It's about the School for International Studies. I had never heard of it (don't live in Brooklyn), but I am in District 3 on the UWS, which had a similar racially-charged battle with re-zoning a few years ago. I was deeply unimpressed by the first two episodes of the podcast. Lots of stereotypes of the white parents (they're over-involved and tone-deaf, surprise!), and no mention of the more nuanced/challenging issues involved.
I admittedly have not listened yet, but I do think these issues are generally pretty complex and that segregation is more of a socioeconomic issue than a racial one (if those things can be separated). We do live in a racist society, and all of its benefits (education, health care, employment, etc.) are unevenly distributed, with the wealthy getting the most. But in general you can't place the blame on individuals -- there are broader policies in place that perpetuate inequality. (See, e.g., the 2017 massive tax cut for corporations and billionaires.)
You're right about the socioeconomic issue. When our school was re-zoned to include low-income housing, some of the loudest voices in opposition were MC/UMC parents of color. It's extremely simplistic to say that white parents shoulder all the blame for segregated schools in NYC. It's also extremely simplistic to imply that integrating the schools - which, mathematically and geographically, is virtually an impossibility in NYC - will magically solve inequality.
Yep, it’s socioeconomic. This is something I was going to point out. The MC/UMC black & POC families I know would have demanded the same things that the white families did in order to be comfortable with sending their kids to a school considered as “failing”.
@Anonymous and hypocritical. Brilliant POC friend is furious her kid lost the lottery for a better public and is putting her in private. Meanwhile I'm tone deaf and white. Sure.
Yes, it is mathematically impossible, when only 15% of public school students in NYC are white. But also, the schools need to have equitable policies. For example, all fundraising has to benefit the students in an equitable (not necessarily equal) way. Everyone should get what they need.
Anonymous
Aug 05, 2020
This is unrealistic...people fundraise to benefit their own children...this has been demonstrated over and over again. "Everyone should get what [they] need" is from the Communist Manifesto...these are never going to be equitable schools.
I don't know of any schools that allow fundraising for specific classes. Several schools in our district have a segregated gifted track that has a far wealthier/whiter group of parents than the other classes, but I've always heard that the funds that are raised are distributed evenly. Regardless, I find the "private public" model grotesque, ditto with the obnoxious public school "galas" where wealthy parents bid thousands for Kindergarten artwork. I think the funds raised by PTAs should be shared with all schools.
Yes, as OR posted below - it sounded like the parents were offered the chance to start a French program but told they had to raise funds for it. Then they were crucified for their efforts. Nice.
Anonymous
Aug 05, 2020
You're asking people to raise money for children...whose parents can't or won't raise it for their own children. Not gonna happen.
I thought it was interesting. I'm waiting for the next episodes to finalize an opinion. It's easy to condemn, much harder to propose something constructive. I do think that a minority of loud, self-centered parents holds disproportional influence within school system. But I do agree with some OPs that whether this is THE issue is questionable. I wish we could hear more from those are /feel disadvantaged.
I'm a bit of an outsider, as I've lived most of my life in other countries. It seems really paradoxical to me, how or why the school system is expected to erase inequalities, when everything else is utterly unequal and individualistic.
@AnonymousQ x 1,000. Hundreds of years of injustice and racism and decades of white flight should be somehow fixed by the 15% white parents currently in the NYC public system. Even DOE doesn't know how to fix this, that's why their only solution is to cry desegregate, as if that would cure everything.
So 50 years ago white parents decided not to enroll their kids in this school. As a result, it's under-enrolled and in dangerously close to being shut down. The principal 7 years ago offers a dual French program in order to attract the affluent parents in the area to enroll their kids there. They agree and have to fund-raise to make it happen. And somehow they are to blame for finding the money for the said French program and helping the school stay open.
I heard a different story in the podcast. White parents were being shut out of more established, desirable public schools and saw this under-enrolled school as an easier entry opportunity. The guy (prospective white parent who toured the school) requested that the principal establish a French program, and the principal agreed. Same guy then uses the promise of this program to recruit other white families so they can enroll as a cohort. New parents elect to form a fundraising committee because they want more resources for the new program and have identified a source of funding, but their fundraising will not benefit the school as a whole, which they did not make clear at inception. School had cohesion and active PTA prior to arrival of new parents, but that begins to fracture as new parents essentially want to create a "school within a school" setting themselves a part from the existing community.
@lesliedav It's the principal who reached out to the community in order to save the school from closure. Clearly she and the PTA had no better ideas how to save that school. She agreed to offer a French program if the parents raised the money, so that they don't take from current funding. I am failing to see how it is the parents' fault that they found funding for a new program, just like they were instructed by the principal. If anything, it seems she could have better communicated and managed the whole transition period. If you read interviews with then principal Juman, she was really excited about the program and the new students that came with it, read more funding per student, which went to the whole school.
@lesliedav, agreed, that's what I heard too. Although the principal was definitely supportive of the newcomers. I didn't hear that they were required to fundraise. In a way, it seemed to me that they were blind to the fact that other kids and parents existed in the school.
All these books, podcasts, articles and shows trying to pin every conceivable social problem on regular middle class white people are starting to sound like Mao’s struggle sessions.
I agree. Not denying the existence of white privilege and tone deafness, but these are systemic problems and to pin 400 years of institutional racism on white parents trying to get a decent education for their kids is not fair, or effective.
My DC attended an integrated charter school with a core mission of diversity. (So what I'm saying is that parents purposefully chose to send their kids to that school with that goal in mind). For many (nuanced and complex) reasons, the school hasn't been that successful, so I do see the challenge.
My DC attended a school that was re-zoned to create more diversity. It "worked" in the sense that post re-zoning there were more students of color, and more poor students, in the school. However the quality of the education noticeably declined - likely for some of the same reasons as @ Anonymous 's school. These issues are very tough and there are no quick solutions, which why I bristle at things like this podcast that present the issue in such a one-sided manner.
Well, they got what they wanted. The dual French program, as it was designed, has been dismantled in the name of diversity in D15. At best, it's quite a mediocre foreign language class. The program was opened for everyone with no French tests. The number of classes per week has been halved. And because many of the kids who ended up there never ranked it high on their application, they or their parents never had an interest or the skill set for a dual language program. And together with those white parents some Caribbean, African and Arabic kids, who also speak French, are losing out.
I'm enjoying the podcast, but haven't formed an opinion yet about the specific issues raised. I agree with what other posted and share @lesliedav's interpretation. While the new white parents are being portrayed as tone deaf (rightfully, I think), I think the (largely POC) parents who were already at the school are also being portrayed as a bit defensive. I think she's trying to be even-handed in showing where and how communication is breaking down. It's a complex issue without an easy solution and I don't think white parents are the root of the problem, but I do think they hold a lot of power when it comes to schools (and politics in general) and the reporter is making that point clear (as evidenced by the fact that only about 12-15 parents wrote letters in the 60s in support of a diverse school being closer to their neighborhood so that they could send their kids, while the local POC families wanted the school to remain in their neighborhood, knowing--rightfully, as it turned out--that white people wouldn't actually attend. The idea that a handful of vocal white parents can have that kind of influence is actually a bit shocking. And she also talks about the protests and the level of coverage from the black protesters and the white protesters.
I agree. Based on two episodes so far, it doesn't come across to me that the white parents are being blamed for the systemic issues at all-- they are being portrayed as "tone deaf", but that sounds pretty accurate.
The title is unfortunate though, as it does give the impression the parents are being targeted.
@Anonymous Really? That's not what I took from it at all. Episode 2 is the one focusing on the parents in the 60s, right? The worst I thought could have been said about those parents was that they were naive--they bought the Board of Ed's spin about the harmony of integrated schools, and then freaked out when they realized that the situation was more complex (because the Black/Hispanic students had come from underresourced elem schools and the system didn't have a plan for dealing with the disparity that created).
As poster below said, I thought the blame was levelled pretty squarely at the institutions--the BoE for underfunding Black/Hispanic schools, and for privileging the letters written by prospective white parents over those of the actual school community.
I found the episode really enlightening as to the different goals the communities had for integration: multiracial paradise, vs. decent schools with flush toilets, certified teachers and a full school day. The latter should not have been too much to ask, regardless of who was enrolled.
But didn't it also say that only a couple of POC parents wrote letters, vs 15 white parents? That's the issue right there. Vocal, involved parents hold more influence in large part because they're...vocal and involved. Yes, it's far easier to be an involved parent when you're coming from a place of privilege. But this isn't the "fault" of the involved parents, any more than it's our "fault" that the current remote system is exacerbating inequality. These are large-scale systemic problems, and the DOE (and the NY Times) simply play the blame game.
I just finished E2 and it says there was only one letter from parents from the nearby housing project, but the letter said it represented over a THOUSAND families. They were also very straight forward, they asked for the school closer to the projects, the original location "closer to the peole who will actually use it". They also never mention integration with white kids. They simply wanted a good school with functioning facilities and a playground they lacked. So one major problem seems that the BoE listened to the white parents back then.
I thought Episode 3 was a bit disjointed, jumping from one thing to another, mentioning too many things but fleetingly. The most interesting point was when the mom who founded the unfortunate, basement school described what they imagined: "a small, diverse school where child-centered education comes first" something along these lines. It was striking similar to what I hear many parents today include in their definition of their ideal school.
I felt like the disjointed tone was almost deliberate--mentioning many things but fleetingly, in the same way that so many idealistic reforms were imposed on the school only to evaporate in a year or two.
I just finished episode 3. I'm enjoying this podcast and think it's very enlightening. I think the point of the episode was to show that there is a long pattern of parents wanting change and/or advocating (or starting!) new schools, but ultimately, the only thing that really seems to be a draw in terms of elevating a failing school is adding white kids. It's a good point that white parents in a local area have strong influence on a neighborhood school even if they don't send their kids there.
Anyone listened to Episode 4? Focusing on the Success Academy ES that is now in the basement of the building, and the 2019 iteration of SIS (now Boerum Hill SIS).
I have been wanting to check it out. What did you think?
Which school is it?
It's about the School for International Studies. I had never heard of it (don't live in Brooklyn), but I am in District 3 on the UWS, which had a similar racially-charged battle with re-zoning a few years ago. I was deeply unimpressed by the first two episodes of the podcast. Lots of stereotypes of the white parents (they're over-involved and tone-deaf, surprise!), and no mention of the more nuanced/challenging issues involved.
I admittedly have not listened yet, but I do think these issues are generally pretty complex and that segregation is more of a socioeconomic issue than a racial one (if those things can be separated). We do live in a racist society, and all of its benefits (education, health care, employment, etc.) are unevenly distributed, with the wealthy getting the most. But in general you can't place the blame on individuals -- there are broader policies in place that perpetuate inequality. (See, e.g., the 2017 massive tax cut for corporations and billionaires.)
+1
You're right about the socioeconomic issue. When our school was re-zoned to include low-income housing, some of the loudest voices in opposition were MC/UMC parents of color. It's extremely simplistic to say that white parents shoulder all the blame for segregated schools in NYC. It's also extremely simplistic to imply that integrating the schools - which, mathematically and geographically, is virtually an impossibility in NYC - will magically solve inequality.
Yep, it’s socioeconomic. This is something I was going to point out. The MC/UMC black & POC families I know would have demanded the same things that the white families did in order to be comfortable with sending their kids to a school considered as “failing”.
@Anonymous and hypocritical. Brilliant POC friend is furious her kid lost the lottery for a better public and is putting her in private. Meanwhile I'm tone deaf and white. Sure.
Yes, it is mathematically impossible, when only 15% of public school students in NYC are white. But also, the schools need to have equitable policies. For example, all fundraising has to benefit the students in an equitable (not necessarily equal) way. Everyone should get what they need.
This is unrealistic...people fundraise to benefit their own children...this has been demonstrated over and over again. "Everyone should get what [they] need" is from the Communist Manifesto...these are never going to be equitable schools.
I don't know of any schools that allow fundraising for specific classes. Several schools in our district have a segregated gifted track that has a far wealthier/whiter group of parents than the other classes, but I've always heard that the funds that are raised are distributed evenly. Regardless, I find the "private public" model grotesque, ditto with the obnoxious public school "galas" where wealthy parents bid thousands for Kindergarten artwork. I think the funds raised by PTAs should be shared with all schools.
There are some events along these lines in the podcast. A French immersion program, separate fundraising, galas etc.,
Yes, as OR posted below - it sounded like the parents were offered the chance to start a French program but told they had to raise funds for it. Then they were crucified for their efforts. Nice.
You're asking people to raise money for children...whose parents can't or won't raise it for their own children. Not gonna happen.
I thought it was interesting. I'm waiting for the next episodes to finalize an opinion. It's easy to condemn, much harder to propose something constructive. I do think that a minority of loud, self-centered parents holds disproportional influence within school system. But I do agree with some OPs that whether this is THE issue is questionable. I wish we could hear more from those are /feel disadvantaged.
Solutions are very hard and complex. And sometimes come at the expense of those they purport to help. BTDT.
I'm a bit of an outsider, as I've lived most of my life in other countries. It seems really paradoxical to me, how or why the school system is expected to erase inequalities, when everything else is utterly unequal and individualistic.
@AnonymousQ x 1,000. Hundreds of years of injustice and racism and decades of white flight should be somehow fixed by the 15% white parents currently in the NYC public system. Even DOE doesn't know how to fix this, that's why their only solution is to cry desegregate, as if that would cure everything.
So 50 years ago white parents decided not to enroll their kids in this school. As a result, it's under-enrolled and in dangerously close to being shut down. The principal 7 years ago offers a dual French program in order to attract the affluent parents in the area to enroll their kids there. They agree and have to fund-raise to make it happen. And somehow they are to blame for finding the money for the said French program and helping the school stay open.
I heard a different story in the podcast. White parents were being shut out of more established, desirable public schools and saw this under-enrolled school as an easier entry opportunity. The guy (prospective white parent who toured the school) requested that the principal establish a French program, and the principal agreed. Same guy then uses the promise of this program to recruit other white families so they can enroll as a cohort. New parents elect to form a fundraising committee because they want more resources for the new program and have identified a source of funding, but their fundraising will not benefit the school as a whole, which they did not make clear at inception. School had cohesion and active PTA prior to arrival of new parents, but that begins to fracture as new parents essentially want to create a "school within a school" setting themselves a part from the existing community.
@lesliedav It's the principal who reached out to the community in order to save the school from closure. Clearly she and the PTA had no better ideas how to save that school. She agreed to offer a French program if the parents raised the money, so that they don't take from current funding. I am failing to see how it is the parents' fault that they found funding for a new program, just like they were instructed by the principal. If anything, it seems she could have better communicated and managed the whole transition period. If you read interviews with then principal Juman, she was really excited about the program and the new students that came with it, read more funding per student, which went to the whole school.
@lesliedav, agreed, that's what I heard too. Although the principal was definitely supportive of the newcomers. I didn't hear that they were required to fundraise. In a way, it seemed to me that they were blind to the fact that other kids and parents existed in the school.
All these books, podcasts, articles and shows trying to pin every conceivable social problem on regular middle class white people are starting to sound like Mao’s struggle sessions.
I agree. Not denying the existence of white privilege and tone deafness, but these are systemic problems and to pin 400 years of institutional racism on white parents trying to get a decent education for their kids is not fair, or effective.
My DC attended an integrated charter school with a core mission of diversity. (So what I'm saying is that parents purposefully chose to send their kids to that school with that goal in mind). For many (nuanced and complex) reasons, the school hasn't been that successful, so I do see the challenge.
I'd be very interested, if you would like to share more.
My DC attended a school that was re-zoned to create more diversity. It "worked" in the sense that post re-zoning there were more students of color, and more poor students, in the school. However the quality of the education noticeably declined - likely for some of the same reasons as @ Anonymous 's school. These issues are very tough and there are no quick solutions, which why I bristle at things like this podcast that present the issue in such a one-sided manner.
Well, they got what they wanted. The dual French program, as it was designed, has been dismantled in the name of diversity in D15. At best, it's quite a mediocre foreign language class. The program was opened for everyone with no French tests. The number of classes per week has been halved. And because many of the kids who ended up there never ranked it high on their application, they or their parents never had an interest or the skill set for a dual language program. And together with those white parents some Caribbean, African and Arabic kids, who also speak French, are losing out.
I'm enjoying the podcast, but haven't formed an opinion yet about the specific issues raised. I agree with what other posted and share @lesliedav's interpretation. While the new white parents are being portrayed as tone deaf (rightfully, I think), I think the (largely POC) parents who were already at the school are also being portrayed as a bit defensive. I think she's trying to be even-handed in showing where and how communication is breaking down. It's a complex issue without an easy solution and I don't think white parents are the root of the problem, but I do think they hold a lot of power when it comes to schools (and politics in general) and the reporter is making that point clear (as evidenced by the fact that only about 12-15 parents wrote letters in the 60s in support of a diverse school being closer to their neighborhood so that they could send their kids, while the local POC families wanted the school to remain in their neighborhood, knowing--rightfully, as it turned out--that white people wouldn't actually attend. The idea that a handful of vocal white parents can have that kind of influence is actually a bit shocking. And she also talks about the protests and the level of coverage from the black protesters and the white protesters.
I agree. Based on two episodes so far, it doesn't come across to me that the white parents are being blamed for the systemic issues at all-- they are being portrayed as "tone deaf", but that sounds pretty accurate.
The title is unfortunate though, as it does give the impression the parents are being targeted.
@a nonymous Episode 2 is where the blame game starts
@Anonymous Really? That's not what I took from it at all. Episode 2 is the one focusing on the parents in the 60s, right? The worst I thought could have been said about those parents was that they were naive--they bought the Board of Ed's spin about the harmony of integrated schools, and then freaked out when they realized that the situation was more complex (because the Black/Hispanic students had come from underresourced elem schools and the system didn't have a plan for dealing with the disparity that created).
As poster below said, I thought the blame was levelled pretty squarely at the institutions--the BoE for underfunding Black/Hispanic schools, and for privileging the letters written by prospective white parents over those of the actual school community.
I found the episode really enlightening as to the different goals the communities had for integration: multiracial paradise, vs. decent schools with flush toilets, certified teachers and a full school day. The latter should not have been too much to ask, regardless of who was enrolled.
But didn't it also say that only a couple of POC parents wrote letters, vs 15 white parents? That's the issue right there. Vocal, involved parents hold more influence in large part because they're...vocal and involved. Yes, it's far easier to be an involved parent when you're coming from a place of privilege. But this isn't the "fault" of the involved parents, any more than it's our "fault" that the current remote system is exacerbating inequality. These are large-scale systemic problems, and the DOE (and the NY Times) simply play the blame game.
It said that there was one letter from POC, but it was signed by a large number, definitely larger than the sum of the white people's letters.
@AnonymousQ Yep. A housing association committee, representing hundreds of residents.
I just finished E2 and it says there was only one letter from parents from the nearby housing project, but the letter said it represented over a THOUSAND families. They were also very straight forward, they asked for the school closer to the projects, the original location "closer to the peole who will actually use it". They also never mention integration with white kids. They simply wanted a good school with functioning facilities and a playground they lacked. So one major problem seems that the BoE listened to the white parents back then.
I thought Episode 3 was a bit disjointed, jumping from one thing to another, mentioning too many things but fleetingly. The most interesting point was when the mom who founded the unfortunate, basement school described what they imagined: "a small, diverse school where child-centered education comes first" something along these lines. It was striking similar to what I hear many parents today include in their definition of their ideal school.
I felt like the disjointed tone was almost deliberate--mentioning many things but fleetingly, in the same way that so many idealistic reforms were imposed on the school only to evaporate in a year or two.
I just finished episode 3. I'm enjoying this podcast and think it's very enlightening. I think the point of the episode was to show that there is a long pattern of parents wanting change and/or advocating (or starting!) new schools, but ultimately, the only thing that really seems to be a draw in terms of elevating a failing school is adding white kids. It's a good point that white parents in a local area have strong influence on a neighborhood school even if they don't send their kids there.
Anyone listened to Episode 4? Focusing on the Success Academy ES that is now in the basement of the building, and the 2019 iteration of SIS (now Boerum Hill SIS).
I half listened. Have done lots of reading on Success already so there wasn't anything new there for me.