Replacing one evil with another

To the editor:

(re: “Dinowitz disses mayor’s plan for specialized high schools,” June 21)

This is in response to stories about the mayor’s plan to change the criteria for admission to specialized high schools, and the subsequent response by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz.

Mr. Dinowitz makes a compelling case regarding the problem of setting quotas for high school admission. However, I would add one important argument to the line of thought.

The mayor’s plan is misguided because it also will result in exchanging one perceived evil of inequity for another, perhaps far worse. Specifically, Mayor de Blasio’s push toward restructuring criteria to something less objective will create a system of patronage to lower the level of scholarship, achievement and fairness in New York City’s schools even further than now exists.

Students, parents, teachers and administrators in a public school community where competition to survive is intense are all too sharply aware that the squeakiest wheels, loudest mouths, most relentless and/or intimidating individuals often bludgeon teachers and administrators into easing up on standards and raising grades unfairly. 

Grades alone cannot be the standard.

Perhaps a combination of both measures — testing and achievement — would even the playing field? But testing should not be disregarded. It’s really a dog-eat-dog world in a public system where most parents cannot afford the absurdly high cost of private schools for their children, and particularly for high school.

The mayor’s plan promises a further free-for-all, and not a pretty one. If test prep costs are problematic, then why not make funds available for every child who wishes to take the course? 

This would seem a lot less radical and softer on the hatchet approach than the current plan, as well as more helpful across the board. 

We all know that the city’s public schools are not fulfilling their mission because of lack of support, lack of funds, and myriad other lacks, with money being the cornucopia that will fill these.

The real answer lies in making available to students, teachers, administrators and parents the resources and plans needed to implement a working, successful system. It can be done. 

Working families of all ethnicity, race, religious beliefs and culture who cannot afford private education have fled city schools nonetheless — often at great personal sacrifice — because of the inherent problems in finding a good education for their children. 

The kids are our greatest asset. Let’s not continue down the primrose path of ill-conceived ideas that will worsen the problem of opportunity instead of improving it. 

In the fight for fairness, we do not need more roads to potential, corrupt unfairness.

Marilyn Reinhardt