A reader from New York City looked at New York City’s website to examine disparities between schools with high poverty rates and schools with low poverty. She asks these questions:
The leadership at the New York City Department of Education has refused to acknowledge the impact of the concentration of poor students in schools on student outcomes. In a letter to the NY Times the city’s #2 education official, Mr. Shael Suransky wrote “I contest [the] calculation that “schools with wealthier students are three times more likely to get an A than schools serving the poor.”” The truth is that the city’s own data shows that among the 5% of elementary schools with the lowest poverty rates there were 14 A’s while among the 5% with the highest there were 4 A’s. Perhaps Mr. Suransky meant that he contests that calculation because the facts are much worse. In fact, wealthier schools are three and a half times more likely to get an A.
Even as we look at a broader swath of elementary schools the gap continues to exist. The richest 10% of schools received 23 A’s and the poorest 10% received 11 A’s (a 2.1:1 ratio). The richest 20% of schools received 38 A’s and the poorest 20% received 19A’s (a 2:1 ratio).
Why the refusal to acknowledge facts?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Inconvenient truths tend to do damage to hidden agendas
That should be on a tee-shirt
Because they do not want to confront the elephant in the room–that their policies have exacerbated segregation by class and race. In their crass attempt to bring more middle class, white students into the system (along with their potentially high test scores) they create racial isolation through choice and test-in. This game is the oldest in the book. Well resourced schools, with thoughtful choice that promoted balance could have averted this. How in NYC do you have a Stuyvesant HS with 5% Black and Hispanic and low poverty? The ONLY entrance criteria is one test. NYC needs to read Hobsen vs Hanson…a decision from the 60s on tests and racial sorting.
Facts??? We don’t need no stinkin facts!!!
At one time, Stuyvesant was 99% white, Jewish and male.Today, in New York City’s Chinatown I see lamp post circulars advertising in Chinese Stuyvesant HS prep courses for ages seven and up.
The elephant in the room is that no matter how level the playing firld is, some people will always resent the results.
Do not tilt the playing field to favor poor players. Rather, help the poor players become better academic competitors.
Do not destroy the great centers of learning, Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech et al, for specious reasons.
This post is not about the testing schools but about the maldistribution of funding