This would benefit wealthy Black/Latino kids, whose parents can afford test prep. If the goal is to have a more racially diverse student body, it accomplishes that goal. But if the goal is to help disadvantaged kids get ahead, then it's not useful.
a better argument is it's unfair to kids in shit elementary schools. and it is, but you have to try to just make those schools better.
it's a true shame if you don't give the most talented/driven kids an opportunity to go to a first rate school.
standarized testing is imperfect, but it is the most fair system.
However, those higher-performing students get nothing from being in classes with low performers, and get substantial benefits from being tracked into faster-moving classes with other top students. These students languish in mixed-ability classrooms as teachers focus on the slower students, or they’re conscripted to help teach their classmates the skills they’ve already mastered. And these students run in place while students in honors and gifted tracks press relentlessly forward.
The key phrase in the excerpt above is: "These students learn better in classrooms shared with higher-performing students." de Blasio latched onto those same study results and clearly believes that the trade off is worth it. While there may be some merit to your claim that de Blasio just wants to make himself feel better, I'm pretty sure that most "elites" in the city trying to send their children to top high schools are not happy with this outcome.
Note that middle school admissions are also being changed, starting in one district this year, such that top middle schools will be forced to set aside 25% of their seats for incoming students who scored below-average or at the bottom[1] of the middle-school state tests taken in Grade 4. The purpose of the plan is to "increase diversity in selective, high-performing middle schools [...]". A lot of parents in the affected district are upset.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/nyregion/new-york-top-mid...
Not everyone is going to have equal interests and abilities. Bright kids deserve an educational environment where they can be challenged and develop their full potential.
All kids in public schools deserve that.
It just takes more resources than we as a society are willing to spend, especially when it comes to schools serving mostly poor brown kids in poor neighborhoods.
Teachers and students find it easier to teach and learn in an environment where most of the children score higher on standardized tests and are also generally more compliant. All kids in public schools deserve an environment where they can develop their full potential, but "the system" seems to have a harder time fulfilling that purpose for students who don't score well on tests or who aren't as compliant.
>It just takes more resources than we as a society are willing to spend, especially when it comes to schools serving mostly poor brown kids in poor neighborhoods.
Evidently, NYC spends the most per student than any other city or state in the country[1]. Also, schools that serve mostly poor students in poor neighborhoods are more likely to be eligible to receive additional funds via Title I, although to your point some people believe that the extra $500-$600 per student for Title I schools (i.e. schools where free or reduced-lunch criteria exceeds 40%) is still insufficient to counteract the effects of poverty on student achievement[2].
[1] https://nypost.com/2017/06/14/ny-spends-more-money-per-stude...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federal-spending-on-d...
By 2050, would it be so strange if the majority of applicants and students of elite western schools would be Asian?
https://quillette.com/2018/06/27/bill-de-blasios-plan-to-pur...
I think it's terrible. It's robbing poor kids of a rare opportunity to get a first-rate education, to make elites feel better about themselves.
If you insist that the racial demographics of the schools match those of the city, a much better way to do it is to keep the admissions test, but simply take the top N% w/in each racial bucket, rather than globally.
Otherwise, if you get rid of the test completely and pulling evenly from every school, you are guaranteed (1) you will not create an environment w/ the truly elite (2) you are replacing standardized tests, which are fair, with the whole teacher-grading-system, which is wildly inconsistent and generally a better measure of who behaves and who sucks up than who is academically worthy.