegrateNYC, a youth-led organization that stands for integration and equity, called the 5Rs of Real Integration (the 5Rs). First, we discuss our recommendations on the DOE’s existing diversity plan. Then, within each of the areas of the 5Rs framework, we include our analysis, summarize our discussions, information relevant to our analysis and recommendations. We have identified topic areas central to improving the quality of education for all students to consider in greater depth. We intend to spend more time as a group, and engaging with the broader public, to develop additional recommendations by the end of the school year. The 5Rs is a collective impact framework to address segregation in public schools. The 5Rs speak to a broad set of questions we need to ask ourselves when we look at whether our schools are diverse, equitable, and integrated. The SDAG has adopted the 5Rs framework to structure this report, in part to honor the dynamic voices of students, and to engage the public in a more complex and comprehensive conversation about desegregation and integration in New York City. For many communities, particularly communities of color, the history of desegregation elicits painful memories of forced busing, disinvestment in schools serving students of color, and initiatives that focused solely on the movement of bodies. We seek to do more. 61 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students The 5Rs are: 1. Race & Enrollment - Who is in your school? How are students admitted? 2. Resources - What is in your school? 3. Relationships - How do people in your school relate to one another and their differences? How do students, families, and teachers learn to build across difference? 4. Restorative Justice & Practices - Who is punished in your school and how? What can schools do to create a more positive school climate and culture? 5. Representation - Who teaches and leads in your school? We made some adjustments to the 5Rs framework for the purposes of this report. In the first category, Race & Enrollment, we took a more expansive look at the relationship between enrollment and many other elements of diversity beyond race. This includes socio-economic status, disability, religion, language, and other forms of vulnerability, including homelessness and immigration status. This is consistent with the way in which IntegrateNYC talks about centering race given our historic understanding of the role of racism, while also considering other factors. We have also expanded the fourth R to include both Restorative Justice and Practices. Later in this section of the report, we outline why it is critical to look at Restorative Practices alongside Restorative Justice. Goals, Metrics & Accountability With the release of its Diversity Plan in June 2017, the DOE set three goals for itself to achieve by the end of the 2021-22 school year. These goals measure the DOE’s progress towards increasing diversity and reducing segregation in its approximately 1,800 schools. These goals are: 1. Increase the number of students in a racially representative school by 50,000. A racially representative school is one where Black and Latinx students combined make up at least 50% and less than 90% of the student population. 2. Decrease the number of economically stratified schools by 10% (150 schools). An economically stratified school is one where the school’s Economic Need Index is more than 10 percentage points from the citywide average. The Economic Need Index estimates the percentage of students at a school who face economic hardship. 62 School Diversity Advisory Group 3. Increase the number of inclusive schools that serve English Language Learners (ELLs) and Students with Disabilities (SWDs). An inclusive school is one that effectively serves a representative number of ELLs and SWDs. Elementary and middle schools are expected to serve percentages of ELLs and SWDs equivalent to their district’s percentage. High schools are expected to serve percentages equivalent to their borough’s percentage. We know that these are sincere goals to make our schools more diverse. We believe that the DOE can do more faster and we also believe DOE needs longterm goals. We share our recommendations on the current diversity plan and provide short-term (2-3 years), medium-term (3-5 years) and long-term (5-10 years) goals after sharing our general recommendations to improve the current plan. We acknowledge, however, that these goals center primarily on issues related to enrollment. The Advisory Group aims to consider integration more holistically, by considering areas of education that go beyond enrollment. Our final report may recommend goals on other topics as well. We recommend DOE be more ambitious and more realistic. This means, in the short-term, setting racial and socio-economic diversity goals by considering local opportunities, in the medium-term looking at borough averages, and in the long-term looking at the city as a whole. What changes do we recommend? DOE’s goals should be more ambitious For example, research has often defined a school as racially segregated if 90% of the student are of the same race.33 Under the DOE’s current goals, a school that is 82% Black could be considered “racially representative.” We recommend, in the medium-term, that the DOE set the current goal by borough and make the goal that school demographics reflect the average of borough demographics of school aged children. These goals cannot be stagnant; they should be tied to and reflective of annual demographic changes in each borough. In addition, researchers have found that the City’s changing demographics suggest that the goal of 50,000 students (which represents less than 5% of the NYC public school system) over five years may happen naturally, without any action by the DOE at all.34 In the short-term, goals should be determined at a community level We live in a segregated city. We heard the same message in all the town halls we held across all five boroughs: Most neighborhoods in our city look very different from the city overall. In the South Bronx, for example, students and parents all said that they are mostly Black and Latinx and that there is deep diversity within Black and Latinx communities. Families asked for equity 63 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students and resources and students asked that we recognize the diversity within their communities. Some parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, such as District 15, have a different kind of diversity that includes a larger number of White families. Rather than start with a standard citywide racial and economic target for all schools, the DOE should set localized targets that reflect a more achievable goal for schools. This ensures all schools and all communities have a role to play in promoting and supporting integration. In the long-term, we must achieve more diversity of our schools that represent the whole city. Racial representation should consider all races Rather than target a certain percentage of Black and Latinx students, we believe schools should aim to reflect the diversity of the entire community. Schools should be considered racially representative if the percentages of students they serve by race are within 10 percentage points above or below the average for that race. For example, Manhattan’s District 2’s pre-K-12 student population is 22% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Latinx, and 26% White. A representative school in District 2 would be 12-32% Asian, 5-25% Black, 2242% Latinx and 16-36% White. By contrast, Queens’ District 29 is 16% Asian, 62% Black, 16% Latinx, and 2% White. A representative school in District 29 would be 6-26% Asian, 52-72% Black, 6-26% Latinx, and up to 12% White. • • • Currently 452 of 1,576 schools (29%) are within the 10% target range for their district. 478 schools (30%) are within 20% points above or below their district averages The remaining 646 schools (41%) are more than 20% points above or below their district averages. Socioeconomic integration should incorporate research-backed goals Research suggests that schools that are 30%-70% low-income are within a range where the peer-group effect of integration can support the learning and growth of all students, those in poverty as well as those who are not.35 Currently, nine of the 32 school districts are within this range. This means that all of the 501 schools in these nine districts should become schools within which no more than 30-70% of students are low-income. In 10 districts, 70-80% of all students qualify as low-income. In 10 districts, 80-90% of all students qualify as low-income. In three districts (7, 9, and 12, all in the Bronx), more than 90% of all students qualify as low-income. While we acknowledge the challenges of more schools reaching this goal given the wealth of districts that serve more than 70% low-income students, we believe current trends can support this progress. For instance, the percentage of Kindergarten students who are low-income has been declining.36 Further, there are intentional policy actions the DOE can take to promote such 64 School Diversity Advisory Group integration across the city. This includes expanding access to high-quality non-selective or non-screened magnet schools which may lead to diverse groups of families opting into integrated learning environments. Currently, 19% of New York City residents use private school37, compared to about 10% nationally.38 To begin racially and socioeconomically integrating nine New York City community districts would represent an important step for thousands of students. The student population in these nine districts totals nearly 320,000 students – a number larger than those educated in all but five of the nation’s 14,000 school districts.39 In the remaining 23 districts, we believe the other four Rs beyond Enrollment remain as powerful levers to enhance and strengthen those schools, even if the schools cannot reach this target level of integration in the short-term. Multilingual Learners (MLLs) and Students with Disabilities (SWDs) targets should also be narrowed We believe schools should serve representative populations of MLLs and SWDs. These ranges should be within five percentage points of the district average for all schools. Currently, 62% of schools serve representative percentages of Students with Disabilities and 44% of schools serve representative percentages of Multilingual Learners. However, the DOE should investigate the impacts of these goals on bilingual school programs. Adjust goals for schools located in areas with concentrated vulnerability We realize these goals can feel unachievable for schools whose students and community experience deep vulnerability across the entire district and/ or borough. For instance, a district in the Bronx with a high concentration of low-income families serves greater than 70% low-income students in all its schools. In such a district, the DOE should target other measures of relative privilege and vulnerability for intervention, such as disproportionate concentrations of students in temporary housing or high-performing students across schools. However, the DOE should ensure that goals regarding the concentrations of students in temporary housing don’t undermine efforts to promote school stability for this population. Consider unintended consequences While it would be ideal for all schools to look more like the city as a whole, we recognize that there can be unintended consequences associated with these changes. For instance, the DOE should be sure not to unintentionally drive gentrification and displacement while encouraging diversity and equity in its schools. 65 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students What is the timeline? Goals should be achieved within 2-3 years in the short-term, within 5 years in the medium-term, and within 10 years in the long-term. Short-term and medium-term goals For elementary and middle schools, schools should be measured against their district’s racial, economic, MLL, and SWD percentages. Upon hitting these targets, individual schools should work towards reaching their borough percentages in the medium-term. At the high school level, schools should aim to look more like their borough overall. Data shows that most students apply primarily to high schools within their borough of residence and about 85% of students ultimately attend high school within their borough. Upon hitting these targets in the medium-term, individual schools should work towards reaching the city percentages in the long-term. Long-term goal In the long term, the DOE should aim for all schools to reflect the diversity of the city. This will encourage the DOE to challenge the neighborhood segregation that exists and support schools in further diversifying their populations. Accountability Track and publish a single set of metrics The DOE releases a great deal of data each year, as part of a number of reports, including those mandated by the City Council, and in press releases and other formal reports. It is hard for the average resident to find and navigate this data. To keep the public informed of and engaged in progress toward these diversity goals, we recommend that the DOE track and publish a single set of metrics that reflect schools’ and districts’ progress toward our goals. These metrics should be released every year in a family-friendly format as well as in a spreadsheet format to allow for comparison and analysis. An example of an organization that presents data well is the Research Alliance for New York City Schools. See the Appendix for a preliminary list of metrics being considered by the SDAG. We intend to produce a list in our final report, which will include metrics mapped to key recommendations. Create the position of “Chief Integration Officer” We recommend that the DOE create the position of “Chief Integration Officer,” and have this position report directly to the Chancellor. The Chief Integration Officer would formally ensure progress and accountability to meeting these goals. While we believe diversity and integration work must be ingrained in all offices across the DOE, the Chief Integration Officer would convene and coordinate these efforts across the DOE to ensure that it remains 66 School Diversity Advisory Group a focal point of the institution. One of this person’s chief functions would be to break down silos around diversity and integration work in the DOE to increase effectiveness. Create mechanisms for students to hold the system accountable to these goals We also recommend that the DOE create mechanisms for students to hold the system accountable to these goals. This year, the Youth-Adult Student Voice Working Group released recommendations to the Chancellor on how to empower student voice and ensure students are engaged in holding their schools, communities and central offices accountable. These recommendations included establishing a formal representative student leadership structure that connects schools’ student councils to top decision makers at the DOE, through youth-adult working groups for example. Further, the group recommended the hiring of a full-time Student Voice Director to provide more support for student councils and this structure. The SDAG endorses and adopts these recommendations. Add metrics to the School Quality Report related to diversity and integration We recommend that the DOE add metrics to the School Quality Report related to diversity and integration as another measure of school performance. The DOE should conduct research into the best and fairest metrics to be shared. It should also explore models of such reporting from other districts, such as Washington D.C.’s equity reports. This is important because integrated classroom settings are a vital way that students learn and prepare for a diverse world. A school that is high-performing, but lacking in diversity due to restrictive admissions or other factors is missing an important aspect of quality. Consider incentives to secure charter school commitments to diversity and integration goals Finally, the DOE’s original goals do not include charter schools, since the DOE does not control admissions or other aspects of school environments at charter schools. We recommend that the DOE consider incentives to secure charter school commitments to diversity and integration goals and partner with schools and their authorizers (NYSED and SUNY) to achieve more equity across schools. As a start, the DOE should include charter schools in its annual reporting of metrics suggested above. As the SDAG continues to work together, we may propose additional goals or metrics as they relate to the next set of recommendations we release later this year. 67 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Race, Socioeconomic Status & Enrollment Admissions and enrollment are usually the first topics raised in discussions about school diversity. New York City has a long history of racial segregation and discrimination. Our schools cannot educate our students effectively if they are not representative of our city. All students receive a higher quality education when it is integrated.40 We cannot change patterns of segregation if we do not examine which students are in each school and how they were admitted. There are over 1,800 schools in New York City and admissions processes are complex. Sometimes our admissions systems serve to segregate our students because our housing is segregated (as in attendance zones). Sometimes even when our neighborhoods are more diverse, our schools are not due to admissions processes (such as screening). The SDAG supports a more equitable set of admissions processes to remove barriers that rob marginalized students of opportunities and ensure the best quality learning environments for our children by supporting more schools and classrooms that reflect the city’s diversity. Pre-K & Elementary School Admissions Most elementary schools in NYC are “zoned schools” - the students who live within the zone are assigned to and get first priority to their zoned school. If the neighborhood is mostly one race then generally the school is too. If it is largely low-income, so is the school. Research tells us that families will leave their neighborhood to find what they believe will be a better school for their children. A recent report by the Center for NYC Affairs, found that about 40% of kindergarteners do not attend their zoned elementary school, and segregation is even higher than it would have been under a system of strict neighborhood assignment.41 In the 2016-2017 school year, 27,000 kindergarteners went somewhere else and one third of them left their district altogether. The report states: “This explosion of school choice means that more than 27,000 kindergarten students leave their school zones every morning to attend charter schools, schools with gifted classes, dual language programs (with instruction in 68 School Diversity Advisory Group two languages), and traditional public schools for which they are not zoned. While many of them are enrolled in schools close to home, one-third migrate across community school district lines, usually toward higher-income neighborhoods: from Harlem to the Upper West Side; from Crown Heights to Fort Greene; or from southeast Queens to Bayside.” This same report found that Black families opt out of their neighborhood school at much higher rates than White and Asian families and that rate has increased dramatically over the last decade. However, this differs across neighborhoods. And, within all racial groups, lower-income families are less likely to opt out of their neighborhood school. This suggests that while school choice may create greater access for families, not all families have the resources to make different choices. All parents want a high quality education for their children and the ability to choose schools suggests that we have to consider how to make all schools high quality schools and to consider the impact of school choice on racial segregation of schools. Through its recommendations, the SDAG aspires to make all schools a good choice. Table 3:Kindergarten-5th grade Assigned Zone Attendance Black and Latinx students in grades K-5 opted out of their zoned schools at higher rates compared to Asian and White students. Asian and White students in grade K-5 attended their zoned schools at the highest rates. K-5 Students Attends Zoned School Does Not Attend Zoned School No zoned school (#) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) Asian 79,871 57,382 72% 21,487 27% 1,002 1% Black 124,596 49,879 40% 64,285 52% 10,432 8% Latinx 204,547 120,952 59% 71,421 35% 12,174 6% White 78,362 52,915 68% 24,346 31% 1,101 1% Other 12,775 7,149 56% 5,138 40% 488 4% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Table 4: Assigned District & Home Borough Attendance In 2017- 2018, the majority of students in grades K-5 and 6-8 attended school in the same borough as their home. Students in higher grade levels attended school in their home district at lower percentages. 83% of students in grades 6-8 and 40% of students in grades 9-12 attended school in their home district. Grade Total Students Attend School in Home District Attend School in Same Borough (#) (#) (%) (#) (%) Grades K - 5 424,191 385,632 91% 414,621 98% Grades 6 - 8 201,890 167,099 83% 195,000 97% Grades 9 -12 295,099 117,233 40% 245,325 83% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 69 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students District 1 Diversity Plan: In 2017, the DOE announced its first school diversity plan in District 1. The plan includes a district wide Diversity in Admissions pilot and a Family Resource Center, which serves as a one-stop shop for families to learn about and enroll in District 1 schools. Through the District 1 Diversity in Admissions pilot, students who qualify for free or reduced lunch (FRL), students in temporary housing (STH), and Multilingual Learners (MLL) have priority for 67% of offers at every District 1 elementary school for Pre-K and Kindergarten. Students who do not meet these criteria will have priority for the remaining 33% of offers. This ensures that schools with an applicant pool that is dominantly FRL-eligible, ELL, or STH families are able to make offers to a diverse group of students. One year after the pilot was initiated, seven of the 16 elementary schools in District 1 fell within the target range – offering 57 to 77 percent of kindergarten seats to students identified as FRL, ELL, and/or STH. This is nearly double the four elementary schools in District 1 whose kindergarten enrollment was within the target range in the 2017-18 school year. Additionally, five of the nine District 1 elementary schools that were not in the target range for offers moved closer to the target range as compared to their 2017-18 enrollment – with some schools making offers to a larger percentage of students identified as FRL, MLL, and/or STH. There are enrollment policy changes that show early promise at the elementary school level. In Manhattan’s District 1, covering the East Village, the Lower East Side and a portion of Chinatown, local advocates pushed the City to adopt a district wide admissions priority. Under this model, which was implemented last year, the admissions priorities at each elementary school are designed to ensure that all 16 elementary schools reflect the district’s demographics. Though District 1 may be unique within New York City - it is geographically compact, its residents are very racially and socioeconomically diverse, and its elementary schools were unzoned (no family had priority at any one school based on their address) - we hope that other districts can learn from the model as they engage in local planning efforts. Within elementary school admissions, the SDAG is troubled by patterns in Gifted & Talented programs. Admission to these programs is based on a test that is administered when students are as young as four years old. There is little research to support the validity of an entrance exam for four-year-olds, leading some to surmise that it is a test of privilege not of students’ innate intelligence. Those students who are identified as “gifted” are eligible for admissions at citywide programs or district-based programs, depending on their score. The distribution of G&T programs is uneven, with many programs in Manhattan and parts of Queens, and few in historically Black and Latinx districts in the Bronx and Brooklyn. There are also many fewer students in these districts who receive eligible scores on the G&T test; both because Black 70 School Diversity Advisory Group and Latinx students are less likely to take the test and because the percent of students with qualifying scores in these neighborhoods is lower. The demographics of the programs, far from representative of the city, lead us to further question the process. In recent years, the DOE launched a G&T program that begins in 3rd grade. Students are admitted based on multiple measures, including teacher observations. The resulting classrooms are more diverse and representative of their communities. Figure 13: Kindergarten G&T Program Demographics The racial demographics of kindergarten G&T programs are not representative of the racial demographics of kindergarteners as a whole. Black and Latinx students are underrepresented while Asian and White students are overrepresented in kindergarten G&T programs. All Kindergarteners 17% Kindergarteners in G&T 23% 17% 40% 41% 8% 10% 34% 3% 8% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Asian Black Latinx White Other Figure 14: 3rd Grade G&T Program Demographics In 2017 - 2018, there were 3rd grade G&T programs in districts 3, 7, 12, 16, and 23, and ~120 students were enrolled across all 5 districts. The demographics of the 3rd grade G&T programs tend to be more similar to the demographics of the districts in which they are located, as compared to Kindergarten G&T. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% District 3 District 7 District 12 District 16 District 23 Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Percent Black/Latinx in District Percent Black/Latinx in District in Grade 3 G&T Program 71 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Other school districts have had success with programs that begin later in elementary school, like Montgomery County, Maryland and they see reduced levels of segregation.4243 Other districts have experimented with eliminating G&T altogether and instead move toward models known as “schoolwide enrichment,” where all students have the opportunity to engage in projectbased, experiential learning. Boston44 and Washington, D.C.45 have put models into place like this. Over the next several months, the SDAG intends to continue examining the role G&T plays in New York City today and plans to engage families and community members to hear more about the impacts of these programs. The SDAG believes it is critical to consider how New York City can best provide rich academic experiences for our children without creating a segregated and separate system. However, it is important to this group that we consider the potential unintended consequences of any policy change before we move forward on recommendations on this topic. As the SDAG continues to consider opportunities to create diversity in elementary school, it will be important to examine Pre-K. Some research suggests Pre-K programs are highly segregated by race and class but because the City serves more than half of its Pre-K students in community-based organizations, the boundaries of school zones are less relevant and therefore there should be more opportunity for integration.46 Middle School Admissions The use of exclusionary admissions screens at the middle school level, which judge nine year old kids on behavior, test scores, and other biased metrics, is the biggest contributor to middle school segregation. In middle school, families often consider schools throughout their home district, particularly in communities where there are no zoned schools and all students within a district can apply to any of the middle schools. This should lead to diverse middle schools in our more integrated neighborhoods. However, we see that is not the case. This group believes that screened admissions plays an important role in shaping those outcomes. Schools with screened admission look at each applicant and rank them based on information such as their elementary school grades, 4th grade state test scores, attendance, behavior, and other factors such as personal essays and interviews. The screening process creates undue stress on 4th grade students and their families, and in many communities, leads to more segregated schools. Families with greater resources are better able to navigate this system. The prevalence of screened admissions in middle school is a phenomenon somewhat unique to New York City. A 2018 New York Times report found that 1 in 5 middle and high schools in New York City has screened admissions, whereas other large urban systems have no more than a handful of screened programs each.47 72 School Diversity Advisory Group Figure 15: Screened Programs Citywide This map visualizes screened school programs across New York City. Screened programs consider students’ grades, test scores, attendance, and/ or other factors in their admissions process. Program Locations ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 46% of programs are located in Manhattan Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 73 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Within the last year, two community school districts in New York City have adopted changes to middle school admissions following community engagement processes. These changes went into effect for students applying in fall 2018 to begin 6th grade in September 2019. In Manhattan’s District 3, 25% of seats at each school have been prioritized for low income, low performing students, including District 3’s screened schools. In Brooklyn’s District 15, screened admission has been eliminated and replaced by a lottery with a priority for low-income students at each school that should lead to demographics that more closely mirror the district. We are watching these two pilots closely. Depending on the outcomes, these policies could be models applied more broadly across the City. As an Advisory Group, we have serious concerns about the practice of screening students for middle school admissions - both because of the experience it creates for students and because of the impact it seemingly has on segregation in middle school. The Advisory Group will continue to consider the impact of middle school screens for its final report. However, it is important to this group that we consider the unintended consequences and the potential replacement policies before we move forward on any recommendations on this topic. High School Admissions When it comes to high school admissions, students have the ability to consider options across all five boroughs. Though the majority of students stay in their home borough, more than half leave their district, which creates the potential for more integrated learning environments. We do see a lesser degree of racial and socioeconomic isolation in high school than in earlier grades. However, there is still a long way to go toward integration across schools and within schools themselves. Like in middle school, we see a relationship between screened admissions and school segregation in high school. In a small subset of the City’s most selective high schools, the student population does not reflect the City at all. While we as an Advisory Group acknowledge the demographic imbalance in the City’s screened programs, we also recognize the advantage for all students to have access to academically advanced courses as well as the advantages that come from an academic experience fostered by a diverse environment, particularly in high school. The Advisory Group plans to continue examining the admissions practices of NYC high schools, and plans to look at admissions practices that have successfully led to high-performing, integrated school communities elsewhere, before making final recommendations. In the time since the Advisory Group was first formed, the Mayor announced his proposal to change admissions at eight of the nine Specialized High Schools. The eight Specialized High Schools admit students on the basis of a single exam, which is a form of screened admissions. However, given the 74 School Diversity Advisory Group ongoing discussions at the City and State level about this proposal, the SDAG has opted not to make further recommendations about the Specialized High Schools in this report. The SDAG may revisit this topic within the broader context of screened admission in high school in our next report. Figure 16: High School Program Demographic Comparison Screened high school and Specialized high school demographics do not closely reflect citywide high school demographics. Black and Latinx students are underrepresented while Asian and White students are overrepresented. Additionally, screened and Specialized high school programs have lower percentages of students who qualify for free and reduced lunches compared to all school programs. All High Schools Race Screened High Schools 11% 35% 17% Specialized High Schools 29% 40% Asian Black Latinx Poverty White 18% 12% 33% Other 71% Screened High Schools 60% Specialized High Schools 44% Poverty All High Schools Gender 13% 34% 10% All High Schools Non-Poverty 48% 52% Screened High Schools 58% 42% Specialized High Schools 57% Male 75 40% Female 43% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Recommendations We recommend that the Chancellor require school districts in areas with sufficient racial diversity to meet goals in the short-term submit an analysis of how they can change admissions policies to meet the goals, including, controlled choice, eliminating screens and gifted and talented programs and any other strategies that would support racially and socioeconomically representative schools. We recommend that the DOE: • • Require all nine districts with sufficient demographic diversity of population to develop diversity and integration plans (Districts 1, 2, 3, 13, 15, 22, 27, 28, 31). Require that districts analyze controlled choice, screens, gifted and talented and other admissions policies and programs in terms of improving or perpetuating schools that are isolated based on race or other factors. Additional enrollment policy considerations Since the release of its 2017 diversity plan, the DOE has made changes in citywide policy that could lead to greater equity. For example, the elimination of “limited unscreened” - an admissions method that gave priority to families who could attend a tour or open house. However, there are additional policy areas that the Advisory Group plans to explore for our final report. For example, the SDAG plans to examine the relationship between policies for school enrollment for students who enter the system outside of the regular admissions cycle and school segregation. Currently, students arriving in New York City outside the admissions cycle have limited options in choosing a high school. We believe it is important that these students have the same options that other students enjoy. Accessibility and integration of students with disabilities In defining diversity, the Advisory Group has chosen to explicitly call attention to the meaningful inclusion and integration of students with disabilities. There are several groups who have informed our thinking on this topic, including advocacy groups and families of children with disabilities. We believe there are several steps the DOE can take right away to make our schools more inclusive of students of all abilities, including: • • 76 All admissions fairs and events should be held in fully accessible buildings School staff should be trained to welcome and accommodate students and family members with disabilities as well as immigrant families, and students and families who need interpreters on tours and school visits, as well as at school fairs. School Diversity Advisory Group • • All Family Welcome Center staff should be trained to support students with disabilities and should be prepared to help students consider all school options within their community As the City moves more of its admissions processes online, all applications should utilize the Universal Design for Learning Framework for presenting information and increasing accessibility Integration of Multilingual Learners and Immigrant Families With more than 190 languages spoken in NYC schools, and more than 40 percent of students coming from a home where the primary language is not English, it is critical that New York City’s schools are inclusive of and welcoming to Multilingual Learners and immigrant families. We believe that the City should take steps to create policies that incentivize the integration of MLLs at a school and classroom level. That could include the creation of academic enrichment opportunities that are inclusive of MLLs and students with disabilities, as well as the continued expansion of dual language programs, which intentionally bring together children with different home languages. Over the next several months, the Advisory Group also plans to look at how current admissions processes impact MLLs, students who are immigrants, and those who may be undocumented immigrants or whose families may be undocumented. 77 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Resources A product of school segregation is the strategic disinvestment and inequitable funding of schools serving majority Black and Latinx students. To achieve the 5Rs of Real Integration, all schools must be equitably funded, to ensure all students receive a sound basic education. This is the law. This report broadens the definition of resources beyond dollars to the efforts funded. Funding formulas that lead to uneven distribution of money and therefore, inequitable opportunity in schools for programs, staff and facilities must be addressed. Research has shown that racism, poverty and trauma over many generations have adverse impacts on learning. These realities create student bodies with more significant and diverse needs than student bodies made of children from families who did not have the same experiences. Over time, our city and state funding formulas have not sufficiently accounted for the varied need. This lack of sufficient funding creates school communities starved for resources and indicates that our city undervalues schools serving these communities. Schools with inadequate funding become less desirable for families of all backgrounds, especially in a system that emphasizes choice. These realities compound over time. To truly have equitably funded schools, additional funds must be utilized in certain neighborhoods, or for certain purposes, to compensate for historical inequities and current realities. In its recommendations, the SDAG will address schools in two categories: (1) Those that could become more integrated, based on the demographics of their community and; (2) Those that are more socioeconomically and racially isolated. The implications for how we think about resource equity differ based on the demographic factors. For the 2018-19 school year, the DOE’s total budget was $32.3 billion. 78 School Diversity Advisory Group Figure 17: NYC DOE Revenue Sources and Expenditures ing d n pe Ce nt Ce ral nt S ra p lS e p 20% ew 57% District $32 Billion w York City Ne York State Non - deral Fe Dis t 6% 37% N Sp e n din g Revenue Source en 28% g in nd ding ric tS 57% of DOE’s budget is provided by New York City, 37% is provided by New York State, and 6% is provided by the Federal government. Of the total $32 billion budget, 52% is spent on community school district funding, 28% is spent non-district spending, including charter schools and, 20% is central spending on behalf of district schools. 52% Expenditure Fair Student Funding Historically, schools were provided with resources based primarily on the size of their student body and teachers needed to staff the school. An NYC IBO analysis of city education spending in 2005 found “there were significant differences in per student spending for schools that should be fairly similar, and there was little correlation between student needs and per student spending of city tax-levy dollars.”48 The system favored school leaders and parents who could effectively advocate for their schools.49 To remedy this, former Mayor Bloomberg initiated a school budget reform in 200750 that used a weighted formula called “Fair Student Funding” to distribute funds based on the needs of students at each school. This framework remains in use today: the majority of schools’ budgets is comprised of Fair Student Funding dollars: 67.4%. It is used to hire teachers and staff, as well as to purchase materials and educational resources and support student and family activities. 79 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Fair Student Funding is based on the following principles: • • • • School budgeting should fund students adequately while preserving stability at all schools; Different students have different educational needs and funding levels should reflect those needs as best as possible; School leaders, not central offices, are best positioned to decide how to improve achievement; and School budgets should be as transparent as possible so that funding decisions are visible for all to see and evaluate. Fair Student Funding provides additional funding for students with disabilities, Multilingual Learners, low-income students, and students performing below grade level. Historically, schools have not received their full allocation and the percentages of Fair Student Funding received by each school have been highly variable, ranging from the mid-80’s to more than 100%. Last year, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the City Council made a commitment to raise the floor so that all schools now receive at least 90%51 of the funding according to the formula. The average school is receives 93% of their Fair Student Funding. Figure 18: Per Pupil Funding by Borough The Bronx receives the highest amount of funding per pupil ($18,979), followed by Staten Island ($18,874 per pupil), Manhattan ($17,676 per pupil), Brooklyn ($17,504 per pupil), and Queens ($16,082 per pupil). $21,000 $19,000 $17,000 $15,000 $13,000 Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Campaign for Fiscal Equity The Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York case began in 1993 seeking fair funding of New York City schools to meet the New York State Constitution’s requirement that every student be given a “sound, basic education.” New York’s highest court reaffirmed this right and established a minimum funding amount for the City’s schools. 80 School Diversity Advisory Group Figure 19: Student Poverty by Borough The Bronx has the highest percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunches (85%); followed by Brooklyn (75%), Queens (72%), Manhattan (66%) and Staten Island (58%). Overall, 74% of the public school population qualifies for free or reduced-priced lunches. Citywide Poverty Demographics 74% Manhattan 34% 66% Bronx 85% Brooklyn By Borough 26% 15% 75% Queens 25% 72% Staten Island 58% Poverty Non-Poverty 28% 42% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 To comply with the ruling, the State Legislature passed reforms resulting in additional dollars sent to public schools in the following years. Due to the economic crisis, the state slowed the implementation of these funds in 2009. Advocates believe a statewide gap of over $4 billion dollars remains, with over $1.4 billion owed directly to New York City. Due to this gap, the city has been unable to fully implement the Fair Student Funding formula. Other Types of Funding Federal Title 1 funding provides additional dollars to schools with high percentages of students in poverty. Even as the number of students qualifying for Title I spending increases throughout the nation, federal spending has remained relatively flat. The number of eligible students in New York State has increased in recent years, but not at the same rate as other parts of the country. This has resulted in less Title I funding distributed across more localities. Additionally, the number of New York City students qualifying for Title I has declined while the number of city schools eligible for Title I has increased.52 This reality often leads schools to fear how they would fill funding gaps if the student population significantly changes, and may discourage integration. Title I funds are allocated to schools with a poverty rate equal to or greater than the poverty rate of the county in which the school is located. The poverty rate is the number of students eligible for free lunch divided by the total 81 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students number of students. Schools may utilize the funds in different ways depending on the percentage of students in poverty served.53 New York City will receive $519 million in the 2018-19 school year. While the DOE does not have the authority to revise the formula, SDAG will examine the effects of a thresholdbased formula on school segregation. The City also has a separate capital budget of approximately $16 billion to build new schools, renovate existing schools, and purchase equipment over five years. Individual schools may also receive funding from other sources: federal and state grants, private philanthropy, partnerships with nonprofits, elected officials discretionary funds, Parent Teacher Associations, and alumni. The fundraising capacity of Parent Teacher Associations (PA/PTA) is highly variable, ranging from zero up to more than $1 million.54 Recommendations School Diversity Grant Program In September 2018, DOE announced it launched a $2 million school diversity grant program for districts to develop community-driven diversity plans. Related to this program, the SDAG recommends that the DOE: • • • • Make resources available for any district to receive support for planning diversity, if it receives more applications than the $2 million can support. Permit districts to apply jointly Consider a separate pot of funds for districts that have not yet begun conversations about integration Consult the SDAG on the roll-out of the grant program System-wide recommendations In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals found that New York State was violating students constitutional right to a “sound and basic education” due to low educational funding. The SDAG supports efforts to close the $1.4 billion funding gap for New York City schools. • Support efforts in Albany to collect all Campaign for Fiscal Equity funding owed to the City’s schools. Develop recommendations for the DOE that address historic inequities and that are within the City’s control to implement. While Fair Student Funding takes student needs into account, school budgets still vary significantly. These should include: • 82 Launch a Task Force to recommend equitable PTA fundraising strategies. School Diversity Advisory Group While PTAs are required to submit annual financial reports to their school’s principal, as separate entities, they are not administered by the DOE.55 A recently enacted law requires the DOE to report on the income and expenditures of all PTAs.56 PTAs are independent organizations funded by family, business, and foundation donations. Just as family income varies widely in New York City, so does PTA fundraising, resulting in vast differences between schools. Other cities have taken steps to address fundraising inequities among schools. For example, the Portland Public Schools in Oregon require one-third of all PA/PTA funds raised (after the first $10,000) to be contributed to an equity fund called the Portland Public School Parent Fund that distributes funding to high-need schools.5758 • Examine Title 1 and its relationship to integration. Federal Title 1 funding provides additional dollars to schools with high percentages of poverty. This funding may be endangered by efforts to further integrate student populations with varied family incomes. In the final report, the Group will examine this relationship and make related recommendations. Schools that could become more integrated based on their community’s demographics • • • • 83 School surveys: Gather information from schools to determine what resources and changes in policies they feel they need to create greater diversity in their communities. Develop and invest in accelerated enrichment programs in elementary schools that are open to all students, and inclusive of students with disabilities and Emerging Multilingual Learners. Invest in programming that intentionally creates diverse populations through its admissions such as dual language programs and integrated learning environments for students with disabilities to ensure that programs will be attractive to a broad cross section of families in a community, the choice of new themes for non-selective magnet schools should be based on survey research. Invest in programs and offerings that will attract more diverse families to schools they might not have considered before, particularly in communities that choose to make changes to their admissions methods with the explicit goal of diversity. While changes to enrollment processes are necessary to facilitate more diverse classrooms, that alone is not enough. Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Schools that are more isolated • • • • 84 Invest in program offerings to ensure high poverty schools have the same curricular, extra-curricular and after school opportunities as schools in more affluent communities. Critical investments may include those in the arts, sports, music, and supplies. Build a pipeline for accelerated Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) coursework from K-8. Develop and invest in accelerated enrichment programs in elementary schools that are open to all students, and inclusive of students with disabilities and MLLs. Invest in college and career prep resources (e.g., internships) to level the playing field and ensure all students have access to the roles of interest to them. Create partnerships with local colleges to ensure dual enrollment college courses take place on high school campuses. Invest in growing and strengthening high-performing schools outside of Manhattan. The City should explore what it would take to create new options for families in communities that currently lack the educational opportunities found in other parts of the city. School Diversity Advisory Group Relationships Another product of historic and current school segregation is the elevation of deficit narratives about students of color, reinforced by curricula and pedagogical practices that undermine and exclude the success of students of color. A critical element in achieving the 5Rs of Real Integration is the investment in Culturally Responsive Education (CRE): curricular, pedagogical, and school cultural practices that honor all students’ identities and backgrounds. Students have demanded schools that are “considerate and empathetic of the identities of all students, focus on the power of different backgrounds, and act to build relationships between students across group identities.”59 Research shows that this supports greater critical thinking skills and enhances leadership skills, particularly in working with others of different backgrounds, which is what the world now demands.60 Diversity, for students, includes how their unique backgrounds and experiences are valued and how they are supported to develop relationships. Relationships between students, parents, teachers, principals, guidance counselors, parents coordinators, and other school staff play an important role enabling student success and creating environments where all students feel supported and empowered and learn from each other. Recommendations Student Empowerment Over the past year the DOE’s Youth-Adult Student Voice Working Group worked to create a strong student voice system for shaping relevant policies and practice through authentic partnership that expands access to all young people. Through outreach to and engagement with students, the Group will emphasize participation and diversity in the system, and civic engagement 85 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students more broadly. The Working Group also advocated for personnel support in the form of a Student Voice Director. The DOE began the hiring process for this new role, marking a systemic recommitment to prioritizing student voice.61 To meet these goals, the SDAG recommends that the DOE: • • • • • Every school has the resources for a high-quality student council. Borough Student Advisory Councils should be expanded to include seats for student council representatives from every high school. A General Assembly should be created with representatives from every high school to develop a citywide student agenda and vote on key issues. The Chancellor’s Student Advisory Committee should be transformed into a leadership body that utilizes youth-adult committees to promote authentic partnership. Create a Student Leadership Team, comprised of one student from each BSAC to meet monthly with the Chancellor. Additionally, we recommend that the DOE: • • Create a new leadership position within the central DOE office to focus on student voice. Create a standing committee on high school admissions to advise the Chancellor in decision-making. As the SDAG moves toward final recommendations, we believe it is critical that student voice be central to the discussion. Our student members have held us accountable to this principle to date and we plan to continue to expand the ways in which we are taking in the feedback of diverse student communities across NYC. Pedagogy & Curriculum Culturally responsive education (CRE) must be central in pedagogical and curricular development at the DOE. CRE is a cultural view of learning and human development in which multiple and intersectional forms of diversity (e.g., race, social class, gender, language, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, ability) are seen as indispensable assets and resources for rigorous teaching and learning, and positive academic outcomes for all students. CRE explores the relationships between historical and contemporary conditions of inequality and ideas that shape access, participation, and outcomes for learners. The following recommendations utilize CRE principles. We believe that the DOE should: • • 86 Provide culturally responsive pedagogical practices at all schools and for all students Adopt a common definition of CRE that will inform and shape work across DOE School Diversity Advisory Group • • • • • • Create partnerships with institutions of higher education to ensure CRE is an essential component of all pre-service teacher training efforts Collaborate with the New York State Education Department and Alternative Certification Programs (i.e. NYCTF/Americorps/Teach for America/NYC Men Teach) to utilize CRE principles as part of teaching certification Work with NYSED, under the state’s ESSA plan, to secure additional funding to train and support teachers and staff in CRE Implement ethnic and culturally responsive courses for all students that include religious literacy and disability studies Utilize trauma-informed research to guide the development and implementation of curricula Seek partnerships with qualified vendors who supply CRE instructional materials, training, and resources. School Climate Schools should feel safe and supportive for all students, teachers, staff, and administrators. The following recommendations support this goal and acknowledge its relationship to student success. We believe that the DOE should: • • • • • • • Assess the roles and responsibilities of School Safety Agents in school communities. Analyze the benefits and drawbacks of School Safety Agents moving to DOE supervision from NYPD supervision Train School Safety Agents, Family Welcome Center, DOE central, field and school based staff in CRE. Bolster school-based equity teams and ensure they include parent and student representatives to advance welcoming school climate. Require all schools to monitor student discipline practices and develop a plan to reduce disparities in how students are disciplined. Expand community schools initiative and other models that connect schools to community based organizations. Include metrics for accountability related to school climate directly on Quality Review/Schoolwide CEP Goals. There is a strong link between school climate and the policies and practices related to discipline. We will address these issues further in the Restorative Justice section. 87 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Parent and Teacher Empowerment Families across the city want to support their student’s educational goals, but they are stymied by barriers like language, time, and a lack of familiarity with such a large and complicated system. The following recommendations seek to make it easier for all families to engage in school communities. We believe the DOE should: • • • • • Utilize varied outreach efforts to meaningfully engage parents in school decision-making processes with the goal of including families that have not participated in prior activities. These may include altering the time, location, setting, or language of the gathering to reflect family needs. Ensure families are meaningfully engaged in decisions about changes to admissions policies and procedures in their native language. Ensure families without internet access or a computer at home are able to utilize all tools related to application and enrollment. Consider cultural relevance or acceptance of new tools for families and students (e.g., online application and enrollment) before release and establish supports for families who will likely not utilize new tools. Ensure that IEPs are translated and provide interpretation and translation support for IEP-related meetings. Teacher voice also needs to be heard. Teachers bring first-hand knowledge of the ways in which students can learn more in diverse environments. Educators should be part of the conversation, alongside students and parents. We believe the DOE should: • • Support current efforts to share best practices between teachers, administrators and parents on CRE, school climate, and parent empowerment. Efforts include citywide and borough based conferences run by the DOE, UFT and institutions of higher education. Collaborate with the Division of Teaching and Learning alongside the UFT so that School Based Mentors, Teacher Leaders, Chapter Leaders/ Delegates, and Instructional Coaches can participate citywide in the sharing of best practices. As the SDAG moves toward final recommendations, it is also critical to us that parent voice and family feedback remain central. In addition to the parents who sit on the Advisory Group, we will seek to engage organized parent bodies as well as parents who may not participate in those groups today. 88 School Diversity Advisory Group Restorative Justice & Practices Another product of school segregation (and an unintended consequence that may arise in diverse educational spaces) is the disproportionate and punitive discipline towards students of color. Restorative justice begs us to ask the question, who is being disciplined and how? Why are some students treated differently than others for similar infractions? The SDAG believes it is important to consider the questions above, and to consider how our school communities can repair the harm caused by negative disciplinary practices. We also believe that it is critical to look at restorative practices, which speak to the alternative ways in which school communities can approach behavior management. Restorative practices emphasize the de-escalation of conflict while building socio-emotional skills and valuing restoration of community. The disproportionality in school suspensions by race is reported in Figure 20. Students of color are likely to face more significant disciplinary action for behavioral infractions than white students who engage in the same activities. When students of particular racial and ethnic groups and abilities face more punitive discipline in our classrooms, we see the beginning of the school-toprison pipeline. To disrupt this, we need to look at the connections between equity, integration, and restorative practice. 89 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Figure 20: Student Suspension Racial Demographics Citywide suspension demographics do not closely reflect citywide student demographics. Black and Latinx students are often disciplined at disproportionate rates compared to their peers. Citywide Student Demographics 16% 26% Citywide Suspension Demographics 47% Manhattan By Borough Queens 15% 40% 45% Bronx Brooklyn 40% 10% 51% 38% 60% 3% 66% 10% Staten Island 23% 47% 36% 39% 28% 7% 8% 32% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 Asian Black Latinx White Other In 2015, the Mayor, in partnership with the DOE, the Police Department, and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, convened the Mayor’s Leadership Team on School Climate and Discipline. This working group ultimately made a set of recommendations, which are included below at a summary level. The SDAG endorses these recommendations and calls upon the DOE and its partner agencies to provide an update on the implementation of these recommendations. Recommendations Mayor’s Leadership Team on School Climate and Discipline Phase 1 recommendations; issued July 2015 • Articulate a clear mission statement on student discipline that embraces positive supports and presents a strategy for implementing this mission. • Provide additional school climate supports, including staff and training, 90 School Diversity Advisory Group • • • • • • • • for schools with the highest numbers of suspensions, arrests and/or summonses. Increase school climate supports system-wide. Improve citywide and school-level data collection and use. Implement protocols and training to improve the scanning process and remove scanners where appropriate. Memorialize in writing, policies and protocols within NYPD and DOE that promote de-escalation and integration between educators and agents. Create Resource Coordination Teams within the new Borough Field Support Centers Implement strategies and supports to specifically reduce disparities in discipline and school-based arrests/summonses. Improve training of staff in high-priority schools about how to identify and meet the needs of students with special needs. Promote transparency, consistency and information sharing between schools receiving students via Safety Transfers and DOE Central. Phase 2 recommendations; issued July 2016 • Train superintendents in positive discipline strategies so they have the knowledge and skill set necessary to promote these strategies and evaluate their execution. • Increase mental health supports for high-need schools to address symptoms and behaviors with a medical model as an alternative to disciplinary action. • Reduce the length of superintendent’s suspensions to minimize disruption to learning and engagement in school. • Improve supports for students returning to district schools from superintendent’s suspensions at Alternate Learning Centers. • Improve supports for students returning to school from alternative settings such as the Rikers Island Correctional Facility and facilities managed by the Administration for Children’s Services. • Update the Discipline Code to reflect the City’s current vision and approach to positive climate and discipline in schools. • Rewrite the Memorandum of Understanding to clarify the role and authority of school safety staff, precinct officers and educators on safety and discipline matters. • Evaluate new initiatives, and improve and increase data collection on school climate and safety indicators. We urge you to read their full reports, Safety with Dignity and Maintaining the Momentum: A Plan for Safety and Fairness In Schools. 91 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Representation The DOE is one of the largest employers in New York City, with more than 140,000 employees throughout the five boroughs. While the DOE has a diverse student body, the majority of the teaching workforce is white and female. We know that teacher diversity matters. According to national research, having at least one same-race teacher has positive correlations with student achievement, attendance, and suspension rates, as well as students’ selfperceptions. Earlier in this report, we wrote about the importance of a workforce that is trained in culturally responsive education and pedagogy. That alone is not enough. The DOE also needs a workforce that ultimately reflects the diversity of its students. We encourage the DOE to further its efforts to create a diverse workforce—including principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, and all other school staff—and expand its definition of that diversity to include all race and ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, gender identities, and abilities. The DOE is already doing some of this work: • • • • 92 The New York City Teaching Fellows program is the most diverse pipeline into the teaching workforce and attracts career-changers and young professionals. In the Summer 2018 Teaching Fellows cohort, 62% were teachers of color. The NYC Men Teach initiative supports recruitment and retention strategies. Since its launch in 2015, NYC Men Teach has raised the percentage of new hires that are men of color by 3%. The Expanded Success Initiative, which includes the Critically Conscious Educators Rising series, trains teachers in Culturally Responsive Education and identifying implicit biases when serving all students. The Teach NYC Career Training Program offers tuition aid and reimbursement opportunities for paraprofessionals pursuing higher education and educator certification. Over the years, this program has been the largest single source of minority teachers in New York City. School Diversity Advisory Group While we commend these efforts, there is more work to do and we believe that the DOE should explore further opportunities to diversify and strengthen its workforce. We propose the following recommendations for steps that the DOE should take now, and we plan to revisit this topic in greater detail in our final report. Figure 21: Teacher Racial Demographics Citywide teacher demographics do not closely reflect citywide student demographics. White teachers comprise 59% of the citywide teaching staff while white students account for 15% of the student population. Latinx teachers comprise 16% of the citywide teaching staff while Latinx students account for 40% of the student population. Citywide Student Demographics Citywide Teacher Demographics Manhattan Bronx By Borough Brooklyn 16% 7% 18% 10% 7% 9% Staten Island 3% 8% 56% 26% 25% 12% 59% 20% 21% 15% 40% 16% 14% 5% Queens 26% 47% 12% 56% 13% 66% 86% Source: NYC DOE, SY 17/18 93 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Recommendations We believe the DOE should: • • • • • • Report diversity of staff by position (e.g., teacher, administrator, para, other staff) as part of the School Quality Report. Study the impact of current initiatives and make targeted investments to expand them. Monitor diversity of workforce, to the extent possible, based on race, ethnicity, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Explore career pipeline opportunities for parent coordinators within the school system. Explore opportunities to build an educator career pipeline for high school students. Launch a task force to investigate the current state of the DOE’s workforce in greater detail and make recommendations about best practices learned from existing efforts. This task force should also look at examples of success from other school districts and sectors. We encourage the DOE to continue, expand, and deepen this work and to monitor its impact. It is critical that the DOE’s work to diversify and train its teaching workforce to be more culturally responsive has a material impact at the policy level as well. 94 School Diversity Advisory Group 95 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School StudentsSource: NYC DOE Our path forward. Roadmap and Engagement Plan In this interim report, we have: • • • • • recalled the historical context that brought us to today’s segregated and inequitable system defined the key terms of the school diversity and integration conversation summarized the work of our group over the past year shared some preliminary recommendations that we believe can be implemented in the near term and outlined the topics which our group will continue to explore and further expound upon in our final report. We believe strongly that building a diverse and equitable public education system in New York City requires listening to the voices of the people and communities who have been historically left out of the policy-making process. To that end, in the coming months, members of this Advisory Group will build on our public engagement process by soliciting the opinions and suggestions of public school students, educators, parents, and community leaders; organizing additional conversations with individuals and groups across the City; and creating an online mechanism for the general public to submit their comments and suggestions for our final report. We are committed to ensuring that our engagement is multilingual, culturally responsive, and driven by the needs of New York City’s many different communities. Between now and the end of the school year, this group will continue to meet to explore further recommendations based on community input and engagement, and continued analysis and research. We commit to releasing a subsequent report with additional recommendations on school screens, G&T programs, and school resources by the end of this school year. The SDAG is committed to meeting at least monthly through the duration of the school year to solicit input, analyze research, and compile additional recommendations. The SDAG will organize additional community engagement sessions to receive feedback on this report and the future work of the SDAG. 97 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Appendix Proposed Metrics The School Diversity Advisory Group would propose that the DOE track and report annually on the following measures, in addition to the broad diversity goals. These measures look at specifically how the DOE is making progress against key priority areas. Race & Enrollment ES admissions: Demographics (race, SES, MLL, SWD) of G&T programs as compared to general education programs, by district MS admissions: Demographics (race, SES, MLL, SWD) of middle school programs based on admissions criteria, by district HS admissions: Demographics (race, SES, MLL, SWD) of high school programs based on admissions criteria, by borough Students with disabilities: Number/percent of fully accessible school buildings by district and grade level English Language Learners: TBD Resources All funding sources by school DBN; analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) Access to advanced coursework and specialized educational opportunities, by school, at each grade band (e.g., Algebra in middle school, AP courses) All facilities spending by school DBN; analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) Sports spending by school; analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) Arts & music spending by school; analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) City-funded after-school programs funding (DYCD); analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) New school construction spending (SCA); analysis of how schools compare across districts (ES and MS) and boroughs (HS) Require DOE to report on PTA spending (new requirement per City Council bill) Relationships Measure of student engagement: TBD DOE spending re: $2m allocation Restorative Justice [As defined by the School Climate Working Group] Representation Demographics of NYC DOE teachers, as compared to demographics of the students in their schools Demographics of school leaders, as compared to demographics of the students in their schools Measures of teacher quality, analyzed by geography and student demographics 99 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Teacher Demographics Total Employed Asian Black Latinx White Other (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) District 1 934 152 16% 83 9% 142 15% 551 59% 6 1% District 2 6146 672 11% 799 13% 711 12% 3940 64% 24 0% District 3 1664 142 9% 223 13% 230 14% 1054 63% 15 1% District 4 1069 71 7% 164 15% 303 28% 529 49% 2 0% District 5 1125 86 8% 434 39% 214 19% 388 34% 3 0% District 6 1737 88 5% 185 11% 795 46% 664 38% 5 0% District 7 1933 119 6% 479 25% 618 32% 705 36% 12 1% District 8 2333 115 5% 461 20% 583 25% 1169 50% 5 0% District 9 2715 133 5% 724 27% 860 32% 982 36% 16 1% District 10 4142 207 5% 569 14% 1160 28% 2186 53% 20 0% District 11 3222 136 4% 711 22% 505 16% 1860 58% 10 0% District 12 2164 109 5% 535 25% 620 29% 878 41% 22 1% District 13 1590 120 8% 639 40% 163 10% 661 42% 7 0% District 14 1534 85 6% 261 17% 315 21% 869 57% 4 0% District 15 3071 279 9% 374 12% 480 16% 1929 63% 9 0% District 16 536 25 5% 358 67% 48 9% 103 19% 2 0% District 17 1589 95 6% 886 56% 138 9% 460 29% 10 1% District 18 1125 46 4% 541 48% 72 6% 462 41% 4 0% District 19 1832 101 6% 731 40% 307 17% 680 37% 13 1% District 20 3542 424 12% 161 5% 314 9% 2633 74% 10 0% District 21 2679 175 7% 249 9% 219 8% 2025 76% 11 0% District 22 2316 93 4% 335 14% 124 5% 1759 76% 5 0% District 23 845 51 6% 533 63% 75 9% 179 21% 7 1% District 24 4405 334 8% 252 6% 735 17% 3058 69% 26 1% District 25 2589 343 13% 102 4% 219 8% 1913 74% 12 0% District 26 2589 289 11% 172 7% 196 8% 1923 74% 9 0% District 27 3121 197 6% 452 14% 372 12% 2086 67% 14 0% District 28 3005 266 9% 514 17% 374 12% 1837 61% 14 0% District 29 1774 112 6% 720 41% 138 8% 797 45% 7 0% District 30 2896 227 8% 172 6% 579 20% 1908 66% 10 0% District 31 4704 99 2% 139 3% 389 8% 4067 86% 10 0% District 32 889 47 5% 216 24% 284 32% 339 38% 3 0% District 75 6011 368 6% 1069 18% 849 14% 3706 62% 19 0% District 79 522 34 7% 172 33% 92 18% 219 42% 5 1% 100 School Diversity Advisory Group Teacher Race 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Citywide District 1 Manhattan District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 Bronx District 10 District 11 District 12 District 13 District 14 District 15 District 16 District 17 District 18 District 19 District 20 Brooklyn District 21 District 22 District 23 District 32 District 24 District 25 District 26 S.I. Queens District 27 District 28 District 29 District 30 District 31 District 75 District 79 Asian 101 Black Latinx White Other Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students 100% Principal Demographics Total Employed Asian Black Latinx White Other (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) District 1 29 3 10% 3 10% 7 24% 16 55% 0 0% District 2 182 16 9% 41 23% 28 15% 97 53% 0 0% District 3 46 0 0% 13 28% 7 15% 26 57% 0 0% District 4 30 1 3% 6 20% 9 30% 13 43% 1 3% District 5 30 1 3% 17 57% 8 27% 4 13% 0 0% District 6 49 0 0% 9 18% 22 45% 18 37% 0 0% District 7 47 1 2% 15 32% 15 32% 16 34% 0 0% District 8 57 1 2% 16 28% 14 25% 25 44% 1 2% District 9 69 5 7% 20 29% 23 33% 21 30% 0 0% District 10 88 4 5% 18 20% 29 33% 37 42% 0 0% District 11 67 0 0% 16 24% 19 28% 32 48% 0 0% District 12 51 3 6% 11 22% 17 33% 19 37% 1 2% District 13 47 1 2% 30 64% 2 4% 14 30% 0 0% District 14 41 2 5% 6 15% 14 34% 19 46% 0 0% District 15 59 2 3% 11 19% 11 19% 35 59% 0 0% District 16 25 0 0% 22 88% 0 0% 3 12% 0 0% District 17 50 0 0% 35 70% 6 12% 9 18% 0 0% District 18 34 1 3% 20 59% 3 9% 10 29% 0 0% District 19 51 2 4% 30 59% 6 12% 13 25% 0 0% District 20 45 3 7% 5 11% 3 7% 33 73% 1 2% District 21 45 0 0% 6 13% 1 2% 38 84% 0 0% District 22 40 2 5% 9 22% 3 8% 26 65% 0 0% District 23 32 0 0% 25 78% 1 3% 6 19% 0 0% District 24 60 3 5% 4 7% 12 20% 41 68% 0 0% District 25 45 2 4% 4 9% 2 4% 37 82% 0 0% District 26 40 3 8% 6 15% 3 8% 28 70% 0 0% District 27 62 3 5% 21 34% 6 10% 32 52% 0 0% District 28 59 1 2% 20 34% 14 24% 24 41% 0 0% District 29 47 0 0% 32 68% 1 2% 14 30% 0 0% District 30 52 2 4% 7 13% 15 29% 28 54% 0 0% District 31 76 0 0% 6 8% 10 13% 60 79% 0 0% District 32 27 0 0% 8 30% 8 30% 11 41% 0 0% District 75 60 0 0% 16 27% 7 12% 37 62% 0 0% District 79 18 1 6% 10 56% 3 17% 4 22% 0 0% 102 School Diversity Advisory Group Principal Suspension Demographics Total Students Suspended Asian (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) District 1 106 0 0% 47 44% 52 49% 7 7% 0 0% District 2 1481 21 1% 647 44% 746 50% 67 5% 0 0% District 3 401 0 0% 266 66% 135 34% 0 0% 0 0% District 4 223 0 0% 89 40% 134 60% 0 0% 0 0% District 5 114 8 7% 79 69% 21 18% 6 5% 0 0% District 6 259 0 0% 21 8% 238 92% 0 0% 0 0% District 7 766 0 0% 320 42% 446 58% 0 0% 0 0% District 8 1137 0 0% 378 33% 745 66% 14 1% 0 0% District 9 758 0 0% 191 25% 567 75% 0 0% 0 0% District 10 1061 11 1% 336 32% 703 66% 11 1% 0 0% District 11 969 11 1% 537 55% 387 40% 34 4% 0 0% District 12 1068 0 0% 444 42% 616 58% 8 1% 0 0% District 13 355 21 6% 279 79% 35 10% 20 6% 0 0% District 14 579 0 0% 268 46% 305 53% 6 1% 0 0% District 15 271 6 2% 160 59% 99 37% 6 2% 0 0% District 16 178 0 0% 178 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% District 17 520 0 0% 505 97% 15 3% 0 0% 0 0% District 18 450 0 0% 441 98% 9 2% 0 0% 0 0% District 19 573 6 1% 392 68% 175 31% 0 0% 0 0% District 20 894 190 21% 100 11% 335 37% 269 30% 0 0% District 21 801 52 6% 433 54% 150 19% 166 21% 0 0% District 22 521 12 2% 322 62% 49 9% 138 26% 0 0% District 23 174 0 0% 168 97% 6 3% 0 0% 0 0% District 24 1435 185 13% 74 5% 1053 73% 123 9% 0 0% District 25 676 127 19% 270 40% 234 35% 45 7% 0 0% District 26 632 97 15% 364 58% 107 17% 64 10% 0 0% District 27 755 61 8% 417 55% 253 34% 24 3% 0 0% District 28 568 52 9% 273 48% 159 28% 84 15% 0 0% District 29 537 0 0% 512 95% 25 5% 0 0% 0 0% District 30 669 35 5% 183 27% 386 58% 65 10% 0 0% District 31 1671 10 1% 653 39% 472 28% 530 32% 6 0% District 32 144 0 0% 32 22% 112 78% 0 0% 0 0% District 75 132 0 0% 118 89% 14 11% 0 0% 0 0% District 79 46 0 0% 34 74% 12 26% 0 0% 0 0% 103 Black Principal Latinx Principal White Principal Multi-Racial Principal Principal Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Superintendent Suspension Demographics Total Students Suspended Asian (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) District 1 54 0 0% 16 30% 38 70% 0 0% 0 0% District 2 267 21 5% 147 55% 107 40% 0 0% 0 0% District 3 148 0 0% 94 64% 54 36% 0 0% 0 0% District 4 89 0 0% 69 78% 20 22% 0 0% 0 0% District 5 194 8 0% 162 84% 32 16% 0 0% 0 0% District 6 111 0 0% 25 23% 86 77% 0 0% 0 0% District 7 163 0 0% 62 38% 101 62% 0 0% 0 0% District 8 356 0 0% 119 33% 237 67% 0 0% 0 0% District 9 167 0 0% 80 48% 87 52% 0 0% 0 0% District 10 317 11 0% 98 31% 219 69% 0 0% 0 0% District 11 303 11 0% 204 67% 99 33% 0 0% 0 0% District 12 257 0 0% 123 48% 134 52% 0 0% 0 0% District 13 200 21 9% 169 85% 6 3% 8 4% 0 0% District 14 125 0 6% 45 36% 73 58% 0 0% 0 0% District 15 81 6 0% 49 60% 32 40% 0 0% 0 0% District 16 124 0 0% 118 95% 6 5% 0 0% 0 0% District 17 194 0 0% 188 97% 6 3% 0 0% 0 0% District 18 107 0 0% 107 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% District 19 284 6 0% 236 83% 48 17% 0 0% 0 0% District 20 131 190 0% 29 22% 77 59% 25 19% 0 0% District 21 224 52 0% 140 63% 43 19% 41 18% 0 0% District 22 113 12 0% 97 86% 0 0% 16 14% 0 0% District 23 40 0 0% 40 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% District 24 155 185 0% 6 4% 143 92% 6 4% 0 0% District 25 156 127 7% 70 45% 75 48% 0 0% 0 0% District 26 95 97 14% 74 78% 8 8% 0 0% 0 0% District 27 258 61 3% 180 70% 71 28% 0 0% 0 0% District 28 156 52 9% 116 74% 18 12% 8 5% 0 0% District 29 156 0 0% 149 96% 7 4% 0 0% 0 0% District 30 163 35 4% 41 25% 103 63% 12 7% 0 0% District 31 374 10 0% 214 57% 121 32% 39 10% 0 0% District 32 113 0 0% 20 18% 93 82% 0 0% 0 0% District 75 53 0 0% 34 64% 19 0% 0 0% 0 0% District 79 16 0 0% 9 56% 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 104 Superintendent Black Superintendent School Diversity Advisory Group Latinx Superintendent White Superintendent Multi-Racial Superintendent This page left intentionally blank. 105 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Glossary Ally someone who makes the commitment and effort to recognize their privilege (based on gender, class, race, sexual identity, etc.) and work with oppressed groups in the struggle for justice. Allies understand that it is in their own interest to end all forms of oppression, even those from which they may benefit in concrete ways Achievement Gap the gap in any measure of student academic achievement (common metrics are standardized test proficiency, graduation rates, etc). This conceptual framing puts the onus on students and their achievement. It is usually summative, based on one measure, and ignores context, need, opportunities and resources. (See opportunity gap for a different conceptual framing) Anti-racism actively opposing racism. Anti-racism is often in response to interpersonal racism (see below), and focused on the actions of individuals. Attributional Ambiguity a psychological state of uncertainty about the cause of a person’s outcomes or treatment. It occurs whenever there is more than one plausible reason for why a person was treated in a certain way or received the outcomes that he or she received. People of Color are often vulnerable to attributional ambiguity creating an internal state of doubt (e.g., “did that happen because of my behavior/ work? Or was it because of my race?” This effect can interact with 107 stereotype threat (see below), to create even greater self-doubt. Cisgender A term which describes people whose gender identity or gender expression matches their assigned sex at birth Code Switching shifting your language, dialect, and mannerisms depending on what social groups and situations you are in. Colorism a within race preference or prejudice based solely on skin-color. (e.g. preferences in the Asian/Latinx or Black community for lighter skin, prejudice against darker skin, skinwhitening creams, etc.) Conscientização Paulo Freire’s conception of critical consciousness-- raising the consciousness of both the oppressor and the oppressed about the system of oppression that implicates both of them. It is seen as a form of liberatory pedagogy that, in turn, helps both the oppressor and the oppressed consider their situation critically and creatively and work towards systemic transformation (praxis), towards a more just social order. Cultural Competence an approach that comes from the health and educational sectors and means being respectful and responsive to the cultural beliefs, practices, and needs of those in your care. In education, that means: • believing that all students can learn • self-reflective and critical examination of one’s own behaviors working with students of diverse backgrounds • setting high standards and communicating them to students • standing up to challenge prejudice and discrimination[vii] Cultural Proficiency a set of values and behaviors in an individual or set of policies and practices in an organization that create the appropriate mindset and approach to effectively respond to issues of diversity. Culturally proficient people may not know all there is to know about others who are different from them, but they know how to take advantage of teachable moments, how to ask questions without offending, and how to create an environment that is welcoming to diversity and to change. Five essential elements characterizing cultural proficiency include: assessing culture, valuing diversity, managing the dynamics of difference, adapting to diversity, and institutionalizing cultural knowledge. Culturally Relevant Education (CRE) (also commonly called culturally responsive education/culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching) A teaching approach that empowers students Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students and incorporates their cultures, backgrounds, and experiences into the school environment and classroom activities involving three different elements: 1) supporting academic success by setting high expectations for students and providing ample opportunities for them to succeed; 2) embracing cultural competence, including a curriculum that builds on students’ prior knowledge and cultural experience; and 3) promoting critical consciousness by providing students with the tools to critique and challenge institutions that perpetuate inequality. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy an approach that goes beyond culturally responsive or culturally relevant pedagogy in that it focuses explicitly on sustaining the cultural and linguistic value of students’ families and communities while also offering access to the dominant culture to support multilingualism and multiculturalism Controlled Choice A school enrollment method first popularized in Cambridge, Massachusetts where family school choice is balanced with a locality’s interested in creating equitable school populations. Critical Consciousness an intentionally critical analysis of power, privilege and injustice in society and institutions for the purpose of changing them. It requires anti-oppressive thinking and anti-oppressive action. Critical Pedagogy an orientation to teaching that focuses on critiquing the status quo by naming, analyzing and takes steps to address power imbalances and social injustice. Critical Race Theory Culture the social characteristics that people have in common, such as language, religion, traditions, political and social affiliations, dress, recreation, foods, etc. (see ethnicity for subtle distinctions) Color Blindness the racial ideology that contends that the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity. It focuses on commonalities between people, 108 such as their shared humanity (a common refrain here is “I don’t see color.”) This approach is often critiqued as not accounting for historical, systemic and institutional racism. a theoretical approach that originated in the legal field, and has gained traction in academia. CRT assumes a system of institutional racism that is based on colonialism and white supremacy and marginalizes people of color. CRT seeks to analyze, critique, and change the existing social order that consistently confers power and privilege on people based on their (white) skin color. School Diversity Advisory Group Desegration Dismantling the beliefs, policies, and practices that physically separate students into racially and economically isolated schools, tracks, classes, and/or programs, that invariably results in inequitable access to programs, resources and opportunities. Disability A personal limitation of substantial disadvantage to the individual when attempting to function in society. It reflects the interaction between a person and the society in which they live. It encompasses more than students who receive special education services. Disability status is defined differently under different laws. Disproportionality refers to the disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular racial or ethnic group at a particular decision point or experiencing an event (maltreatment, incarceration, school dropouts) compared to the percentage of same racial or ethnic group in the overall population. These disparities could suggest underrepresentation, proportional representation, or overrepresentation of a population experiencing a particular phenomenon. Diversity has come to refer to the various backgrounds and races that comprise a community, nation or other groupings. In many cases the term diversity does not just acknowledge the existence of diversity of background, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and so on, but implies an appreciation of these differences. The structural racism perspective can be distinguished from a diversity perspective in that structural racism takes direct account of the striking disparities in well-being and opportunity areas that come along with being a member of a particular group and works to identify ways in which these disparities can be eliminated. Educational Equity Raising the achievement of all students, while narrowing the gaps between the highest and lowest performing students, and eliminating the racial predictability and disproportionality of which student groups occupy the highest and lowest achievement categories. Equality sameness in quantity or quality. In education, this means providing the same educational resources to everyone regardless of need. Equity a state in which all people in a given society receive what they need to be successful. It is about fairness and justice and focuses on equal outcomes not equal inputs, recognizing that different individuals have different access, challenges, needs, and histories. Ethnicity a social group that shares a common culture, religion, language. Often used synonymously with national origin. Currently, the U.S. census only recognizes two ethnicities (Hispanic or non-Hispanic) 109 Field Support Centers High Poverty Schools DOE run, borough-based organizations that provide differentiated support in Teaching & Learning, Business Services, Operations, Student services (safety, health, and wellness), English Language Learners and Special Education. A school where more than 70% of students qualify for free or reduced price lunch, or are eligible for Human Resources Administration (HRA) benefits. Gender Expression refers preference or aversion for a person or group of people that is not consciously known. Implicit biases can run contrary to our conscious or espoused beliefs. Implicit Bias operates at the individual level but stem from social messages, stories and narratives. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is often used to measure implicit biases with regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, and other topics. to the way a person expresses gender to others in ways that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine, such as through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, activities, voice, or mannerisms Gender Identity a person’s inner sense of being male or female, neither, or both, regardless of their sex assigned at birth Gender Non-Conforming individuals whose genderrelated identity and/or gender expression do not conform to the social expectations or norms for a person of that sex assigned at birth (variations include gender creative, gender liberated, gender expansive, etc.) Gifted and Talented An option for supporting the educational needs of exceptional students, offering specialized instruction and enrichment opportunities. Implicit Bias/ Unconscious Bias a Inclusion Authentically bringing traditionally excluded individuals and/or groups into processes, activities, and decision/ policy making in a way that share power. Integration policies and practices that actively create demographically diverse schools that support and affirm the identities of all their students. Of note, integration often involves busing students of color into schools that have historically been predominantly run by white leaders, with predominantly white teachers, for predominantly white students. To achieve real integration, more equitable student movement and the integration of Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students staff and leaders are important considerations. educational inequality with a critically conscious lens. This puts the onus on adults and ways that we have underserved students by denying them equal opportunities (access, resources, a culturally responsive curriculum, diverse teachers, strong pedagogy, health, safety, etc.). Intersectionality the idea that every individual is subject to multiple identifies (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability, etc) that affect that individual’s level of privilege or oppression. Microaggression Nationality a person’s country of citizenship, by birth or naturalization. Microaggression The brief and everyday slights, insults, indignities and diminishing messages sent to people of color by well-intentioned White people who are unaware of the hidden messages being communicated. These messages may be sent verbally (“You speak good English.”), nonverbally (clutching one’s purse more tightly) or environmentally (symbols like the confederate flag or using American Indian mascots).[xviii] Multicultural Education instruction that incorporates the histories, texts, values, beliefs, and perspectives of people of diverse backgrounds. A multicultural approach would encompass curriculum, instruction and assessment. Nationality a person’s country of citizenship, by birth or naturalization. Opportunity Gap this is a The brief and everyday slights, insults, indignities and diminishing messages sent to people of color by well-intentioned White people who are unaware of the hidden messages being communicated. These messages may be sent verbally (“You speak good English.”), nonverbally (clutching one’s purse more tightly) or environmentally (symbols like the confederate flag or using American Indian mascots). Multicultural Education Instruction that incorporates the histories, texts, values, beliefs, and perspectives of people of diverse backgrounds. A multicultural approach would encompass curriculum, instruction and assessment. Multilingual Learners A student learning a language other than English who has the opportunity to become bilingual or multilingual in school. Nationality A person’s country of citizenship, by birth or naturalization. more commonly accepted term among educators who approach 110 School Diversity Advisory Group Opportunity Gap This is a more commonly accepted term among educators who approach educational inequality with a critically conscious lens. This puts the onus on adults and on the ways that we have underserved students by denying them equal opportunities (access, resources, a culturally responsive curriculum, diverse teachers, strong pedagogy, health, safety, etc.). Oppression the systemic and pervasive nature of social inequality woven throughout social institutions as well as embedded within individual consciousness. Oppression fuses institutional and systemic discrimination, personal bias, bigotry and social prejudice in a complex web of relationships and structures that saturate most aspects of life in our society. Systemic (or Structural) Oppression the ways in which history, culture, ideology, public policies, institutional practices, and personal behaviors and beliefs interact to maintain a hierarchy – based on race, class, gender, sexuality, and/ or other group identities – that allows the privileges associated with the dominant group and the disadvantages associated with the oppressed, targeted, or marginalized group to endure and adapt over time. Internalized Oppression Internalized negative messaged about a group. Belief that there is something wrong with being part of that group. Shame, self-hatred, and low self-esteem that results when members of an oppressed group take on society’s attitudes toward them and adopt myths and stereotypes about themselves. Internalized oppression can manifest through a sense of inferiority; lowered expectations and limited imagination of possibilities; holding members of one’s own group to higher standards of behavior; not associating with one’s own group; changing oneself in order to pass or assimilate; identifying with the dominant group; oppressing other members of one’s own group; self-destructive behavior; and inability to ally oneself with other oppressed people. Cycles through generations. People of Color a term for all people of African, Latinx, Native American, Asian, or Pacific Island descent. It was intended to be an inclusive term and is more accurate than the word minority, since people of color are frequently no longer minorities in many different domains. Power access to resources and to decision makers, power to get what you want done, the ability to influence others, the ability to define reality for yourself and potentially for others. Power can be visible, hidden, or invisible. Power can show up as power over others, power with others, and/or power within. 111 Privilege a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual because of their class, caste, gender, or racial/ethnic group. Prejudice a prejudgment or unjustifiable, and usually negative, attitude of one type of individual or groups toward another group and its members. Pronouns (self-identified) a way for people to self-identify by the pronouns they prefer to identify by. Race describes categories assigned to demographic groups based mostly on observable physical characteristics, like skin color, hair texture and eye shape. A political construction created to concentrate power with white people and legitimize dominance over non-white people. Racist describes a person that perpetuates racism in their words or deeds. Racism a complex system of beliefs and behaviors, grounded in the presumed superiority of one race over another backed by legal authority and institutional control/ power. These beliefs and behaviors are conscious and unconscious; personal and institutional. According to this definition of racism, reverse racism, in the United States, does not exist, because historical, systemic, and institutional systems and structures have all been created to consolidate power and privilege for white European-Americans. People of color can be prejudiced against white people, but without the power of all of these systems, that prejudice is not defined as racism. Systemic Racism a societal system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist. Institutional Racism refers to the policies and practices within and across institutions that, intentionally or not, produce outcomes that consistently favor white people and chronically disadvantage people of color, especially black and Latinx people. Examples of institutional racism occur throughout society where people of color are disproportionally affected: housing segregation and mortgage lending, environmental racism, “zero tolerance” school disciplinary policies, sentencing disparities in the criminal justice system, racial profiling, and recruitment, retention, promotion and termination. Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students Interpersonal Racism Safety Transfers A transfer discriminatory actions from one person directed at another based on race. process utilized (1) when students are victims of a violent criminal offense on school property; and (2) in other situations, when it is determined that a student’s continued presence in the school is unsafe for the student. Internalized Racism the acceptance of a racially hierarchical system. This can occur among people who accept their superior or inferior status within the hierarchy without questioning it or working against it. Racial Equity a reality in which a person is no more or less likely to experience society’s benefits or burdens just because of the color of their skin. This is in contrast to the current state of affairs in which a person of color is more likely to live in poverty, drop out of high school, be unemployed, be imprisoned, and experience poor health outcomes like diabetes, heart disease, depression and other potentially fatal diseases. Relative Risk Ratio the risk comparison of one demographic subgroup to end up in a risk category compared to all other demographic subgroups. It is expressed as a multiple (e.g. if black males have a relative risk ratio of 2.5 for being suspended, they are two-and-a-half times more likely to be suspended than their peers). Restorative Justice Focuses on rehabilitation through reconciliation with victims and the community at large instead of punishment to resolve conflict. 112 School Climate Well-being and safety of students and staff in schools. School Screens Selection criteria schools use to admit students. School Quality Report An easy to digest report that highlights the key aspects of public schools in NYC. It contains background information about each school through multiple measures, including data from the Quality Review the NYC School Survey, and through Performance Metrics. It has been produced by the NYC DOE since 2014. Segregation separation of people, especially students, by demographic categories (most commonly race), which invariably results in an inequitable distribution of programs, resources, and opportunities. De jure segregation refers to government-sanctioned racial separation due to laws or policies De facto segregation refers to race-based separation caused by unwritten, or unsanctioned, (but not always unintentional) societal factors (e.g., School Diversity Advisory Group housing, housing discrimination, zoning, registration procedures, etc) Sexual Orientation describes an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, emotional, and/or spiritual attraction to another person. Solidarity Many leaders of color have recently begun to critique allyship as being convenient, temporary, transactional, or subject to paternalistic or savior mentalities. Instead of allyship, they are calling for solidarity, which involves sacrifice, shifting focus away from the ally and back to the marginalized people and communities. Solidarity requires humility, accountability, and a long term commitment. Stereotype a generalization and oversimplification about a person or group of people that may result in stigmatization and discrimination. Even so-called positive stereotypes (e.g., Asians as “model minorities”) can be harmful due to their limiting nature on the domain group and other groups. Stereotype Threat Transgender a term which White Supremacy the pressure and danger that any individual will believe that their performance or behavior will confirm negative perceptions about their race. This has been studied repeatedly across races and genders. describes people whose gender identity or gender expression is different from their assigned sex at birth historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and people of color by white people for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege. Students in Temporary Housing Students who lack a “fixed, regular and adequate” nighttime residence are homeless and entitled to protections under the McKinney-Vento Act. This includes students living in a homeless or domestic violence shelter, hotel, car, park, bus or train station, students ‘awaiting foster care placement,’ students sharing housing with another household (sometimes referred to as ‘doubled-up’) and students living in other temporary living situations. Students with Disabilities Students with challenges, such as: Autism Spectrum Disorders, significant cognitive delays, emotional disturbances, sensory impairments, multiple disabilities, and physical impairments. Title I Federal funding that provides additional dollars to schools with high percentages of students living in poverty. 113 Undocumented describes immigrants without immigration papers. This term is more humane than describing people as illegals or illegal aliens. Universal Design A theory of teaching and learning emphasizes representation of information in multiple formats, and pathways to engage and motivate students. White Fragility A state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. Racial stress results from an interruption to what is racially familiar. Whiteness a social construction that centers a shifting group of people that are considered “white,” and confers and consolidates power and privilege within their group. Whiteness is constructed, reinforced and manifested in ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized racism. Woke the process of becoming critically conscious, especially in regards to racial oppression. Being “woke” is a journey, not a destination. White Privilege the historical and contemporary advantages in access to quality education, decent jobs, living wages, homeownership, retirement benefits, wealth, etc., that have been conferred on white people in America due to their race. Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students End notes 1 Hawley, “Designing Schools;” Jean Piaget, Biology and Knowledge (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971). 2 Pitt, Richard N. and Josh Packard. “ACTIVATING DIVERSITY: The Impact of Student Race on Contributions to Course Discussions,” The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 53, Issue 2, Spring 2012, Pages 295–320 3 Patricia Gurin, “Expert Report of Patricia Gurin,” submitted in Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich. 1999) and Grutter, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Wells, A.S.; Fox, L.; and Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. http://apps.tcf. org/how-racially-diverse-schools- andclassrooms-can-benefit-all-students 4 Wells, A.S.; Fox, L.; and Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. https:// tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-ofsocioeconomically-and-racially-integratedschools-and-classrooms 5 Kathryn R. Wentzel, “Adolescent Classroom Goals, Standards for Performance and Academic Achievement: An Interactionist Perspective,” Journal of Educational Psychology 81, no. 2 (1989): 13142; Wigfield et al., “Development of Achievement Motivation;” Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles, “Students’ Motivation during the Middle School Years,” in Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education, ed. Joshua Aronson (San Diego: Academic Press, 2002): 160-85. 6 Janet Ward Schofield, “Maximizing Benefits of Student Diversity: Lessons from School Desegregation Research,” in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. Gary Orfield with Michal Kurlaender (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001): 99-141 7 Anita-Yvonne Bryant, Nathan D. Martin, and Kenneth I. Spenner, The Campus Life and Learning Project: A Report on the First Two College Years (Durham, N.C.: Duke University, 2006); Victor B. Saenz, “Breaking the Cycle of Segregation: Examining Students’ PreCollege Racial Environments and their Diversity Experiences in College” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2005). 8 Braddock, J. H., Crain, R. L., Mcpartland, J. M., & Dawkins, R. L. (1986). Applicant Race And Job Placement Decisions: A National Survey Experiment. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(1), 3-24. 9 Wells, A.S.; Holme, J.J.; Revilla, A.J. & Atanda, A.K. (2009). Both Sides Now: The Story of School Desegregation’s Graduates . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; Wells, A.S.; Holme, J.J.; Revilla, A.J. & Atanda, A.K. (2009). Both Sides Now: The Story of School Desegregation’s Graduates . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Amy Stuart Wells and Robert L. Crain, “Perpetuation Theory and the LongTerm Effects of School Desegregation,” Review of Educational Research 64, no. 4 (1994): 531-55. 10 Amy Stuart Wells and Robert L. Crain, “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation,” Review 115 of Educational Research 64, no. 4 (1994): 531-55. 11 McCarty, K. 2006.” Full Inclusion: The Benefits and Disadvantages of Inclusive Schooling – An Overview.” Los Angeles, CA: Asuza Pacific University. 12 Cherry Picked - Study shows students with, without disabilities recognize benefits of inclusive schools. (2017, June 04). Retrieved from https://soe.ku.edu/ cherry-picked-study-shows-students-withoutdisabilities-recognize-benefits-inclusive-schools 13 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). The multiple benefits of dual language: Dual language programs educate both English learners and native English speakers without incurring extra costs. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 61-64. 14 Rich, S., & Davis, L. (2007). Insights into the strategic ways in which two bilingual children in the early years seek to negotiate the competing demands on their identity in their home and school worlds. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(1), 35-47. [xiii] http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891842 15 Brief of amici curiae: The American Psychological Association in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. 16 Teachers College Record Volume 112 Number 6, 2010, p. 1631-1653 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 15692, Date Accessed: 2/7/2019 10:06:06 PM 17 Wells, A.S.; Fox, L.; and Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. 18 Bowman, Nicholas A. “How Much Diversity is Enough? The Curvilinear Relationship Between College Diversity Interactions and First-Year Student Outcomes,” Research in Higher Education, December 2013, Volume 54, Issue 8, p. 874-894 19 Bernard Michael, ed., Volunteers in Public Schools (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990): 18-20. 20 Smith, J. G. (2006). Parental Involvement in Education among Low-Income Families: A Case Study. School Community Journal, 43-56. Retrieved from https:// eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ794804. 21 Analysis Yes, there are high-poverty public schools that operate at a high level. Here’s how they succeed. (2017, December 21). Retrieved from https://wapo. st/2McuzQC 22 The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms. (2017, June 14). Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/facts/ the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-raciallyintegrated-schools-and-classrooms/ 23 Ravitch, D. (2000). The great school wars: A history of the New York City public schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 20-1. 24 Ravitch, D. (2000). The great school wars: A history of the New York City public schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 61. 25 Ravitch, D. (2000). The great school wars: A history of the New York City public schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 74-5. 26 David M Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 24. 27 Lemann, N. (1991). The Promised Land. Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Chapter 3: “Moving” in Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. (pp. 35-63). Wilkerson, I. (2010). The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration. 28 Briggs, X. De S. (Ed.). (2005). The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Massey, D. S. and Denton, N.A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation in the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 29 Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 30 Frankenberg E., Kotok S., Schafft K., and Mann, B. (2017) Exploring school choice and the consequences for student racial segregation within Pennsylvania’s charter school transfers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25. Frankenberg, E., & SiegelHawley, G. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(5), 44. 31 Lubienski, C. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Charter schools, common schools, and the rhetoric of reform. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 634-666. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00130. 32 Lubienski, C., Gulosino, C., & Weitzel, P. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647. https://doi. org/10.1086/599778. 33 Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & SiegelHawley, G. (2016). Brown at 62: School Segregation by Race, Poverty and State. UCLA: The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/5ds6k0rd 34 Diversity Plan Brief. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.centernyc.org/diversity-plan 35 Social scientists have identified two distinct reasons to integrate student populations: to achieve the benefits of diversity, and to avoid the harms associated with racial isolation and concentrated poverty. Source: Amicus Brief of 553 Social Scientists, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle. App. 36-37 http:// www.citizensoftheworld.org/files/amicus_ parents_v_seattle.pdf 36 Hemphill, C., & Hemphill, C. (2018, May 04). NYC’s school integration opportunity: More middle-class students - NY Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.nydailynews. com/opinion/n-y-s-school-integrationopportunity-article-1.3971956 37 New York City Independent Budget Office. How Many Students Attend Nonpublic K-12 Schools in New York City? Retrieved from https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/ printnycbtn27.pdf 38 Private School Enrollment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_cgc.asp 39 US Census Bureau. (2018, May 21). Top 10 Largest School Districts Per Pupil Current Spending. Retrieved from https://www. census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/ comm/school-finances.html 40 The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms. (2017, June 14). Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/facts/thebenefits-of-socioeconomically-and-raciallyintegrated-schools-and-classrooms/ 41 Mader, N., Hemphill, C., & Abbas, Q. (n.d.). The Paradox of Choice. Retrieved from http://www.centernyc.org/the-paradox-ofchoice Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students 42 Elementary GT Identification and Instructional Recommendation Processes. Montgomery County Public Schools, MD Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI). http:// www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/ uploadedFiles/curriculum/enriched/about/ Updated_Understanding%20ScreeningJuly2016%20ENG.pdf 43 Universal screening for gifted education David Card, Laura Giuliano Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 2016, 113 (48) 13678-13683; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605043113 44 Boston - Baker, Megina. “Theory, Research, and Rationale Behind the Focus on K2 Curriculum.” August 2013, http://bpsearlychildhood.weebly.com/ uploads/1/0/1/3/10131776/focus_on_k2_ literature_review_final.pdf 45 Chandler, M. A. (2015, June 06). District introduces gifted programs to push talented students, keep families. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/ local/education/district-introduces-giftedprograms-to-push-talented-studentskeep-families/2015/06/06/4132f25effc8-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story. html?utm_term=.38803f02f17a potential solutions. Retrieved from https://www. chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/11/02/as-city-startscollecting-data-on-inequities-in-pta-fundraising-thesearch-is-on-for-potential-solutions/ 55 Chancellor’s Regulations Volume A Regulations A-660. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.schools. nyc.gov/school-life/policies-for-all/chancellorsregulations/volume-a-regulations/2 56 New York City Council. Requiring the reporting of information regarding parent-teacher association and parent association chapters in public schools. Retrieved from https:// legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail. aspx?ID=3344044&GUID=82972A31-465A-4A4299C4-D845F9233E30&Options=ID Text &Search=i nt 561 57 PPS Parent Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:// allhandsraised.org/what-we-do/our-impact/ ppsfoundation/parentequityfund/ 58 Brown, C., Sargrad, S., & Benner, M. (n.d.). Hidden Money. Retrieved from https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/ reports/2017/04/08/428484/hidden-money/ 59 Johnston, E., D’Andrea Montalbano, P., & Kirkland, D.E. (2017). Culturally Responsive Education: A Primer For Policy And Practice. New York: Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools, New York University. 46 Potter, H. (2016, September 20). Diversity in New York City’s Universal Pre-K Classrooms. Retrieved from https://tcf.org/ content/report/diversity-new-york-citysuniversal-pre-k-classrooms 60 The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms. (2017, June 14). Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/facts/ the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-raciallyintegrated-schools-and-classrooms/ 47 Hu, W., & Harris, E. A. (2018, June 17). A Shadow System Feeds Segregation in New York City Schools. Retrieved from https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/ public-schools-screening-admission.html 61 Student Voice Manager. Retrieved from https://www. linkedin.com/jobs/view/student-voice-manager-atnyc-department-of-education-1030383875/ 48 New York City Independent Budget Office. New Funding Formula Seeks to Alter School Budget Disparities. Retrieved from https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/ FairStudentFunding2.pdf 49 Elsen-Rooney, M. (n.d.). Mysterious Bonus Makes Rich NYC Schools Richer, Critics Say WNYC New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News. Retrieved from https://www.wnyc.org/ story/mysterious-bonus-makes-rich-nycschools-richer-critics-say 50 Disare, M. (2018, January 29). Here’s how New York City divvies up school funding and why critics say the system is flawed. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat.org/ posts/ny/2018/01/29/gov-cuomo-wantsneedy-schools-to-get-more-money-here-isnew-york-citys-flawed-system-for-doingthat/ 51 Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Johnson Announce $125 Million Investment. (2018, April 25). Retrieved from https://www1.nyc. gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/217-18/ mayor-de-blasio-speaker-johnson-125million-investment-ensure-all-schoolsreceive#/0 52 New York City Independent Budget Office. More Schools Eligible, Less Aid Available: Federal Support Shrinks for City Schools With Many Low-Income Students. Retrieved from https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/ FairStudentFunding2.pdf 53 Title 1 Fast Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display. asp?id=158 54 Amin, R. (2018, November 07). PTA fundraising inequities prompt search for 116 School Diversity Advisory Group This page left intentionally blank. 117 Making the Grade: The Path to Real Integration and Equity for NYC Public School Students DAG