Schools Chancellor Suggests That Critical PS 199 Parent and Educator Should Attend Implicit Bias Training

New York City schools chancellor Richard Carranza was on WNYC with Brian Lehrer on Monday, and a parent from PS 199 called in. Feelings at 199 are still raw after the chancellor tweeted a headline that said that parents at a recent meeting opposed a plan to “bring more black kids to their schools.”

The parent, who works as an educator, said she supports the diversity plan, but wants the city to commit to improving the schools where performance has lagged (see transcript below). Carranza made no direct commitment to funding for the district, but said the city wants to direct more money to students with fewer resources in general. He also said that the parent should attend upcoming anti-implicit bias training for educators. The city has committed $23 million over four years for training to help educators address their implicit biases.

District 3, which includes the Upper West Side, is currently discussing a plan that would insure that 25% of each middle school is made up of children who score below proficient on state exams. The city — which still hasn’t released any written document on the plan — says this will increase racial and ethnic diversity at the schools. “There is no formal plan, the superintendent has a scenario,” a DOE spokesman tells us.

The full transcript of the back-and-forth on WNYC is below, via Chalkbeat. The next meeting on this issue is Wednesday, May 16 at 6:30 p.m. at 134 West 122nd Street.

Caller: Hi Brian, huge fan. I try to call all the time; delighted to be on the program. Hi chancellor, I’m also a career educator and I’m a parent at P.S. 199. And I wanted to see your comment [on the matter]. A lot of us are very supportive of this initiative, but with limited faith in the efficacy of the DOE to carry it through. For example, no extra money is going to be allocated to the schools that will be affected.

I wanted ask you the motivation behind your late-night tweet. It was divisive, in my opinion. Again, I do support this initiative. And knowing that probably my kids will probably not get a seat at one of the very few decent middle schools, I want to know why the question wasn’t, ‘why aren’t there more stronger middle schools in District 3’ instead of blaming the parents in a very divisive way? Was it possibly that becomes a setup for when this doesn’t work out as well as people are gonna hope it is — that simply the parents can be blamed: Those Upper West Side parents are the reason that this initiative isn’t working?

Brian Lehrer: Debra when you say when it ultimately doesn’t work out as well as people hope, what are you anticipating?

Caller: I hope, I really hope there can be some changes. But I don’t see without funds for teacher development, I don’t see that space is an issue — everybody is just elbowing to get their kids into a good school. All the parents in District 3, not just the parents at P.S. 199, which is why I think such initiatives should be put forward. But to just shift the kids around without putting significant funds behind it, I’m skeptical. I’m still vocally supportive of it, but I have to say chancellor you stunned me because what I heard loud and clear: Me as a white parent in P.S. 199, I am not part of your constituency — my family, my children.

Richard Carranza: Yeah, so Debra first and foremost for the Teacher Appreciation Week, thank you for your service. It’s important — the work that you do each and every day.

Again, I’ve been really clear — the video speaks for itself. If that’s the kind of dialogue we want to have about very difficult conversations I will never support that kind of dialogue in a public meeting, I just won’t. And I think it’s important we shine the light of day when we have these kinds of conversations.

Now that being said, there’s some assumptions in what you said which are not true. So as we support our most historically underserved communities and schools, what we’re going to do is we’re going to put resources behind that. We’ve just secured in the budget millions of dollars for culturally relevant pedagogy training. I hope you will avail yourself of that training. We’re also going to be funding, and we’ve secured millions of dollars for anti- implicit bias training. Again, I hope you will avail yourself of that. In our community schools, we’ve set up opportunities for partnerships with local community-based organizations, non-profits, as well as governmental agencies that can provide the supports to students that are historically underserved in our cities and our communities.

As I’ve gone around for this first month of my tenure here, I’ve spoken in every borough and every community about an equity lens to make sure that we are prioritizing resources to students and communities that have historically not had that kind of support. The students that would take a seat in these schools if they come from those kinds of communities, those kinds of backgrounds, they have those kinds of needs — under a community schools approach we’re going to have resources there to serve them.

So again, a lot of assumptions in the question. And you know Brian, I’ve been asked a lot about, ‘well what are you doing tweeting at one in the morning?’ The honest truth is I’ve been working till 1, 2 in the morning. I spend my day out in the community. And I spend my evenings reading briefings about the DOE. So again I just want to make sure that we’re all part of the conversation and every parent, every community member that has a student in the New York City public schools is one of my constituents. You all matter.

In some communities, implicit bias training is also available for parents and other community members, though we are waiting to hear back on whether there is any upcoming training on the UWS.

NEWS | 70 comments | permalink
    1. Bruce E. Bernstein says:

      once again, WSR publishes a divisive and misleading headline, taking something Chancellor Carranza says out of context.

      he suggested MANY things, not just “implicit bias training”. and it appeared he was suggesting them to the caller as an EDUCATOR, not a parent.

      He was talking about the extra RESOURCES that the DOE is putting into the district.

    2. UWS parent says:

      In other words – no there is no plan for actually improving education across the board. There is no budget to put resources into integrating high performing students with low performing students with the result that nobody ends up getting the instruction they need. There are window dressing solutions like cultural pedagogy but a total handwaving fail on a serious plan to make ALL the schools good instead of rationing access to a few good ones.

      • Parker says:

        Such absolute nonsense and hysteria. These schools are not designated as gifted and talented programs – these are public schools and it’s their mandate to educate a broad spectrum of our community. Please don’t be fooled by parents like the one above. Any competent educator is perfectly capable of teaching a heterogeneous class of students.

        • Susan Lally says:

          Yes, of course they are. He is talking about schools like MS54, which is a screened school based on test scores. And there are many specialized schools – i.e. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science. As an educator, I’m delighted that you think it’s so easy to teach a heterogenous group. I can, and I do, but when there are vast disparities, it’s very hard indeed. The kids who need more help, or cannot read at grade level need a different kind of support, while the students who are advanced get bored. It’s not so easy and it’s not always in everyone’s best interest.

    3. Maria says:

      Being divisive and alienating has never been a good strategy if you need to work with object of your comments to accomplish desired results. Richard Carranza created a devastatingly horrible first impression with a core part of his constituency. Violated the first rule of civilized discourse: never generalize or stereotype. Because stereotyping puts you on exactly the same level as those “racists” that he is decrying. Heck, I am offended and I don’t even have a kid in a D3 school. What he needs to do really quickly is appear at relevant D3 meetings and unconditionally apologize for his completely out of place comments. And appeal for the community to work with the DOE (whether with him in charge or someone else) to reduce racial and socio-economic segregation. Re-allocating seats at middle schools won’t fix a system that’s broken at the very bottom. Here are a few suggestions to start with:
      – continue elementary school re-zoning to include a diverse population;
      – immediately terminate any remaining G&T programs for elementary schools – schools may offer enrichment classes, but G&T determination at age 4, 5 or 6 is unreliable & useless, and contributes to segregation;
      – eliminate any artificial, district-based middle school zoning priority;
      – offer elementary school support programs (after school) for weaker performers. Cost to society is negligible compared to the cost spent later trying to fix early education errors;
      – There needs to be more $ available for support programs, and more teacher flexibility. Resources need to include social worker skills and educators. Need to revise teacher contracts to add flexibility.
      – DOE needs to offer centralized (and hopefully cost beneficial) resource planning for schools. Can’t be that some schools are top notch organized assigning/submitting homework and grading tests online, while at other schools every teacher does what they want. DOE, get your act together. This will free up admin time to use for education.

      • Cynthia says:

        I agree 100% with this comment. Maria…any interest in the job of Chancellor? I think the mayor will be trying to fill the position soon!

      • Brandon says:

        Maria,
        When you say “eliminate any artificial, district-based middle school zoning priority” so you mean the middle schools, like high schools, would be open to mall kod s across all 5 boroughs? I think expecting a 10 year old to travel anywhere in the city is too much for 6th grade.
        The academic integration proposal being discussed is just for D3. There are no zones middle schools in D3. Everyone has the sa!e shot at every school.

        • Cynthia says:

          There are zoned middle schools in District 2, which largely cover only wealthy/white areas.

          As to whether 6th graders are willing/want to travel for access to better schools, it should be left up to the families. That is how G&T works now.

          • Brandon says:

            There are zoned middle schools in District 2 and other districts. There are none in District 3. The academic diversity plan to fill 25% of seats at the top performing middle schools with kids scoring below grade level is only for District 3.

    4. EricaC says:

      He may actually have a point – we can all benefit from an understanding of the concept of implicit bias (spoiler alert – it doesn’t have to do with all of us being evil racists, but about the quirks in the human mind and how they play out in social conflict), but what a ridiculously tone deaf comment in a complicated setting.

    5. Kim Jong says:

      Hahahaha. I’m loving this guy more and more.

      North Korea also has re-education camps.

    6. Deborah - UWS parent says:

      That’s just great, they’re providing funding for anti-bias training “culturally relevant pedagogy training” and anti- implicit bias training”. Where are the classroom funds, the funds to pay teachers more and to hire more staff and buy supplies??? Where are the seats for more students? The caller wanted to know if DOE would provide funds to strengthen academics, not to train parents.

      • Pedestrian says:

        Very good points, my friend.

      • Susan says:

        Thank you, Deborah. I work in a school with a chronically broken copy machine and with faulty air-conditioning. I can not endure the thought of 23 million on anti-bias training. It’s beyond insulting – and this Chancellor should look at his own implicit bias: that Upper West Side parents are racist (Why always D3? Can’t D2 get in on this?) and that teachers must also be racist and should be forced to attend training about it.

    7. dannyboy says:

      “For example, no extra money is going to be allocated to the schools that will be affected.”

      This Parent/ Educator needs to get her priorities right. More Money is the first thing? Where’s the shame for the current situation and her committing to do better?

      More smoke! Now it’s Money that’s the problem.

    8. Angry Parent says:

      Carranza’s original tweet was unnecessarily inflammatory and showed poor judgment.
      I understand his sentments, but surely
      there was a far more conciliatory way to
      express them. I think it was a very
      foolish way to begin his tenure as
      chancellor. I don’t feel confident that he
      is up to the task of running NYC schools.
      Perhaps he’s the one who needs a
      class—in impulse control.

    9. dannyboy says:

      I read further. Now she believes the Tweet is very important. Where are her priorities? More excuses.

      Bringing the children together will BENEFIT ALL OF THE CHILDREN.

    10. UWS Dad says:

      Is this guy for real?? The poorer schools in our district are severely underfunded, partly because they are under-enrolled and partly because they don’t have the large PTA fundraising that some of our other schools do. Rather than answer the question, he thinks it important to tell the parent they should attend the anti-bias training. Doesn’t his tweet make him qualify as a candidate for that same training??

      I guess he is just doubling down on his apology or lack thereof from last week.

    11. BillyNYC says:

      This guy is history!
      The Mayor of New York should’ve done his homework and not rushed into this.

    12. J.T. says:

      Chancellor Carranza should have anti-implicit bias training if he equates an objection to spots reserved for students with low test scores to opposing “bring(ing) more black kids to their schools.” If his assumptions about the black students in city schools is so low, I hope he won’t last in NYC any longer than he did in Houston.

    13. Rob G. says:

      The devisive and polarizing Chancellor should take his own advice and seek out bias training himself. And if he’s not smart enough to understand that fixing our schools should not mean lowering their standards then someone else should be appointed to his position.

    14. Pedestrian says:

      It sounds like the chancellor suffers from implicit bias!
      He believes that any white parent who disagrees with him is be racially biased. That sure is a big leap although I’m not surprised considering the other things he has said recently. Will he be attending the trading sessions?

    15. Ben David says:

      Carranza: “…every parent, every community member that has a student in the New York City public schools is one of my constituents. You all matter.”
      The truth: Having said that, if you are a non-White parent or child, you matter much more to me and my agenda.

    16. Ye Olde Englishe Teachere says:

      Re: “(Caranza) also said that the parent should attend upcoming anti-implicit bias training for educators.”

      Yup! Big Brother (from the novel “1984”) would certainly approve.

      How DARE that parent/educator have thoughts not in line with Dept. of Eddycation official policy!

      She obviously needs to be re-educated!

      AND CHANCELLOR CARANZA NEEDS TO READ “1984”…then again maybe not, as it might inspire him to find more methods of thought-control.

      • EricaC says:

        Implicit bias is actually an important concept that people should understand. It relates a lot to some of the things that are going on. It actually is not Orwellian at all – and it is an interesting insight into the way the heuristics we all use to get bay every day can explain how people with no evil intent, and not even awareness, can act in ways that result in harm to one another. It is worth learning about.

        I somehow doubt this guy is going to persuade anyone of that, however.

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          response to EricaC:

          why are you abandoning Carranza so quickly?

          the interview above is respectful, gives a good answer to the called and a good explanation to the various policies, despite what most of the commenters have said. they are either already biased, didn’t read it… or perhaps have very little understanding of education policy and less understanding of racial and class disparities.

          his tweet, in and of itself, was not the best, but he was correct in responding to the outrageous claims being made by some parents featured on the NY1 report. he is correct in not backing down from addressing racial disparities.

          And, from the comments, it’s quite clear we DO have a problem on the UWS.

          I’m glad he’s in that position.

    17. Reed says:

      Bravo Chancellor for your comments and for taking a serious approach to a sensitive issue. I think that the members of the community board and our council members within the school district should also be more engaged and be offered the implicit bias training. After all they impact on our schools. This school district is clearly segregated. The local elementary schools should also be part of this policy: they are segregated not out of choice, but by overt housing patterns that impact on success and opportunity.

    18. Jason says:

      He is right. Whether these parents mean it or not, they are implicitly supporting excluding students based on race. This is not to suggest that they doing it for racial reasons, but that is the end result if they are successful. Their actions are implicitly biased, and it’s unclear whether the parents understand that. Thus, the bias impact training may be helpful for them. All children deserve a high quality education, not just theirs. Seems very non-upper west side to me. NIMBY personified. Tisk tisk tisk and shame shame shame.

      • Jose Habib says:

        If being against this plan is racist, then call me David Duke I guess, lol.

        Calling people racist (or “implicitly biased” now I guess) to get your way used to work 10 years ago. But nobody cares anymore.

        • Independent says:

          If only it were true that “nobody cares anymore”. I’m sure that eventually sanity will once again prevail. (That is, if anyone’s still around by then.) But it seems like we are still a long ways off from that.

    19. Reed says:

      mplicit bias training would be wonderful for other community members such as Community Board 7 members as well as our 2 Council Members….they do have an influence on housing patterns that impact on a segregated Upper West Side.

    20. JerryV says:

      I am the middle of 5 generations of public school students who have all gone to racially and economically diverse schools. If it works, it is good for everyone to associate with and learn about other people who are “different” from them. But it makes no sense (I would say stupid) for low performing kids to come into a high performing school without an injection of money for services to help these kids come up to par. And it would be helpful to have the parents of these low performing students get support to help them learn how play a role in the education of their children. Where is all our tax money going?

    21. Sherman says:

      My wife and I are actively involved in our son’s school’s PTA. We also make generous contributions to it.

      My wife does regular volunteering at our son’s school.

      Furthermore, every night we share the responsibility of sitting with our son and reviewing and discussing his homework.

      I feel terribly guilty that my son attends a good school and is excelling academically. Carranza is correct. I should take this “implicit bias training” course.

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        your biases are explicit, not implicit.

      • UWS parent says:

        Sherman, why the guilt? Please explain. You’re helping the system by having your kid(s) attend public schools and by being involved. We parents have propped up the system all these years by injecting the money into the schools when they lacked the budget to provide the resources our students need. The DOE should up the ante right now and budget funds that directly impact the schools/students/classrooms.

      • Independent says:

        A “troll”, in the context of Internet discussion forums, is someone who makes incendiary posts for the purpose of being incendiary and not in order to express sincerely-held beliefs in good faith. “Dannyboy” may be a lot of things but I don’t see that, under this definition, he could legitimately be characterized as a mere “troll”.

        That said, you are absolutely correct that (a) “dannyboy” did make at least one post in which he explicitly revealed that his daughter had attended Stuyvestant High School:
        https://www.westsiderag.com/2018/03/26/major-changes-coming-to-the-middle-school-admission-process-how-to-get-involved#comment-365091
        and,
        (b) that (a) makes it completely fair game to cite that fact in the context that Sherman has.

    22. John says:

      Remember when Hillary made a speech about implicit bias and Fox News said that Hillary called everyone a “racist”
      My relatives said, “See? She thinks we are all racists ”

      I didn’t know they had moved to the UWS with ostensibly more enlightened people

      • Independent says:

        @ John, #22 (May 8, 2018 at 6:20 pm):
        What I remember is this:
        http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

        You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

        [Laughter/applause]

        The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.[…]

        Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable,

        Granted, Sec. (Rodham-)Clinton did go on to at least imply that at least a considerable number of the remaining Trump supporters were decent folks with legitimate grievances who were being manipulated. But President Trump also qualified the infamous remark about Mexican immigrants that he made during the campaign with, “And some, I assume, are good people.” Was Clinton’s qualifier really that much better?

    23. Glade I am out of the system says:

      If the schools are going to accept 25 % under achievers, I have to assume that some of the children presently going to these schools will now be transferred to schools with 75% under achievers, how exactly will that work out for those kids.Hello suburbs !!. When I moved to the west side thirty years ago that is what happened. As soon as a families children got to school age they were gone to the burbs.
      I guessed we don’t learn from our past mistakes.

      • dannyboy says:

        The plan is to include 25% less-than-top-achieving-to-date children in the Incoming Class. Not displacing children.

        Seeing how simple it is; you can support that, can’t you?

        • Rob G. says:

          No, absolutely not. In the long run it will hurt everyone in that school, as well as the schools that actually need help. We must concentrate on the schools that are suffering – not the schools that are already achieving their academic goals. Applying the “diversity” Band-Aid is a BS deflection. Sounds great and all for feel-good PC purposes but does not address the problem. You want to fix under-performing schools? Then FIX THEM.

          • dannyboy says:

            Yes, we must improve all of the schools. This plan will bring new children into the school and that will benefit all of the children, especially socially.

            • Rob G. says:

              Keep dreaming, Dannyboy. I already know parents who have pulled their kids and their money from good schools because of last year’s loony-tune rezoning. The result will be a depletion of resources and lower bars for achievement. You may not want that, but that’s what you’ll get, so you better be prepared for it.

            • dannyboy says:

              Demonstrating a rather tenuous commitment to the school. My way or the highway?

              Pulled their MONEY! This is a Public School. No one buys access.

              So Rob G when you write: “You may not want that, but that’s what you’ll get, so you better be prepared for it.” I reply good riddance to people with (1) a tenuous commitment to their child’s school, (2) who believe that their money should determine their access, and (3) will only stay if they get their own way.

              Public School’s purpose is better than that.

        • Christine E says:

          @Dannyboy, of course the high performers will be displaced. All schools have limits to how many students they can hold and still teach effectively or legally. If they could have fit 25% more kids, they would have done so long ago — the “desired” schools have waitlists every year. It is not a velvet rope — they simply don’t have the room. It would be a better approach if the DOE combined this plan with a bigger school campus and more classroom space. Or demonstrated any foresight whatsoever about infrastructure needs. Instead, the chancellor just wants to stir the pot, with students and tweets.

          • dannyboy says:

            It IS a velvet rope, as you put it. The achievement barrier didn’t exist until “some People” got a hold of establishing entrance policy.

            Public
            Schools

        • Cato says:

          Those 25% less-than-top-achieving-to-date children will displace the same number of “not less-than-top-achieving-to-date children” who would otherwise have been in the incoming class.

          The plan is *not* to increase the size of the incoming class by adding those other kids and keeping everyone else there. Someone will have to go elsewhere to make room for the new kids. Hence, kids certainly *will* be “displaced”.

          • dannyboy says:

            Those Those 25% less-than-top-achieving-to-date children will achieve higher.

            See how that works?

            Those children will improve more than the average, so stop discussing them as lost causes.

      • UWS Dad says:

        Glade I am out of the system – The change will only impact incoming 6th graders. No child currently at a school will be forced out.

        Having said that, some percentage of 5th grade students who scored 3/4 on the state exams, will not find a place at their top choice schools when the plan goes into effect. I haven’t heard yet what the DOE will plan to do with those students. I suspect they will sprinkle them around the “under-achieving” schools.

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          reply to @UWSDAd:

          the DOE simulation, using 2017 data, shows that almost no students will lose their access to one of their first three choices. the numbers who will miss getting into their first choice are small.

          i would hope that you care about ALL students getting into one of their top 3 choices… not just the students who score “4”.

          Some of the more upper class parents are going off the rails because their child is not necessarily going to get into their Number One choice. That was what the angry parent was lambasting the DOE about in the famous video clip.

          to insist on the #1 choice and only the #1 choice seems a little entitled.

    24. question says:

      If someone can state a coherent argument as to what differentiates a regular high achieving MS from a G & T middle school.

      It seems that much of the argument as to why not let 25% of the class be low achievers, would equally apply to an argument of not letting a single low achieving student into the school.

      s/he will bring down the level of the class
      s/he will displace a high achieving student
      s/he will not be able to keep up with the rigors of the school.
      etc.

      It seems that parents opposing this plan, at least the arguments presented here and it at meetings, would want to exclude every single student who does not receive a 3 or 4.

      Don’t we ALREADY HAVE G&T SCHOOLS FOR THAT?

    25. Biffmeister says:

      Implicit bias? Nonsense! The NYC Public School system was destroyed by forced busing to achieve integration in the 70’s and 80’s.
      It was a social experiment that was a complete failure. So now our left-wing Chancellor wants to resurrect forced busing that will result in our schools becoming 100% black and Hispanic. Let’s see how that works out for everyone.

    26. UppaWestSidah says:

      Let me start by saying that I don’t care about race, religion, or your societal status/net worth. So let’s get that out of the way!

      Amazing to me that a person who is supposed to understand pedagogy doesn’t understand psychology. Carranza seems to believe that no impact to existing students will occur without formally putting into plan exactly how that is going to happen. As a former educator, I can say a few simple things to end the entire argument from all sides.

      Kids who are low performing, are so because of numerous factors: home life, nutrition, and mental capabilities/deficiencies. All the implicit bias training for educators and parents will not change that.

      More schools/more funding for schools where funds in those particular “poorer” districts are needed will serve everyone in a much better way.

      Shuffling kids around to other “higher” performing schools will only undermine the effort and work that these schools have achieved over time. It will be a disruption to teachers and students – not worried about parents’ alleged perceived entitlement.

      Carranza has already failed by speaking the familiar political jargon filled with terms that serve to alienate the very population he is so implicitly focused on. How many people understand the term pedagogy? Yes, even if he was talking with an educator, the audience wasn’t completely made up of all educators! It’s this lack of understanding that will keep him from finishing his “tenure.”

      • Jen says:

        Couldn’t agree more.

      • dannyboy says:

        You lost credibility at “As a former educator, I can say a few simple things to end the entire argument from all sides.”

        I was being open minded enough to get past: “Let me start by saying that I don’t care about race, religion, or your societal status/net worth. So let’s get that out of the way!”

        • Harold says:

          dannyboy,
          Am enjoying your comments. All of them.
          You sure have some extra time on hand,
          but you use it beautifully.
          Keep it up.

          • dannyboy says:

            The nature of internet discussion is often debative, so thank you Harold. Here’s one idea that I enjoyed reading: “There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.”

      • dannyboy says:

        From the article (for those reading headlines only):

        “An incident outside of the school was investigated and addressed and there is no direct threat against the school,” Education Department spokeswoman Miranda Barbot said.

        • Peter says:

          Dannyboy – I’m not simply reading the headline. I’m absolutely saddened that we have reached a level where civil discourse has been replaced by late night tweets, media soundbites and threats. It’s even more appalling that all of this is about public education.

          And as an aside, a single threat or not, try explaining to school age children why there is extra police outside of their school each day……

          • dannyboy says:

            I agree with all you have written. There has got to be a concerted effort to tone down the hypertension, hyperbole, misdirection and rhetoric. It is making it impossible to find a consensus solution to the problem, which “is about public education”.

            Instead the children suffer unnecessary fears.

    27. UWS Craig says:

      I am dismayed by the tenor of the debate and the reaction to the chancellors’ suggestion for bias training. We were put off by the segregated public school system and rampant “white privilege” and made the decision to send our daughter to a private school where all races, creeds and sexual gender types are welcome. Scholarships are provided to minority students and there is a focus on inclusiveness, community building and diversity training as central to the curriculum. Perhaps one day, with the Chancellor’s help, the New York public schools will live up to the ideals that we all claim to espouse.

    28. Jose Habib says:

      There is only a small number of white kids left in the NYC school system overall. Once policies like this drive them all out, then what is Carranza going to do to “desegregate” the schools?

      • dannyboy says:

        Not a problem. Integrating the schools improves the experience for all children.

        For example, my children were recruited by the local principal to better deversify her school. It did improve my children’s education.

        Give it a chance.

    29. Bruce E. Bernstein says:

      many of the commenters appear not to have read the interview with Carranza featured in this post, which is excellent.

      he wasn’t demeaning anyone. He was explaining the various resources being made available to middle schools in District 3, as part of the desegregation plan.

      the tweet he sent out wasn’t well thought out, but he is responding to some very real sentiments. these are exaggerated alarm at the prospect of what, after all, is a modest and moderate desegregation plan.

      I’m glad we have a Chancellor who is aware of race and class disparities and willing to take them on — and who will not back down to the wrath of a minority of upper-middle class parents.

      it’s obvious from the comments that we DO have a problem on the UWS, and it’s more severe than we think.

      but i also take the work of the head of the District 3 Parents Council: most parents support this plan, or are open to it.

    30. john singer says:

      Carranza is a true class warrior. The upper class can afford the private schools that provide their children the best education. The middle class can’t. He will force them out of the city to get an adequate education for their children. The lower class will suffer further as a result. His method of equalizing education is to give all students a poor education.

      • dannyboy says:

        Not.

        Did you read UWS Craig’s Comment above (#26)?:

        “We were put off by the segregated public school system and rampant “white privilege” and made the decision to send our daughter to a private school where all races, creeds and sexual gender types are welcome. Scholarships are provided to minority students and there is a focus on inclusiveness, community building and diversity training as central to the curriculum. Perhaps one day, with the Chancellor’s help, the New York public schools will live up to the ideals that we all claim to espouse.”

        His child’s Private School offers his children “the best education” in a diverse school. I expect that the diversity helps.