Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 4, 2023

BrainStorm Preps for Type A ALS NurOwn Meeting

 BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics concluded 2022 on a cautiously optimistic note as the FDA granted a Type A meeting to discuss the refuse to file letter it served the Israel and New York-based biotech in November for its ALS hopeful, NurOwn.

The meeting is scheduled to take place on Jan. 11th.

BrainStorm is seeking an advisory committee meeting. For context, ALS competitor Amylyx’s Relyvrio (formerly AMX0035) enjoyed the benefit of not one, but two adcomms prior to its September approval.  

BrainStorm believes an adcomm would “serve as an important part of the review process and…provide an open forum for BrainStorm, together with medical experts, statisticians, patients and other members of the ALS community to discuss the body of clinical evidence supporting NurOwn,” Chaim Lebovits, BrainStorm CEO, said in a statement.

The clinical profile of NurOwn, a therapy made up of autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and neurotrophic factors (NTF), is what appears to be in question at the FDA.

Highlights from the nearly three-year regulatory saga include:

  • A high placebo response: In the Phase III trial, NurOwn hit the primary treatment response endpoint, with 34.7% therapy recipients seeing an improvement of 1.5 points per month. However, the placebo response of 27.7% exceeded those of others observed in contemporary ALS trials.
  • A pre-specified subgroup of patients with early-stage disease achieved a meaningful response (34.6%) across all primary and secondary endpoints. This was compared to 15.6% in the placebo group.
  • correction posted by BrainStorm in August to the initial trial results published in Muscle and Nerve. The adjustment resulted in a statistically significant treatment difference of 2 points in average change from baseline on the ALSFRS-R scale.

Despite hopes that the correction would buttress NurOwn’s case, the FDA appeared not to agree, handing down an RTF letter for NurOwn in this indication. The therapy is also being assessed in a Phase II trial in progressive multiple sclerosis.

In the company’s Q3 earnings call, Lebovits said it was clear the regulator still sought “substantial evidence defined by statistically significant results as measured by the endpoints of the Phase III trial.”   

The second RTF spurred frustration from some patient advocacy groups like Stevens Nation, which stated the FDA’s position “ignores the vast evidence of efficacy and denies both the company's and patients' rights of due process.” The group further stated it believes the RTF does not adhere to FDA's own guidance.

In 2019, the FDA implemented the Guidance Document for ALS, which emphasized the regulator’s willingness to "exercise regulatory flexibility" for the "critical unmet need" in ALS.

The FDA doubled down on that commitment in June 2022, when it released the “Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases, Including ALS.”

The five-year strategy aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments. The FDA called it a blueprint for how the agency would “move forward aggressively” to this end.

C-suite Shuffle

On Wednesday, BrainStorm made a series of C-suite moves in what could be a show of confidence in NurOwn’s ability to prevail.

The company announced the promotion of Stacy Lindborg, to the role of co-chief executive officer. Lindborg, currently EVP and chief development officer, will share the CEO responsibilities with Lebovits.

Current president and CMO Ralph Kern will retire from these positions and transition to BrainStorm’s Scientific Advisory Board. Lebovits will re-assume the president title. In an e-mail to BioSpace, BrainStorm confirmed Kern will be in attendance at the Type A meeting.

Lindborg’s promotion “is part of a broader strategic initiative to build out our leadership team and position BrainStorm for success,” Lebovits said in a prepared statement.

He added that Lindborg’s track record in late-stage clinical development and commercial strategy means she is “exceptionally well qualified to guide BrainStorm” as it prepares to enter the next phase as a company.

At Biogen, Lindborg contributed to the approval of spinal muscular atrophy therapy Spinraza as vice president, analytics and data science. She followed this up with a stint as Head of R&D strategy at Eli Lilly.

In a prepared statement Wednesday, Lindborg said she would “relentlessly focus on the regulatory process to secure a path with FDA with the goal to make NurOwn available for ALS patients.”

https://www.biospace.com/article/brainstorm-preps-for-type-a-nurown-meeting-shakes-up-c-suite-for-success-/

GE's health care spinoff in trading debut on Nasdaq

 Trading of GE HealthCare Technologies shares kicked off Wednesday morning, marking its debut as an independent company from General Electric.

GE HealthCare’s stock was trading at a price of roughly $59 on Nasdaq as of 2:30 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday.

Its ticker symbol is GEHC.

In a press release Wednesday, General Electric said it had completed its spinoff of GE HealthCare after the closing bell Tuesday. As part of the separation, GE common stockholders "received one share of GE HealthCare common stock for every three shares of GE common stock held," it said.

Peter Arduini serves as the newly-independent company’s CEO. GE CEO H. Lawrence Culp Jr. holds the position of non-executive chairman at GE HealthCare.

Nasdaq’s opening bell in the morning was rung by Arduini and GE HealthCare workers, according to the stock exchange.

placeholder

"Today is an incredibly exciting day for GE HealthCare as we become an independent company and start a new chapter advancing our position as a global leader in precision care," Arduini said in a statement.

GE’s plans to split into three independent companies focusing on health care, aviation and energy were first unveiled in November 2021. 

The multinational conglomerate’s portfolio of energy units will become an independent company called GE Vernova next year. Meanwhile, the planned aviation-focused company will be GE Aerospace.

TickerSecurityLastChangeChange %
GEHCGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES60.49+4.49+8.02%
GEGENERAL ELECTRIC CO.70.16-14.82-17.44%

GE holds about 20% of GE HealthCare shares, according to a press release from the newly-listed company.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/shares-ge-health-care-spinoff-make-trading-debut-nasdaq

Armata Completes Phase 1b/2a Study of Inhaled AP-PA02 in Cystic Fibrosis

 Armata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE American: ARMP) ("Armata" or the "Company"), a biotechnology company focused on pathogen-specific bacteriophage therapeutics for antibiotic-resistant and difficult-to-treat bacterial infections, today announced that the last subject has completed the company's Phase 1b/2a 'SWARM-P.a.' clinical trial of its lead candidate, AP-PA02, in cystic fibrosis (CF) subjects with chronic pulmonary Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/armata-pharmaceuticals-announces-completion-phase-130000292.html

Biohaven started at Overweight by JPMorgan

 Target $23

https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=BHVN&p=d

Modeling Gone Bad

 A new paper documents that the pre-vaccination case fatality rate was extremely low in the non-elderly population.

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population

Environmental Research, Volume 216, Part 3, 1 January 2023, 114655

Abstract

The largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, and persons living in nursing homes are particularly vulnerable. However, 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The objective of this study was to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and PubMed (protocol: https://osf.io/xvupr), we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data. For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis. The IFRs had a median of 0.034% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.013–0.056%) for the 0–59 years old population, and 0.095% (IQR 0.036–0.119%) for the 0–69 years old. The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years, 0.035% at 40–49 years, 0.123% at 50–59 years, and 0.506% at 60–69 years. IFR increases approximately 4 times every 10 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. 

The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested. 

Large differences did exist between countries and may reflect differences in comorbidities and other factors. These estimates provide a baseline from which to fathom further IFR declines with the widespread use of vaccination, prior infections, and evolution of new variants.

From the data above, Median infection fatality rate (IFR) during the PRE-VACCINATION ERA was:

  • 0.0003% at 0–19 years 
  • 0.002% at 20–29 years
  • 0.011% at 30–39 years
  • 0.035% at 40–49 years
  • 0.123% at 50–59 years
  • 0.506% at 60–69 years
  • 0.034% for people aged 0–59 years people 
  • .095% for those aged 0–69 years.

These IFR estimates in the non-elderly population are much lower than previous calculations and models had suggested.


Does anyone remember back to early 2020? The dire predictions of a global disaster – of a case fatality rate and of an infectivity rate (R0) that were unheard of in modern times for a respiratory disease? The predictions were that the “novel coronavirus,” as it was called then, was going to be the next Spanish flu. That the only solution was for entire nations to lockdown. This was the modeling that caused governments worldwide to panic. This was the modeling that caused the legacy media to melt down.

One scientist who clearly led this effort and led the world astray with his dire forecasting, was Neil Ferguson, PhD of Imperial College. 

Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London has claimed credit for saving millions of lives through the lockdown policies that implemented his models. It is the Imperial College models that projected millions of deaths in the first year in the UK, if stringent lockdowns were not implemented. Once implemented, Ferguson and Imperial college quickly took credit for the “success” of lockdowns.

The estimate of 3.1 million lives saved by Dr. Ferguson was derived from a thoroughly “ludicrous unscientific exercise, whereby they purported to validate their model by using their own hypothetical projections as a counterfactual of what would happen without lockdowns.” Other models and real-world data have discredited Ferguson’s models, but the damage was done. Lockdowns, quarantines, masking, poorly-tested EUA products – such as experimental vaccines have taken their toll on all of us. In the end, what, if any of them were necessary?

Elon Musk calls Ferguson an “utter tool” who does “absurdly fake science.” Jay Schnitzer, an expert in vascular biology and a former scientific direct of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego, tells me: “I’m normally reluctant to say this about a scientist, but he dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan” (National Review).

Again and again, year and year, decade after decade, the NHS and world governments, including our own, have turned to Dr. Ferguson for infectious disease modeling. Ferguson gives them what they want. A reason for the bureaucrats, the administrative state to once more step up and be important. One of his doom-and-gloom models can increase federal disaster preparedness budgets to astronomical proportions. That is raw power for the lowly public health official. What is not to like? 

Except for a singular factoid:

The implication for Ferguson’s work remains clear: the primary model used to justify lockdowns failed its first real-world test.

Ferguson’s predictions of sky-high high case fatality rates were grossly exaggerated.

The lockdowns were a complete and utter failure. 

But this is not Ferguson’s first failed infectious disease modeling stumble upon the world stage. These are two examples of his earlier predictions:

  • Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu during the 2005 outbreak. This prediction was off by an astounding amount, with a grand total of 282 people dying worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
  • In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.  This modeling was what caused so many public health officials to panic, and create a worldwide panic of officials and the populace.

So, why did Boris Johnson and our government turn to his models for guidance early on in the COVID crisis? Why did they accept Ferguson’s assertions that lockdowns would work, without any evidence or public policy guidance indicating that such draconian measures would have any impact whatsoever?

Were they just that naive?


Here is where it gets even crazier. There are those who passionately argue that the modeling that Ferguson did back in early 2020 is proof that 1) the “non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns and masks) worked because (circular logic here) his modeling predictions didn’t come true and 2) that the vaccines worked beyond all measure because again, his modeling predictions didn’t come true. 

Yet, here we are. An important new paper (discussed above) documenting that the pre-vaccination case fatality rate was extremely low in the non-elderly population. That means more evidence the Ferguson’s models were wrong (again) and what do we hear from the state-sponsored media?

Crickets.

A colleague of mine who is in the US Senate reported back to me recently that Republican senators were high-fiving each other about the success of Warp-speed based on Ferguson’s modeling data in a recently paper.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

https://brownstone.org/articles/modeling-gone-bad/

Patients Need Better Policy to Benefit from Forthcoming Alzheimer’s Innovations

 A wave of new innovations from several companies, including Biogen, Eli Lilly, and Eisai, have started to show promise in slowing down the harmful transition of Alzheimer’s disease into its most debilitating stages. But some have questioned whether these treatments would make a meaningful difference for Alzheimer’s patients or to society at large.

In a new University of Chicago study, we found that slowing the transition from the mildest forms of Alzheimer’s to its more severe stages would greatly benefit the 6.5 million Americans afflicted by the disease as well as their caregivers. It would also ease the burden on Medicare, which in 2021 bore the lion’s share of $321 billion in health care spending for Alzheimer’s patients—and a chunk of the $272 billion in additional caregiver costs.

Of course, realizing this value requires policies that allow patients to gain access to new treatments. The FDA is currently reviewing multiple promising new treatments that target amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the early indicators of Alzheimer’s. Recent evidence suggests promising clinical effects from these types of treatments. Unfortunately, FDA approval may not ensure access as CMS, the agency that administers Medicare, is currently restricting access to them. .

Typically, CMS covers FDA approved drugs, including drugs approved under accelerated approval -- a regulatory pathway FDA has employed for 30 years to facilitate earlier access to drugs that address serious conditions with an unmet medical need.  But in 2022 CMS broke with norms by issuing a National Coverage Decision that restricted access not only to the first approved Alzheimer’s drugs but to all future drugs in the same class, yet to be approved.  As it stands, even if FDA deems these news drugs safe and efficacious, CMS requires additional evidence generated through studies before it will cover them for Medicare patients. This will create significant access barriers for patients, as well as uncertainty for innovators about the path to market for new Alzheimer’s drugs.

Most debate has focused on the cost of approving these drugs because no robust assessments have examined the cost of not approving them -- until now. In our analysis, we considered the value of a potential new therapy for Alzheimer’s that would slow patients’ progression from mild to moderate disease by six months to three years—the range of future gains considered by many discussions in peer-reviewed journals. Before people reach moderate disease, they are much more likely to be able to do activities key to remaining independent, such as shopping and cooking, maintaining appointments and hobbies, talking on the telephone, and discussing current events.

We found that a when patients transition from mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, their health care costs triple. We calculated a one-year delay of this transition would have a value to the U.S. of $200 billion to $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years where the range reflects different proportions assumed treated and the valuation of health gains. When we added in patients with an even earlier form of Alzheimer’s, known as mild cognitive impairment, and we conservatively assumed they would experience the same length of the delay as mildly affected patients, we found the overall value could expand to a range of nearly $300 billion to $1.8 trillion.

Nearly 60 percent of this overall value stemmed from reduced health care spending, about one quarter from better health for both Alzheimer’s patients and their caregivers, and the rest to reduced burdens for caregivers. On an individual basis for a one-year delay, those values translate into $34.2 thousand per person from reduced health care spending, $7.9 thousand from reduced burden to caregivers and $23.6 thousand in improved health outcomes, using standard government metrics assessing the value in health gains of $150,000 per QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Our aggregate values of delaying the disease were then obtained by multiplying these individual values with conventional estimates of the size of the mild Alzheimer’s population over the next decade.

Savings could be particularly large for Medicare, which covers nearly all Alzheimer’s patients and nearly half their total health care costs. We calculate Medicare would save up to $340 billion over a decade from innovations that delay patients’ transition from mild to moderate disease. Savings for patients with mild cognitive impairment could drive that number even higher.

Medicare coverage for new Alzheimer’s treatments could yield tremendous value for patients and their caregivers, taxpayers, and the health system at large. CMS should embrace these innovations and the potential relief they offer for this debilitating disease.

Mr. Philipson is an economist at the University of Chicago. He was a member and acting chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, 2017-20.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/01/03/patients_need_better_policy_to_benefit_from_forthcoming_alzheimers_innovations_873688.html

With Schools Ditching Merit for Diversity, Families of High Achievers Head for the Door

 Alex Shilkrut has deep roots in Manhattan, where he has lived for 16 years, works as a physician, and sends his daughter to a public elementary school for gifted students in coveted District 2. 

It’s a good life. But Shilkrut regretfully says he may leave the city, as well as a job he likes in a Manhattan hospital, because of sweeping changes in October that ended selective admissions in most New York City middle schools. 

These merit-based schools, which screened for students who met their high standards, will permanently switch to a lottery for admissions that will almost certainly enroll more blacks and Latinos in the pursuit of racial integration.  

Shilkrut is one of many parents who are dismayed by the city’s dismantling of competitive education. He says he values diversity but is concerned that the expectation that academic rigor will be scaled back to accommodate a broad range of students in a lottery is what’s driving him and other parents to seek alternatives.

Although it’s too early to know how many students might leave the school system due to the enrollment changes, some parents say they may opt for private education at $50,000 a year and others plan to uproot their lives for the suburbs despite the burdens of such moves. 
 
“We will very likely leave the public schools,” says Shilkrut, adding that he knows 10 Manhattan families who also plan to depart. “And if these policies continue, there won’t be many middle- and upper middle-class families left in the public schools.” 

A National Battle Over Merit 

The battle in New York City is an example writ large of a high-stakes gamble playing out in cities across the country – essentially a large experiment in urban education aiming to improve the decades-old lag in performance of mostly black and Latino students. By ending screened admissions that segregate poorer performers and instead placing them in lottery schools with higher achievers, the theory goes, all students benefit.   
 
But the research cuts both ways on the academic impact of mixed-ability classrooms, and many New York City parents say they don’t want to roll the dice on their kids’ education. If a large number of families do exit the city’s public schools in 2023, it would mean another financial blow to a system that has already lost more than 100,000 students since the beginning of the pandemic. Yet some of these parents may decide to remain in the public system and augment their kids’ education with advanced after-school classes, a common practice. 

“When desegregation policies have been adopted in other cities, some parents who object stick it out and adapt,” says David Armor, a professor emeritus at George Mason University who has extensively researched integration policies. “But I would expect some degree of middle-class flight in New York City given how the lottery is going to change the academic composition of the middle schools.” 
 
Diversity advocates – school educators, local politicians, and progressive nonprofits and parents – dismiss the threat of an exodus as scaremongering while they score wins. In Park Slope, Brooklyn, an affluent, progressive NYC neighborhood, it was parents who led the charge to end selective middle schools several years ago in a prelude to the citywide policy shift this fall. But Park Slope isn’t representative of the more moderate politics of much of the city like Manhattan’s District 2, where most parents at a recent series of community meetings strongly backed selective education.  

Nationwide, about 185 school districts and charters in 39 states have adopted integration policies, ranging from redrawing school boundaries to preferential admissions for low-income and black and Latino students, according to the Century Foundation, an advocacy group. A quarter of them have been implemented since 2017.  

“Students benefit educationally and socially from racially and economically integrated schools,” says a report from New York Appleseed, an advocacy group that lobbied for the removal of admission screens. “Society and our political systems benefit from the reduction in racial prejudice.”  
 
But advocates don’t win them all, suffering a remarkable setback in progressive San Francisco in 2022. After the Board of Education angered some parents, particularly Asian Americans, by shifting Lowell, the city’s premier selective high school, to a lottery system during the pandemic, a grassroots campaign formed and successfully recalled three members in a landslide vote. The new board voted to keep screened enrollment at Lowell. 

NYC Rolls Back Selective Ed 

The retreat from selective middle schools in New York City gained momentum during the pandemic. Prior to COVID, almost 200 of the city’s middle schools, or nearly half the total, used enrollment screens, typically grades and test scores, to select high achievers.  

Whites and Asians won a disproportionate number of seats in these competitive schools, creating a form of segregation based on academic performance. For instance, at Salk School of Science, a junior high in District 2, these groups accounted for three-fourths of the enrollment, with blacks and Latinos taking less than a quarter of the seats even though they make up two-thirds of all students in NYC’s system. 

During the pandemic, middle schools suspended screened admissions because standardized testing had been temporarily paused – and that gave diversity advocates an opening to lobby for a permanent end of selective middle schools.  

NYC Department of Education Chancellor David Banks, a black man who rose up the ranks from school security officer, recently got a taste of bitter politics of integration after making a politically incorrect comment in favor of merit-based education. The blunt-spoken chancellor was pilloried as “evil” on Twitter for saying that students who work harder deserve to go to a top school compared to those who need water thrown on their face to get them to class. As a former principal, Banks was speaking from experience.  

But perhaps due to the political pressure, rather than ordering the restoration of screening, Banks punted. He told his superintendents who run more than 30 districts to solicit feedback from parents and then decide whether to bring them back. 

In October, the superintendents mostly sided with progressives, dropping screened admissions permanently in more than 130 middle schools and restoring the practice in almost 60 of them for enrollment in fall 2023. Some parents cheered the sea change, arguing it’s wrong to pressure young children in 4th grade to compete for selective middle schools. 

“Screens end up excluding black students and English language learners and those from low-income families,” says Nyah Berg, the executive director of New York Appleseed. “It’s fundamentally unsound to judge the worthiness of a student who is nine years old to attend a middle school based on their test scores and grades.” 

But many other parents, particularly in District 2, are appalled by the rollback of meritocracy. The district covers a large swath of Manhattan, from the affluent Upper East Side and Midtown to Greenwich Village and the financial district. It is also home to a disproportionate share of high performing students. 

One District 2 mom, who taught in city public schools for six years, says she and her husband have already bought a house in Riverside, Conn., where schools provide accelerated education. They plan to move there if they can’t afford a private school in the city. 

“It’s 100% certain that our children won’t go to an unscreened school,” says the mother, who asked not to be named because she has two kids in public elementary school. “It’s heartbreaking because I grew up in the city and went to public schools. But the standards are falling now.” 

The major problem with mixed-ability classrooms, particularly in an unscreened urban school, is the remarkably large difference in skill levels that teachers will likely encounter, says Jonathan Plucker, a professor of education at Johns Hopkins University who researches student achievement gaps. Some middle school students may be at least three years behind their grade level and others three years ahead, making it next to impossible for a teacher to give struggling students the attention they need while challenging advanced students with specialized curriculums.  
 
“The idea that everyone benefits in a mixed-ability classroom is an ideological statement that flies in the face of all the evidence we have, which is very mixed,” Plucker says. “And not just for advanced students. It’s not clear that struggling students benefit either.”

The Exodus

The New York City school system, the nation’s largest, has been losing students for years. With about 1.1 million students at its peak, the system began shedding students in about 2016, which some experts attributed to a decline in the birth rate.  

The drop-off accelerated in this and other cities nationwide during the pandemic. Many parents left after seeing the harm done to their children by remote learning when teachers, backed by their union, refused to return to the classroom. Families of all races, particularly blacks, and all income levels exited public schools for charters, homeschools, and mostly for an education outside New York City in New Jersey and in southern states like Florida. 

By 2022, the city’s schools were down to about 900,000 students, a remarkable 10% drop from two years earlier.  

Nothing is more dangerous to the city’s schools than the loss of students. State funding is based on head count, and the decline already forced Mayor Eric Adams to cut more than $200 million from the education budget this summer.  

 
Future cutbacks may jeopardize a major reform approved in September that requires the city to reduce the size of its large classes – high school classes now capped at 34 students will go down to 25. The goal is to lift the abysmally low English and math test scores of city public school students, with more than half of them failing to achieve proficiency in these key areas in 2022.

“I have no doubt that some parents in areas like the Upper East Side will leave the city because of the elimination of screens,” says Ray Domanico, a longtime researcher of the city’s school enrollment both within the system and now at the conservative Manhattan Institute. “With significantly fewer kids enrolled today, the city shouldn’t be pushing policies that could drive more families away.” 

When the City Lured Families Back 

Selective middle schools were created decades ago to keep middle-class families in the city as crime was pushing them to the suburbs in large numbers. By the 1990s, as the soaring murder rate began to recede and more people moved into less inhabited areas of District 2, parents began to demand better schools, Domanico says. 

The school system chose to respond to those families by setting up screened schools,” he says. “The city wanted to appeal to better-educated parents of all racial groups who had good jobs.” 

In District 2, officials rolled out screened middle and high schools that quickly gained a reputation for excellence, including the Salk School of Science on East 20th Street in 1995. 
 
The schools helped lure white and Asian families to the district. In the following two decades, the number of white students in the district rose to 26% in 2020up from 19% in 2003, according to state enrollment data. More Asian students enrolled in the district too, bringing their total to 22%, while the number of black students fell to 14% from 22%. Latinos, the largest group, declined as well.   

Chien Kwok, a Chinese-American, was part of that transformation of District 2. He was working in China when his child was accepted into a gifted and talented elementary program in the district, prompting his family to move back to Manhattan.  
 
“District 2 had a real draw for parents,” says Kwok, the treasurer of the district’s Community Education Council, which gives parents a voice in school policy. “You could work in the city, send your kids to a great gifted and talented elementary program, then to an awesome screened middle school, and high schools are the best. It was a meritocratic feeder system that is now destroyed.” 

Parents Back Selective Admissions  

The battle over District 2 middle schools came to a head this fall. At four community meetings attended by the district’s superintendent, Kelly McGuire, a large majority of parents and advocates spoke in favor of restoring screened admissions. The meetings added weight to resolutions already passed by the district’s CEC supporting competitive admissions.  

So in late October, when McGuire announced he was imposing a permanent lottery for admission at all of the about 17 middle schools that had used screens, parents were flabbergasted.  

It didn’t help his cause that the day before his announcement, McGuire’s wife, Judith Kafka, a professor of educational policy at City University of New York, co-wrote an opinion piece against screened admissions. She said that competition for admission hurts all students, and quoted a parent in Park Slope who prefers a lottery because it ends the stress that comes with striving for high marks and a seat in a good school.  
 
Parents in District 2 were offended by the article. To them, it suggested that McGuire always intended to ignore their views and instead wanted to persuade them using his wife as a surrogate.  

At a community meeting in November following McGuire’s decision, parents directed their fury directly at the superintendent.  

“I am now looking for private schools for my son,” said CEC member Danyela Souza Egorov. “But so many families in our district have reached out to me that they cannot afford it. It's deeply unfair that your plan does not meet the needs of these families.” 
 
McGuire responded that he did hear the community’s call for accelerated learning. But rather than restoring competitive schools that stress out families, the superintendent said he’s creating a new honors math course in four middle schools for those who qualify, and all schools will offer eligible 8th graders an advanced biology course and algebra, which is sometimes taught in 9th grade. 

For reading and writing, McGuire said, middle schools will continue to differentiate instruction, in which students pick books and essay topics to match their own proficiency levels. 

The changes, he told parents, “dramatically increase the number of accelerated learning options for students in our district.” 

CEC member Kaushik Das didn’t agree, calling McGuire’s honors offerings “meager scraps.” 

When Mixed-Ability Schools Fail 

Parents see a big difference between the defunct selective schools, once full of strivers and bright minds, and the new mixed-ability schools that will try to tailor instruction to learners of widely differing skills and motivation.  

Hunter Dare’s daughter learned this lesson at Simon Baruch, which became a District 2 lottery school during the pandemic. The sixth grader was three years ahead of her peers in math in a classroom with some students working at the second-grade level. The teacher’s response was to give the girl an algebra textbook for self-study and promised to work with her when time permitted. But that never happened.  

She was bored in her other classes as well, and was handed only 15 minutes of homework a day. 
 
“It was bad because she wasn’t challenged and she just lost interest in school and started slipping backwards, not doing things she was supposed to do,” says her father.  
 
Dare was considering leaving the city for a better school for his daughter. But she got lucky in the 2022 lottery and was placed in the Baccalaureate School for Global Education in Queens, which Dare calls one of the few remaining highly rigorous middle school programs in the city. His daughter’s motivation is back as she tackles at least two hours of homework a night.  

Another mother in District 2 calls her son’s experience during the pandemic at the unscreened Robert Wagner middle school “a disaster.” In English class on most days, she said, 25 students spent much of the period reading a variety of unchallenging fantasy and sports books. So there was little opportunity for a dynamic class discussion around a compelling literary topic. Instead, the teacher walked around the classroom and briefly talked individually to students. They avoided tackling difficult authors from Toni Morrison to William Shakespeare whose works require more elucidation and class discussion.  

“Advocates say students learn best in mixed-ability classrooms, but in fact nobody really learned much from their reading in my son’s class, and that’s terrible,” says the mother, who asked not to be named because her children are still in public schools.  

She says she won’t put her younger child in an unscreened District 2 middle school after seeing one up close. Instead, the family will likely decamp to Connecticut, where they recently bought a home. 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/01/04/with_schools_ditching_merit_for_diversity_families_of_high_achievers_say_were_out_of_here_872909.html