Interesting points. To which, the following notes.
Penn does subsidize PAS, and thus the area that feeds it. However, this
is not, so far as I know, "supposed to look like ... real market
forces"; it just is what it is, a subsidy. Penn also subsidizes the
areas served by Lea and Wilson. Neither, for that matter, is this
"supposed to look like public school education"; it actually, wholly is
public school education.
The split over PAS' service did destroy solidarity between University
City community groups. The Penn/School District Partnership ultimately
chose the Spruce Hill model and Spruce Hill as a neighborhood made out
well as a result. Left out of Ray's report, though, is why Penn and the
School District made that choice. Ray implies it can only have been due
to some unspecified real-estate cahootsiness, with mighty SHCA at the
center (presumably the Penn professors who live in Garden Court had less
clout in Rodin's office than the professors who live in Spruce Hill).
Perhaps.... Entirely unconsidered, though, is the possibility the School
District simply did not want to run a lottery-driven ES/MS. There aren't
a lot of models for such an experiment elsewhere in the system. The
final form PAS took certainly fits better into the School District's
overall bureaucracy. Perhaps it also makes less work for GSE's bureaucracy.
One vociferous critic of Penn today, was a "passive consumer" of Penn's
mortgage assistance program during the era Ray cites.
The statement that gentrification in University City differs from
gentrification in Northern Liberties because it is "PENNtrification"
here, is a tautology that conveys no information at all. Each
neighborhood is influenced by its own indigenous market forces. In NL
the local economy is dominated by successful skilled arts and crafts, in
UC by successful universities. So? How does the end result differ? Can
poor people now buy new homes along N. 2nd St. any more easily than
along S. 43rd St.?
Finally, most Penn-assisted buyers are "wealthier" than the very poor --
but they are far from being wealthy on average. The homeowning
Penn-assisted neighbors I know best are not wealthy, and at least one is
not even prosperous. Would any Penn employees care to comment on list?
-- Tony West
what if penn subsidizes a school, and subsidizes the area that feeds
it, and it's all supposed to look like public school education and
real market forces?
into this penn brought about a public school as part of an 'integrated
approach'; our role was to be passive consumers and appreciative,
cooperative partners. during that time some of us, like shca, were
more cooperative with drawing the boundaries for that agenda than
others (in 1998 shca and uchs had been asked by penn to help plan the
new school. in 2000 a catchment area for the new penn-assisted school
was drawn and shca supported it, in opposition to uccc, which voted
for a lottery; shca left the uccc. then in 2001 uchs and shca joined
efforts to nominate the spruce hill historic district). and during
this time some of us, like penn faculty and staff with penn's enhanced
mortgage assistance program (begun in 1998), were better passive
consumers than others (those who were not affiliated with penn).
as a result, 'gentrification' (or, as rodin called it,
'revitalization' or 'stabilization') in university city is not like
gentrification in northern liberties or fishtown or bella vista,
because gentrification in university city is PENNtrification (as
obsolete new-left jackasses smothered in polemical ruminations might
say).
today, wealthier folks can choose to live inside or outside the
catchment area, but poorer folks, obviously, do not have the luxury of
that choice. today philly weekly points out how much more houses now
cost inside the catchment area than outside, according to urban & bye
realtors, and the article relates how one block in the catchment area
has seen the number of african american families go from 4 to 0.
inevitably, with the aid of (penn-assisted) market forces, the
catchment area for the (penn-assisted) public school will consist of a
greater proportion of (penn-assisted) wealthier folks who can afford
to choose/compete to live there -- and whose homes and public school
were, from the start, penn's private investment (a 'matter of
enlightened self interest,' as rodin called it).
now this penn-assisted public school is touted by penn as an
'innovative model', a source of 'best practices' for nearby local
elementary schools which will ultimately 'transform urban public
school education.' and penn is viewed throughout the world as 'a
leader in the field and practice of urbanism for the 21st century.'
meanwhile neighbors wonder about the fate of public school education
in philadelphia while penn is planning a penn-assisted high school.
what's ahead? as philly weekly put it (in its Real Estate column):
CATCHMENT IF YOU CAN.
glenn, you began this discussion by pointing out how the article in
philly weekly was about "the confluence of education, real estate and
gentrification issues here in our upscale village", and you asked us
to "consider what happens to public education under the model."
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
----
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>.
