Re: [UC] PW article, catchment and real estateYes exactly, it is at the center
of "prevailing winds." It plays well to anger and ignorance!
Ignoring issues like the tremendous disparity in funding, people buy in to the
anger driven sound bites. "Soft on crime, welfare queens, and lazy teachers"
all make wonderfully stupid little sound bites for an angry ignorant population
consuming corporate media.
Millions of dollars are spent to keep the funding gap and ignorance permanent
with sound bites. Organizations like the one Craig and Andrew shared
information, Baeo, do their part. That organization pushes privatizing
schools.
The lazy teacher argument is again at the center of the privatizing schemes.
Transferring the remaining education resources in underfunded districts to
corporate profit is completely downplayed. Corporations promise to smash the
teachers unions so a few people deserve to become filthy rich! (I remember
that rant that I believe you posted, in which the woman angrily raves that
teachers don't deserve minimum wage!)
If thinking people don't look for tongue and cheek ways to laugh off the
ignorance, what could we do except cry! Don't forget that some of us still
understand the value of teachers, and we are aware of the heroic efforts
teachers must make in underfunded systems!
But stupidity rules the prevailing winds-cleaner and safer, freedom and
democracy, community engagement, and lazy teachers.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: Wilma de Soto
To: Glenn ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity listserv
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] PW article, catchment and real estate
I DO hope the lazy teacher comment was tongue-in-cheek. (I believe so anyway)
It's a direct quote from the political "prevailing winds'"
On 5/26/08 9:47 PM, "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
" 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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Glenn <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity
listserv <mailto:[email protected]>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
