Reyhan Mehran, parent "Every admissions metric we had been using—state test scores, interviews, grades, attendance, auditions, behavior—was found to be directly correlated with our children’s RACE and their families’ INCOMEs."

I’m a parent of three children in District 15. One of them is a 4th grader in the same school as your 4th grader, Deputy Chancellor Wallack.

So we both know that parents of 4th graders in D15 consider themselves “lucky” that D15 no longer allows the use of discriminatory screens including State test scores for middle school admissions. But we also both know that D15 4th graders aren’t actually “lucky.” They’re “privileged.” It’s not luck; and it’s not random.

Families and educators in D15 spent 4 years working to change a discriminatory process. Every admissions metric we had been using - State test scores, interviews, grades, attendance, auditions, behavior - was found to be directly correlated with our children’s RACE and their families’ INCOMEs. The stunts our families had been doing so that the DOE could neatly sort our children into middle schools could all have been avoided if you had simply sorted our children based on their race and income.

But that would be illegal.

So, instead, gymnastics were conducted to mask a process that did the exact same thing.

But OUR community said that we would no longer segregate OUR children.

I feel privileged.

——

It is no accident that NYC’s public schools are the most segregated in this country. WE have CHOSEN to sort children based on race and income.

There is a straight line between the racial disparities in public education and access to: opportunity, wealth, health, and criminal justice. Segregating children by race and income should not just be banned in our ONE PRIVILEGED district but in all schools.

It is Federal law.

State tests must NEVER be used in school admissions. It is long past time to say ENOUGH. NO MORE.

This fall, we can’t use State tests or grades or attendance or auditions to segregate 4th and 7th graders because none of those criteria exist. What “lucky” children they are.

Let US, as a City, decide now that we will NEVER again sort and segregate our children.

Eliminate all discriminatory admissions screens in NYC public schools.

Please.

Thank you.

Rachel, teacher & parent "In truth, when we see inequity, whether or not we abolish it shouldn’t be up for discussion."

I’ve spent the past 17 years teaching ELA in the kinds of high schools that screen proponents fight to avoid. I’ve had fewer than 20 white and maybe 30 Asian students. My students are smart, endearing, insightful, hilarious, unique, and inspiring - but many of them are traumatized by a system that overtests, labels, sorts, and devalues them.

I keep thinking about “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” where Martin Luther King rejected the criticism that he should have stayed in his lane. He wrote, “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. … Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Today, we would consider it absurd to suggest that, witnessing racial injustice in Birmingham, Dr. King should have asked the segregationists if segregation should continue.

But when it comes to the DOE’s decision to continue or end screened admissions, that’s more or less what we’re doing: We are asking families who directly benefit from the unjust system of screen schools if we should maintain screens.

Think about that. In truth, when we see inequity, whether or not we abolish it shouldn’t be up for discussion.

Ibram Kendi defines a racist policy as “any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.” We all see the well-documented inequity driven by screens. Why are we discussing whether or not we should do something about it? We should, we must, and by ending screens, we can.

Screened schools impact the entire ecosystem of education in New York City. The racial and economic isolation upheld by academic screens harms ALL students, even those who appear to benefit. It limits our ability to prepare young people to build the multiracial democracy we need. We know separate can’t ever be equal, but it also can’t ever educate in the deeply humane way diverse schools can. Our kids need us to fix this, and if we love them and love justice, we will.

Annie Tan, teacher "By keeping screens, we are literally punishing children and families who cannot access these screens. There aren’t bad schools. There are simply schools and families that have more resources than others. Screened schools lead to hoarding of resources from other schools."

My name is Annie Tan. I am a 5th-grade special education teacher in District 20, where for 4 years I’ve helped primarily immigrant families figure out the middle school application process for 10-year-old children, alongside Spanish and Chinese-speaking staff who spend hours navigating this process. It’s too much.

I’m from Chinatown and, as a student 20 years ago, I remember what it was like applying for schools in District 2. I remember my classmates going through screens to get into Wagner, 104, or LAB, and me feeling like, because I went to my zoned school 131 that I was dumb and there was something wrong with me.

I always wondered: why did my former classmates get access to more resources than I did? Why did they get access to music, drama, arts, and financial resources that I didn’t?

Then, when I participated in the rat race, got into Brooklyn Tech through the SHSAT, and my classmates didn’t, my classmates’ parents chastised them for being dumb. Later, my classmates had to go through metal detectors and higher police presence in their schools when I didn’t. And the cycle continues over 20 years later.

That leads to needless pitting students against other students, heightening student pressure and anxiety, and conforming “intelligence” to a single test or audition.

By keeping screens, we are literally punishing children and families who cannot access these screens. There aren’t bad schools. There are simply schools and families that have more resources than others. Screened schools lead to hoarding of resources from other schools.

New York’s segregation contributes to this inequity. I, in my District 2, had more resources than my friends in other districts, and didn’t meet Black classmates until high school and college. Removing screens alone is not the full answer: we should be striving towards integration in the most segregated schools district in the nation.

As a teacher, I want to tell my students they don’t have to be part of this unfair rat race that has exacerbated segregation, racism, and classism: and so I implore you now to remove these screens. When I finally am a parent, I want to tell my kids I didn’t have to move to a specific neighborhood or navigate screens in order to get them the schools resources they needed. Every kid, every student deserves these resources, not just the families who can figure out the screens.

Jen Roesch, parent "If the DOE is serious about desegregating our schools, then whether to eliminate admissions screens should not even be up for debate."

I am a parent of a middle school student in District 3. He has an IEP and is in an ICT classroom. He goes to a school that is integrated academically, economically and racially and has benefited from an environment that values him regardless of his performance and in which he is around kids with all types of abilities and interests. I also have a daughter who graduated from NYC schools. Over 16 years as a parent in NYC, I’ve had my kids in every kind of DOE school: our zoned majority Black and Latino school; a progressive school with lottery admissions; a highly selective screened school; and a progressive transfer alternative high school.

By far our worst experience was with the selective screened school. Perhaps not surprisingly, the school that filtered for the highest performing children was least capable of meeting the multiple needs of diverse children and created a cutthroat environment that can be enormously destructive at a vulnerable time in kids’ lives as they are going through massive changes.

There’s been a lot of welcome attention to the inequities of remote learning, but these inequities didn’t just magically appear when physical schools closed. Remote learning just made existing inequities more visible.

The digital divide didn’t start the day they sent students home with laptops. Even before Covid, almost 40% of students of color reported being unable to finish homework assignments due to lack of a device or wireless. Older children caring for younger siblings while parents work odd shift hours is not a new phenomenon. Many students, like my son, struggle with learning disabilities that require them to work twice as hard just to keep up — let alone to earn high grades. Other children are suffering from rising levels of anxiety and depression. And large numbers struggle to learn a second language at the same time that they are asked to master academic material.

Then, of course, there are the children whose parents spend time and money, not to mention leveraging their own networks and knowledge, to help them with the science fair project or the research report. There are the extra credit points assigned by desperate teachers for students who bring in desperately needed classroom supplies. There is the child whose mother doesn’t hesitate to write to the teacher and ask for an extension on a late assignment due to extenuating circumstances.

These factors mean that grades don’t accurately measure ability or potential — they measure privilege. State mandated tests are not a better or more neutral measure. We can debate forever why the disparities exist, and I’ve seen a lot of deflection from screening advocates onto those questions, but the existing reality is that test scores correlate strongly and consistently with race, income and disability and language status. This means that screened schools inevitably perpetuate a segregated status quo.

Finally, I want to address the fact that the advocates for screens have been highly organized and visible throughout the public commentary period on this question. I think it’s very important that the predominance of their voices in the discussion is not mistaken for majority sentiment. It makes sense that families who have benefited from screens and fear losing an existing advantage in an unequal system would have the most stake in speaking up against change. These are also the families who understand what is a very complicated and often opaque admissions system in this city. We live in a city where families hire consultants for upwards of $400/hour to help them navigate this system. Of course they are going to be over-represented in discussions of that system — especially when there aren’t clear alternatives on offer. Frankly, I think it’s obscene that we have such disparities of advantage that there would be a market for such consultants — that alone should make us reconsider what we are doing.

The over-representation of the minority of families who benefit from our existing admissions system should not obscure one simple and obvious fact: our screened schools play a central role in creating the most segregated school system in the country. If the DOE is serious about desegregating our schools, then whether to eliminate admissions screens should not even be up for debate. Our admissions system perpetuates all of the inequalities that have been illuminated by the crisis of remote learning and should be abandoned permanently.

Megan Devir, parent "If you are sincere in your statements about equity, integration, and the meaning of PUBLIC schools, then please take actions that are in accordance with your values."

Hi, my name is Megan, I’m a parent of three middle school students in District 15. I’d like to begin with a quote from Chancellor Carranza, who publicly and critically questioned the use of screens in public school systems nearly two years ago when he said "Why are we screening kids in a public schools system? That is, to me, antithetical to what I think we all want for our kids."

Well, I’m in full agreement with this view — but we have to do more than question these inequities, we must dismantle them! This moment is a time for ACTION.

And while community engagement is great, and I’m happy to share my position that we should remove screens, I actually want to challenge the DOE to do what they think is right. Do what you believe in. Does Chancellor Carranza think that it’s proper to ask children to compete against each other in order to have a fully resourced education? Is he comfortable with the demographic impacts of these screens? If that is what the DOE thinks is right, then please say so, and say it clearly. But if you are sincere in your statements about equity, integration, and the meaning of PUBLIC schools, then please take actions that are in accordance with your values.

It is time for the NYC DOE to stand up for what they say they believe in. In the richest city on the planet, we should not be forcing children to compete for scarce, finite educational resources. Let’s take the energy spent endlessly debating admissions screens and insist that our mayor and our governor tax the wealthiest, defund the police and fully fund our schools so that all kids can have the educational resources that are their right.

Guiliana Reitzfeld, teacher & parent "Study after study after study shows us that children do better in a heterogeneous environment. And not because the high achievers “lift” the lower ones, but because every student has something to offer, to teach, and to share that will enrich the lives of others."

I have taught 5th grade in District 15 for all but one year in my ten years of teaching. I have seen a decade worth of students experience the stress of middle school applications. I have watched bright, promising students turn into puddles of tears finding out they got into a school others perceive as not desirable. Last year, for the first time, things were different. Last year, for the first time, kids were accepted to schools across the district, without a concentration going to a few select schools. Families that we thought would pull their kids out of public school did not. Students have had a great year, most that I am in touch with saying they would not change where they got in. Most importantly, the level of stress was greatly reduced for both kids and their families.

One year, I had a student that was absent every Thursday. It turned out her mother was being treated for a serious illness and, not being an English speaker, her daughter accompanied her to her weekly treatments. By the end of the year, this girl had 20 some absences. This is just one example of how our current method shortchanges deserving students. There are so many factors that go into making a child a good student, none of which are measured by the current rubrics used by middle and high schools screened admissions. Work ethic, creativity, leadership, and collaboration skills are as important as academic success skills. We say we want our children “College Ready” but many of the qualities that will help them most are not qualities that we reward. In fact, I would argue that some of the students being rewarded by the current screening system have advantages due to circumstance, availability of resources, and family education level rather than some intrinsic merit of their own.

I am a special education teacher, which means my students are extra special. Their talents and gifts exist outside of the standard methods of grading. They deserve an education that exists to teach all students, not just those that achieve high scores on tests or in school.

Study after study after study shows us that children do better in a heterogeneous environment. And not because the high achievers “lift” the lower ones, but because every student has something to offer, to teach, and to share that will enrich the lives of others. Both “high achieving” students and those who need academic support perform better in heterogeneous school environments. This crisis has highlighted in even greater relief how screened admissions perpetuate segregation in schools and we should not continue a process we know is wrong. Getting rid of screens, especially in this moment of the dual pandemics of COVID and racism is the obvious right thing to do.

Yuli, parent "I do not want my child to be an Amy Cooper in Central Park. I do not want them to grow up to be a racist cop, doctor, artist or whatever they strive to be. I do not want them to grow up and perpetuate systemic racism institutionally or culturally."

Thank you for having this meeting tonight. My name is Yuli, I am the parent of two public school children in Brooklyn, CEC14 VP, PS110 SLT member and PS110 Advocacy Committee Chair.

Current circumstances have laid bare the disparities from healthcare to policing to education. These problems have existed long before this pandemic hit us, and I want to make sure we do NOT go forward holding the same priorities and values that led us to this highly inequitable place.

NYC public schools are the most segregated school system in the states. More than 65 years after Brown vs BOE, after countless Amy Coopers and the continued murders of Black people, George Floyd, Nina Pop, Breonna Tayler, insert next name here, why we are still having discussions as to whether or not desegregating schools is needed, desirable, or important?

What do school admissions screens have to do with this? Data has shown that screened schools lead to segregated schools. And segregated schools, [are] where children only see people like them, or where they are inclined to stay within their cultural groups within a school —which is a whole other discussion: how our school environments are failing us so that students don't feel comfortable enough to interact with different cultural groups. That students, staff, and families don't feel safe, or know how to have discussions on racism?

Segregated schools, and this failure in school culture, contribute to the limited and narrow world views that create the Amy Coopers of the world, that create the next racist cop, that perpetuate racist systems and institutions like police departments and schools.

I do not want my child to be an Amy Cooper in Central Park. I do not want them to grow up to be a racist cop, doctor, artist or whatever they strive to be. I do not want them to grow up and perpetuate systemic racism institutionally or culturally. That is my highest priority over getting into a "prestigious" school. The "academic achievement" of any child should not eclipse seeing the humanity and value of another child's life based on the color of their skin.

By NOT removing admissions screens we are telling our children that we are ok with segregation. That we are ok with overlooking the disparities. That we are ok preserving priorities and values that perpetuate racism and harm against Black bodies. That we are ok letting the color of your skin continue to determine your outcomes.

Removing admissions screens won't solve racism, but it is a vital step to desegregating our public schools, for shedding the old priorities and values that brought us here, and embracing new ones to create a better world for our children vs. perpetuating the one that is currently failing ALL OF US.

I am in favor of removing admissions screens.

Lynn Shon, teacher "In order to seize the moment, we have to ask ourselves, how did we get here? What active role did our public education system play in making our Black and Brown communities more vulnerable to dying from COVID19, and to dying from police brutality?"

Thank you Deputy Chancellor, Josh Wallack, and Director of Community Affairs, Sadye Campoamor, for taking the time to hear us speak tonight, and thank you NYC Opt Out, for giving me an opportunity to share my testimony.

My name is Lynn Shon, and I teach 7th graders science at MS 88 in District 15. As you may know, District 15 completely eliminated middle school screens upon adopting the District 15 Diversity plan. I had the honor of serving on the Working Group that developed the plan, and over the past 2 years, have been playing a very active role in supporting my school and district in implementing the recommendations as our district continues to desegregate, and work toward real integration.

Although our conversation today is focused on the question of whether or not we should remove middle and high school admissions screens in the 2021–2022 school year, I want to circle back to what Joanna spoke to, and encourage us to think more broadly about what we must do in both the short and long term, to truly eradicate racism in our public school system.

We are in a rare moment in our nation’s history when people across racial lines are reckoning with the fact that the lives of our Black children, and their families, are not valued equally by our society. We are also in an unprecedented moment in history when our future is so uncertain. What teaching and learning will look like 2 years from now is hard to imagine in the face of an ongoing global pandemic, and in the wake of ongoing social and political uprising.

In order to seize the moment, we have to ask ourselves, how did we get here? What active role did our public education system play in making our Black and Brown communities more vulnerable to dying from COVID19, and to dying from police brutality? What role did we play in cultivating the deeply internalized racial biases that led to the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, and now Rayshard Brooks?

It’s easy to distance ourselves from these acts of violence, but there is a direct line that connects our schools, our curricula, our pedagogy, to the cultivation of these murderers. It takes a village. It’s time that we shift focus from these individuals to the systems that created them. Derek Chauvin lived in an overwhelmingly white suburb. He did not live within the community he policed. Derek had teachers, curricula, and books that taught him that George Floyd was somehow less human, that it was somehow ok to ignore his cries for oxygen.

Here’s the ugly truth. Derek shares something with our public education system here in NYC: They both exploit power to preserve a longstanding racial hierarchy dating back to the institution of slavery. A hierarchy that continues to allow those in privileged groups to justify their superiority.

So where, within our public education system, do we see this exploitation? More often than not, I’ve learned that they exist in the most innocuous structures that are “simply the way things are”. But these structures, such as school screens and high-stakes testing, are intensely segregating and stratifying our students across racial lines. And the separation of our children then upholds the cultivation of deeply internalized racial biases. These screens and tests were engineered by humans. So they can indeed be dismantled by humans. By us.

As a public school teacher who has been serving Sunset Park and Red Hook’s most marginalized communities for the past 10 years, and as a child who was raised in a historically poor Black community who suffered from more than 100 years of ongoing de jure and de facto segregation and desegregation of schools (that ultimately led to its demise 4 years ago): I know that school is not designed for the empowerment of our Black and Brown children. I know that as an Asian American, who personally benefited from tests and screens, why it is so hard for White and Asian communities to abolish them. Without them, the longstanding racial hierarchy cannot be justified.

MS 88 has always been diverse, even prior to the removal of screens. But we have become more diverse, and for us, it means that we are becoming more white. With an incoming class of significantly more white students, our students of color quickly began expressing that their white teachers were giving preferential treatment to the new cohort of white students. As much as this may read as traumatic and problematic on the surface, I believe it was the first of many dominoes in an ongoing journey toward anti-racist practices.

The presence of white students created a new level of urgency for culturally responsive and sustaining curricula, pedagogy, and classroom libraries. The racial problems that surfaced demanded that teachers think more deeply and critically about their language and interactions with students. All of a sudden, equity team meetings increased by 200%. Staff members across racial lines were reading the literature and discussing it over lunch and social gatherings.

I believe that MS 88’s teachers love their students. They want nothing more than for every child to be valued, curious, and critical. They want nothing more than for every child to feel confident calling out an assignment or system as unfair. But without the visibility of the racial hierarchy in the classroom that exists in the world, I’m not sure if their racial-justice oriented practices would have developed so urgently.

Racial tension in the classroom is productive, and empowering for both students and teachers for the learning opportunities it provides. That racial tension, when unaddressed throughout a child’s entire education, can manifest as violence in the world.

Decades of research corroborate my experience. When we remove screens, we desegregate our schools. When we desegregate our schools, the burden of fighting racism in its many forms is no longer the burden of students of color and teachers of color. Diverse classrooms demand more critical thinking. Diverse classrooms demand that we collectively learn about, and fight racism, head on.

I believe that for the first time in my 10 year career at MS 88, that the majority of my community is recognizing the need to lift up the voices of our students and educators of color, to urgently hire more Black and Brown teachers, and to develop anti-racist practices. There is a broad coalition of staff at my school fighting to fully dismantle tracking, and to implement restorative justice. All of a sudden, our most marginalized students and staff members are recognized for having the most clarity on actions we need to take to cultivate the next generation of anti-racists who will prepare and protect us from global pandemics and the climate crisis.

For the folks who say that screens are motivators: I could not disagree with you more. Over the past 10 years as a teacher, and as a life-long learner, I believe that you may be falsely equating “motivation” with “compliance”. Students in privileged positions, such as myself who tested into “gifted & talented” programs early on in my public education, may believe that meeting certain criteria motivates our children to be “good” students, but the reality is that we are actually teaching students to go through the motions in life, without questioning or challenging, without developing a critical consciousness. From my vantage point as a teacher working hard to cultivate the next generation of climate scientists and green engineers, the mindless conditioning of our students is a tremendous loss for us all. We need students who critically question systems, and who can engineer proactive, rather than reactive solutions.

Just 2 years ago, I couldn’t have imagined these changes happening at MS 88.

Mr. Wallock and Ms. Campoamor: As the country unifies, dismantles, engineers for racial justice, I hope that you will eliminate screens for middle and high school admissions in the 2021–22 school year, a necessary precursor in the long arc toward racial justice.

Rosa Diaz, parent "Screening students does not guarantee a better life or [help you] be a better person."

Good evening everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Rosa Diaz and I am a mother of 3 kids in the NYC public schools: a 3K, 3rd grader and 7th grader. I am on Community Education Council for District 4 and a Community Ambassador for East Harlem Community Partnership.

I wanted to start by saying that we parents, parent leaders, teachers, students and communities have the power to change any system when we UNITE.

We must UNITE to REMOVE screens for middle school and high school for next year's admissions and every year after that too. We need to be persistent and think of what is best for our kids. Screening students [does] not give equal opportunities for all students. Screening students does not guarantee a better life or [help to] be a better person.

Let's teach our kids that we are all equal and acknowledge that screening our kids does not work.

Thank you for your time and courtesy.

Zoe, 7th grader "The current system benefits me. It makes the process easier for me. But that doesn’t mean it’s right."

Hi. I’m Zoe and I’m in 7th grade. That means I will be applying to high school next year.

If we keep the current application system with all of the screens, I will be applying to high schools with an advantage.

I have a family that can help me navigate the extremely complicated admissions process. The current screens only measure certain parts of a students “success” and, might I add, not accurately. They measure a student’s wealth, their families’ ability to get them to school, and the kind of learner they are. All things that are out of their control.

The current system benefits me. It makes the process easier for me. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. I shouldn’t have an easier time getting into a school I want to go to simply because I measure well against a set of inaccurate standards.

I understand that many people are nervous about removing screens. Change is scary and we often try to come up with reasons to avoid it. Recently I have heard people say that if we remove screens children will no longer be motivated to work hard. I have to say, I’m offended by that. This implies that students will only want to learn if there is some sort of reward, or prize awaiting them. This paints a picture of children that is simply untrue. However much we complain about school children want to learn.

If we remove screens children are able to learn for the sake of learning without worrying about what it looks like.

Sasha, 7th grader "I deserve to learn from classmates who don’t look like me, who come from backgrounds and families different from mine, so that together we can share opinions and dialogue and grow from one another."

Hi my name is Sasha and I’m a current 7th grader. This past semester as part of my humanities studies in school, we studied various education systems, especially the lack of equality that exists within our own NYC public school system.

I am fortunate to go to a wonderful school that believes in collaborative learning and is very encouraging. I know that is not the case for many of my peers across the city. In our class work we looked at various sources and it became clear to me that the levels of educational inequality in our city is systemic and runs deep.

As a white student, I don’t think it’s fair that our public school system is not representative of the diversity we enjoy as New York city residents. ALL children deserve access to incredible education regardless of their background, and the idea of screening kids into categories holds certain communities back. Not only is that unfair to those communities but it’s unfair to those of us who want schools to be reflective of the varied populations that make this city so special. I deserve to learn from classmates who don’t look like me, who come from backgrounds and families different from mine, so that together we can share opinions and dialogue and grow from one another. That can only happen if everyone is given an equal chance.

My parents told me an expression that a rising tide lifts all boats. I would expect the public school system to reflect that concept as well. Thank you.

Talya, 10th grader "There is a common misconception that without the presence of good grades and high test scores to strive for, kids won’t be motivated."

I have never gone to a school where there was a heavy emphasis on grades. I am grateful for this, and I am lucky to have been able to spend my time learning about relevant subjects within curriculums that have been hands-on, engaging and informative for my peers and me. I know that if I had gone to schools where there was a heavy emphasis on preparing for tests like the SHSAT, I wouldn’t have the same attitude towards topics that I learned early on that continue to interest me now.

There is a common misconception that without the presence of good grades and high test scores to strive for, kids won’t be motivated. I can tell you that from my experiences at these schools, that assumption is entirely wrong. I work hard because I am given subjects that I am eager to learn, in encouraging settings that motivate me to do my best work. I don’t find myself working hard only working for a grade or a score. I find myself working hard because I want to learn and to remember what I am learning now in the future. I find myself working hard because I am given space to be creative and to shape my own opinions.

In elementary school, I never received grades, only constructive feedback. This gave me room to learn and have fun while learning, and I know that has shaped me into the person I am today, with interests that go beyond the classroom. In fifth grade, my friend and I, with the help of a teacher (in our 5th grade Green Club), worked to get permission to create a greenspace out of a vacant lot adjacent to our school. This taught me real-world skills and made me passionate about environmental activism and issues at a young age. I wouldn’t have been able to do any of that if I was stressing and studying for a test.

Joanna Capetanakis, teacher & parent (video statement read by Paullette Ha-Healy) "Real learning is a process that takes time to revise, reflect, and apply. Standardized tests do not test any of those skills."

I’ve been a teacher for 9 years. I teach at an unscreened high school that does not track students in the building. I’ve had the pleasure of working with a variety of students who were very talented and dedicated but did not qualify for any screened school.

The criteria that NYC uses for screens is inequitable and harmful to students.

Although attendance may seem to be fair on the surface, it is a measure of many factors that are out of a student’s control. Students who have family in other countries often have to travel outside of the school breaks to visit them. It can be extremely expensive to travel during peak days/weeks and many families can not afford to travel then, thus they book a trip that involves students missing a few days. This also doesn’t account for emergency trips to attend to a sick family member or a death in the family. The recent data on how COVID disproportionately impacted communities of people of color and low-income households expose some of our systemic issues with racism in healthcare. How could we possibly use attendance as a metric for admissions when we know health is a privilege not afforded to all?

Standardized tests are not an accurate measurement of intelligence or ability. They strictly measure how well students take tests. I’ve had many students who can read, analyze, write, and question with deep thought and purpose only to have such test anxiety when they take a standardized test. Real learning is a process that takes time to revise, reflect, and apply. Standardized tests do not test any of those skills.

Unless a school has implemented mastery-based grading, individual teachers likely are assigning grades that are extremely subjective. Without addressing teachers’ biases and practices, or even school-wide policies, grades do not fairly reflect all students’ abilities.

I’ve been fortunate enough to work with the AP for All initiative, which recognizes that the enrollment in advanced classes does not represent the population of NYC students and that students who are Black or Latinx are often not given access to these courses. How can the DOE recognize that how schools traditionally screen students for AP courses (grades, test scores, and attendance) creates inequity, yet they still use these screens to restrict admissions to certain schools? This is causing the same racial inequities on an even larger scale.

I believe that eliminating screens is the first step to working towards desegregating our school system and working towards equity for all students.

Rona Merrill, parent "Everyone loses, including kids who need real accelerated curriculum."

As the parent of a child that needs — with capital letters NEEDS — accelerated curriculum, for which the only public route is to test, then drag thru elementary G&T busy work, and then test prep, and prep for screened admissions, then the same for HS, I clearly see how screened admissions diverts our eyes from the real prize of an equitable educational system.

While some take this path, happily or not, the majority is left out.

That majority is black and brown.

As a result, everyone loses, including kids who need real accelerated curriculum, but all kids need pedagogy awareness, diversity, services, a social emotional learning environment, and NOT being exposed to an insane amount of creativity- and inquiry-numbing stress.

All of this was clear before COVID, it was clear before George Floyd and those who died before him became household names, but now it is ever more troublesome. Break it down.

What is the lesson, that during multiple crises, our city’s educational system is focusing discussion on the so-called top screened schools? For me, it has been that our priorities are misplaced, and that this is a great chance both short and long term — to do away with screened schools — and redefine the prize.

Francine Almash, parent "When people advocate for the continued sorting and separating of students into categories of worthiness, while many of us fight for basic services guaranteed by law, and our children are given scraps then punished for not performing up to standard, it’s like watching the system feed certain children to grow, while ignoring the starving masses."

I’m Francine Almash, I’m a parent from District 20. I’m a single parent of three biracial sons who identify as Black, two of whom are students with disabilities. Nothing I’ve just said should justify my children being denied an education, but that’s exactly what happened. Like so many, they’ve been casualties of my district’s abysmal record on special education.

There is no such thing as equal access to opportunities when districts put up a wall of can’ts and won’ts for some, while clearing a path for others.

There is no equity when IEP meetings are not collaborative and parents are seen as overly emotional and lacking in objectivity.

If we disagree or know our rights, we are “demanding” and “combative.”

And often we are subject to retaliation that includes weaponizing ACS against us.

Add in implicit bias, causing certain kids to be coded as unmanageable and emotionally disturbed, while others benefit from being labeled gifted, and failure is inevitable. My own children were denied their rightful diagnoses of autism and dyslexia for years, and thus denied the supports and services necessary for them to thrive.

So, when people advocate for the continued sorting and separating of students into categories of worthiness, while many of us fight for basic services guaranteed by law, and our children are given scraps then punished for not performing up to standard, it’s like watching the system feed certain children to grow, while ignoring the starving masses.

In recent days, Chancellor Carranza has publicly asserted a commitment to combating systemic racism. This must include abolishing screened schools, which at their core were created as a tool for racial segregation. I challenge anyone defending screened schools and a separate and unequal system...You are on the wrong side of history.