The issue here is not Penn necessarily.  It¹s any corporate entity who
exploits educational inequities in urban public schools in order to make
money.

Throwing up one¹s hands and saying that Penn, (or any other business),
cannot solve the problems of a flawed public education system, so they might
as well make it good for the Œhaves² within their employ is not exactly kid
to children either.

The public school system wasn¹t just flawed; it was a concerted effort of
many entities to make it the flawed, bereft system we have today.  Through
the removal of resources available previously to public school students in
response to desegregated school decisions by the government, neighborhoods
who began to integrate, the system was stripped stone by stone of its
resources.  It¹s not who moves in, but who moves out and takes the resources
with them.

Those who were left behind would not be able to access those resources and
have the sort of education that would make them competitive with their
³public school² counterparts across the City Line.

Now, the converse is taking place with the help of private corporations such
as Penn, (but not solely Penn).

What I found most interesting about the article in PW is the quote form a
neighbor who has noted the reduction of African-American families in the
area in the time they have lived there.  I have been saying for years and
endured vehement denials from others this would be the result of all
Penn-influenced situation.

Usually one is glad to be slightly vindicated but not in this case.


On 5/26/08 9:07 AM, "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "But I am not sure I understand what you are saying is Penn's fault?  That
> they created an excellent K-8 public school that makes it easier for their
> staff and faculty to live in the neighborhood if they have kids?...
> 
> I don't believe that you can ask Penn to try to solve the problems of a public
> school system that is tremendously flawed by dramatically changing the way
> they run their one little site."
>  
> Guy,
>  
> Thanks for clearing up the topic for me.  I was very confused.
>  
> But why do you say I hate good children?  Is it because I prefer honesty to
> deception?  Or is it because I'm not ruthless?
>  
> After you answer, I'd be happy to continue a discussion.
>  
>  
> Glenn
>  
>  
>>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>  
>> From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected]
>>  
>> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:12 PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [UC] PW article, catchment  and real estate
>>  
>> 
>> Glen,  
>> 
>> It is certainly a shame that public  education leaves so many unprepared for
>> the real world.
>> 
>> But I am not  sure I understand what you are saying is Penn's fault?  That
>> they  created an excellent K-8 public school that makes it easier for their
>> staff  and faculty to live in the neighborhood if they have kids?
>> 
>> Phila  public education is not a "zero sum game" where there's only so many
>> quality  teachers and quality students that if they all congregate at 43rd
>> and Spruce  at Sadie Alexander that there won't be enough left for the other
>> schools.  
>> 
>> In addition, Penn doesn't have an obligation to change  the course of Phila
>> public education.  They do have a need to make the  surrounding area as
>> livable, safe, and attractive that they won't have a need  to build a
>> fortress around the campus.  Yes, since they are creating an  excellent
>> public school they could try to solve more of Philly's public  education
>> problem while they are at it, but I don't really fault them for  stopping
>> where they do.  There are plenty of neighborhood kids getting an  excellent
>> education at Sadie Alexander presently.  Why fault Penn for not  changing the
>> dynamic of public education in all of West Philly and SW  Philly?  Isn't that
>> too much to ask?
>> 
>> I guess I don't see a  negative to creating this wonderful educational
>> opportunity.  The fact  that it also raises real estate values is not a
>> nefarious plot by Penn, it's  the realities of a market driven society.  The
>> alternative is to have no  school.  I don't believe that you can ask Penn to
>> try to solve the  problems of a public school system that is tremendously
>> flawed by dramatically  changing the way they run their one little site.
>> 
>> Guy
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original  Message-----
>> From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To:  [email protected]
>> Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 7:34 am
>> Subject: [UC] PW  article, catchment and real estate
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Philadelphia Weekly has a  short interesting article (a snapshot) about the
>> confluence of  education, real estate and gentrification issues here in our
>> upscale  village.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/17058/news
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> In this short piece, it corroborates a  point that was widely discussed here.
>> The description  captures how the Penn catchment area was drawn around the
>> potential real estate value of housing stock.  The lines aren't drawn
>> logically around neighborhoods or existing residents, but instead are
>> obviously based on real estate value projections.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I hope Philadelphia readers consider what happens  to public education under
>> the model!  As long as elite schools and  catchment rules are carved out for
>> elite neighborhoods, do we really need to  dedicate any resources to the kids
>> of the "prostitues, gang members, and drug  addicts" who have been pushed to
>> the poor schools and poor areas????  The  parents have long been a business
>> write off for society.  Are the kids  far behind?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Any thoughts about the article?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Glenn
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>  Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone
> <http://mobile.aol.com/productOverview.jsp?productOverview=aol-mobile-overview
> &amp;?ncid=aolmbd00030000000139> .
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.  
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008
> 8:56 AM
> 


Reply via email to