Michael Brocoum recounts his experience as a New York City public school teacher:
“I was a teacher at the Bayard Rustin High School for the Humanities in NYC from 1990 – 2010 and taught before at several other schools in NYC. I also taught Economics as an adjunct at the State Univ. of NY at Farmingdale before that (1975-77).
“BRHS was an excellent school with students opting to attend that didn’t make it into Stuyvesant. Also students that were accepted opted to attend BRHS because of its reputation. A significant number of students were children of diplomats. In other words, well fed and motivated students, involved parents, great staff with great results.
“Some students went on to Ivy League schools, one of mine is a reporter on NBC Evening News, another won a film award from an NYC program rewarding student’s creativity (I don’t recall specific details). Overall a very good school by any standard.
“Then Mayor Bloomberg became, well, mayor. Worse still he gained absolute control and the whole situation was made even worse when Bill Gates decided he wanted to fund a small school movement. There is a lot to explain but not interested reliving all that happened. Simply put we were sent the most difficult and needy students, not violent for the most part, but students reading at 5th or 6th grade levels and also far behind in math skills.
“To make a long story short, good school at the beginning of Bloomberg’s mayoralty, closure near the end of it. I retired in disgust. By the way, Bill Gates admitted his small school program was a failure. He walked away harmless and we were left “holding the bag”.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Look at the cities where mayors have control; what else do they have in common ( besides extreme hubris)?
So how do we, as a nation, refuse to allow the mayors of our cities to gain control of our schools? This practice obviously needs to STOP before elected school boards are extinct.
And Chicago is faring even worse. I predict that Rahm will insure Chicago goes the way of Detroit.
As George Carlin would say, “There’s a club and you(and me) ain’t in it”. People need to wake up!
I am not all that familier with NYC high schools. Stuyvesant apparently had (and has) admission criteria (based on a standardized exam). Did Bayard Rustin also have admission requirements?
No admission requirements
BRHS did not have admission requirements.
Good to know. The discription of many diplomat’s children through me. It did not seem like a neighborhood school, but the. again I don’t know New York City neighborhoods very well.
I am having a bit of trouble understanding cherry picking issues. Charter schools are criticized, rightly so, for the cherry picking at first enrollment, and suspicious demographics regarding gradual loss of students…attrition. I tell people that there are differences between what the charters do, kind of under the radar, and what magnet schools do…..make it clear that there are standards to be met and that they are geared to a small percentage of students. Gifted programs are like that, too. I need a bit more context to understand the complaint, which does seem reasonable.
The criticism of cherry picking generally revolves around the students not chosen. Even asking for an application is seen as a screen that selects students from more active families to charter schools even if admission is random and no “games” are played. The explicit achievement based standards of some magnet schools and gifted programs is an even more effective screen, leading to the strongest students leaving neighborhood schools, worsening the education of those left behind. I have never seen any discussion on here about an allowable percentage of students to cherry pick before the neighborhood school suffers.
A related issue but not really cherry picking that was popular on this blog some time ago was the potential destruction of neighborhoods if students did not all go to the same school. Magnet programs would presumably have the same impact on the community.
I’m in favor of magnet and selective schools and don’t think that’s where the problem lies.
I think the problem is when a school claims to be operating under the same rules such as when charters claim to take everyone via lottery but have a defacto screen and then says “look at how much better I am” when they have stronger students to begin with.
If you have a stated magnet and non magnet school you’d never hold them to the same standards and you should hopefully be able to get each the resources it needs.
The big lie is when you claim you’re the same as a neighborhood unscreened but in fact are not.
I don’t know that charter claims are a problem for students left behind.
What about having charter schools that specialize in a particular approach to education like a language immersion school or Montessori school? That would clearly differentiate it from a neighborhood school.
Bayard Rustin HS was not broken and no one WAS trying to fix it. They were deliberately engaging in a process they knew would ultimately DESTROY the school. Hence, another citation for why dismantle and privatize the system. Those kids who could not read or compute on grade level ALSO were not served by their placement. Everyone was harmed and we must get our minds around the treachery. If they entered the building by force and with death in their eyes, we teachers would get it, wouldn’t we? Well they did just that and we did not see it coming until it was too late. Or maybe it is not too late?