----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilma de Soto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "UnivCity listserv" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Uses of gentrification (Was: Re: Penn schools)
It would be my pleasure to address this point.
Adequate funding for this school system with many poor students was gutted
when middle-class students started fleeing in the late 60's and early
70's.
Adequate funding for poor kids in a school district should NEVER depend
upon
the presence of middle-class students. That's the crux of the educational
inequity that exist in our country's school district.
The poor kids should get what the middle-class kids get, whether they
attend
the same school buildings or not.
If the only way poor kids can get adequate funding is to be in close
proximity to middle-class kids, there's something wrong. If the self-same
poor kids get displaced because the district wishes to restructure the
school in the name of attracting even more middle-class kids, that's a
large
part of gentrifying, whether it is done with Penn's backing or any other
well-heeled institution.
Well said.
The need for grand schemes is a grand lie. The undeniable root problem has
been the starving and squeezing of funds for poor areas. It's a lie that
solutions to public school problems are illusory. Putting that spin out
helps to maintain the funding gap through deception. If a third of the
people want the unequal system and another third are deceived, that keeps
the unfair system in place. Periodically, we are offered some bandaid
schemes that I call smoke and mirrors.
Having a system in which teachers need to use their salaries for supplies is
a good symbol of the depth of the real problem.
It seems we are often told that anything less than turning all control over
to profiteers is stupid and impossible. This game is very reprehensible
with schools because its helpless kids we're talking about. It reminds me
of managed healthcare. To lower health care costs we had to control
wasteful doctors and out of control patients.
But we were told that sending half of our healthcare resources to insurance
companies was the only possible answer. Well it didn't work out very well.
The idea that redrawing boundaries around wealthy areas to receive a larger
share of resources while lowering resources and raisng barriers for
disadvantaged kids creating a trickle down effect is contemptuous.
The ten year tax abatement says it all. The claim supporting the diversion
of resources to gentrification goals is that a benefit is coming from giving
the supeior classes welfare. If we draw lines around the new condos for
good schools, funds have to be diverted. Since the middle class condo
families pay little into the system, the existing pot of money has to be
reallocated to do this.
If the system doesn't receive enough money now, how does diverting it to
wealthier new arrivals solve the problems for the poor kids?
These business schemes should be seen for the smoke and mirrors that they
really are. It does no good for us to throw the baby out with the bath
water. The promises we're fed don't come true and we don't learn the cost
or the harm until it is far too late. Better to ask the questions and keep
democratic principals intact.
Glenn
I have seen that and although I do not agree with it, I can accept that
would be the result. Can you?
On 4/6/08 10:21 AM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wilma,
Can you please address one of my central points directly? It is that
adequate funding for a school system with many poor students needs many
middle-class students as well, in order to guarantee funding for the
needs of the poor. You've been around this block a few times; what do
you think?
My take on gentrification is that, just like public education, it is
complex. My gut tells me gentrification causes the most collateral
damage when it is fast and poorly planned; it is most beneficial when it
is gradual and thoroughly chewed.
-- Tony West
Wilma de Soto wrote:
Gentrification in and of itself is not the problem in my opinion. My
issue
is that with gentrification the very people of which you speak are not
usually around to reap the benefits of same. They are usually displaced.
This goes beyond West Philly or UC but other inner cities in the US.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 4/6/2008
11:12 AM
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
