I am not even saying it is the starving and squeezing of funds from poor areas.
In as far as Black people moving and disinvestment and stripping of funds from inner cities, it was because Whites moved OUT this occurred. Now we are seeing the reverse, Whites moving back IN and re-investment in the afore bereft areas. I witnessed it as a kid first-hand as a student in the Philadelphia Public Schools, I have taught in the system a long time and paid a LOT of my own money in order to be able to try to keep my students competitive and THEN some. I am also a good study of what has happened in similar neighborhoods round the country. On 4/6/08 3:57 PM, "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- 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>.
