Re: [UC] PW article, catchment and real estate" It's 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 "public
school" 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."
Wilma, I feel the same about the vindication! What you say is all true.
But good people in the district are supposed to claim that the real estate
schemes are all designed as Penn/corporate charity. Everyone important is
happy. Gentrification is the only potential hope for excluded city families.
Questions about gentrification are the same as hate mail for the kids that
belong on the wrong side of the tracks.
The only education issue in poor districts is lazy teachers. And if we turn
education over to for profit corporations, we can have a soda and candy machine
in every classroom!
Do you remember when the corporate soda machines were the great hope for public
education?
Kids can't get vegetables or art teachers but high profit sugar water is
plentiful. One of those funny "charitable schemes" that isn't very funny
afterall.
Crazy Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: Wilma de Soto
To: Glenn ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity listserv
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] PW article, catchment and real estate
The issue here is not Penn necessarily. It's any corporate entity who
exploits educational inequities in urban public schools in order to make money.
Throwing up one's 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 'haves" within their employ is not exactly kid to children
either.
The public school system wasn't 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. It's 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 "public
school" 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&?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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1466 - Release Date: 5/25/2008
6:49 PM
