Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said it better than I could have, and G*d knows I've tried, Octa! Thanks.
You're welcome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
That's some of it. But I think part of the reason too is it forces people to confront the following unpleasant truths.
1. There are still huge gaps in test scores between whites and blacks (and to a lesser extent Latinos) in the U.S. Indeed, the data I have seen suggests that it's not, as people have said, mostly about class rather than race, with upper-middle-class black students generally speaking scoring similarly to the poorest whites. Mind you, the data I have seen regarding this all comes from questionable sources (Charles Murray and the like) but I have never seen data from the other side refuting this either, so I have no reason to believe it's untrue.
2. The average white parent might not talk like a racist anymore, but they still act like one. So if their school rises from 10% black to 40% black, they'll claim they're pulling their kids out because test scores are down, or because there are more fights in school. But the end result is still the vast majority of schools remain highly segregated, and in very few cases can a substantial number of black students be sent to a top-tier public school without the school dropping significantly in desirability.
3. In many of the cases where there is some diversity in the school system, you still end up with de-facto segregation in the classroom if not in the school itself. Many NYC elementary schools on paper have a fairly diverse student body, but have "enrichment" or "honors" classes which are almost entirely white and Asian, with the mainstream classes mostly black and Latino.
4. Given the above data points, it seems nearly impossible, in America in the present, to have both integrated classrooms and retention of most middle-class white parents in the public school system. You can use enrichment programs, or magnet schools, to concentrate the white families with the highest "minority tolerance" in areas where they feel comfortable. Or you can admit that we can't desegregate neighborhood schools, and draw feeder patterns on neighborhood lines, even if that results in 90% white and 90% black schools. But ultimately I think that's all you can do, unless someone has a magic bullet to change American culture.
Eschaton I've been reading your other post in this thread and I find them interesting and I agree that we can't talk about urban schools(or a lot of urban topics) without mentioning race. One thing I do disagree with you on is that it mostly about race rather than class. I don't mean race as in some pseudo-science genetic, but in how people categorize minorities and the way systemic racism alters life outcomes. As you mentioned, middle income minorities tend to live in poorer neighborhoods compared to middle income whites and as a result have access to less educational opportunities. Blacks for example, tend to prefer to live in integrated neighborhoods while whites prefer mostly neighborhoods. There's racial aversion and when neighborhoods start becoming noticeably more minority, flight ensues even if the minorities are in the same income bracket. Racial steering raising interest rates on mortgages based on race are illegal, but it still occurs on a widespread level and contributes to it. The most appalling thing I ever read about though was about minority children growing up in Chicago and how the infant mortality rate in those communities is comparable to third world countries.
Overall, I think the starting point in addressing the issue of integration is to move away from the colorblindness and address systemic racism directly. The former leads people to believe that racism is just prejudice and that it's a thing of the past.
That academic article I mentioned earlier is titled: Education Policy, Race, and Neoliberal Urbanism by Lipman. If you do a google search you should be able to find it in several Google Books and read it. It hits on some of what you talked about in schools with tiers being created in terms of resources and who is in what level of classes and who goes to what type of school in urban areas.
@Kat,
It might be easier to think of racism as systemic if you think about it like you would with systemic patriarchy or heterocentrism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
That result is an unsurprising and likely triggered some suburban flight. If I were writting a how-to on how cities need to keep families, I'd post more on schools, but again I'm not. I'm not sure why you'd expect posters to discuss how cities should set neighborhood school boundaries, though it's been discussed in the past a bit. I've seen it a bit in local forums, though and dealing with a system of citywide schools vs zoned schools.
It's interesting that another rezoning battle played out here recently and this time the city just cut it up along racial lines despite protest from the African-American community. It just goes to show how these things play out every day in cities across the US. I don't expect people to solely talk about these things, but I'm not going to pretend like it has nothing to do with urban planning. It has much more relevance than naming skylines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
For those who feel that we should discuss schools, and their relationship with urban planning, they are entitled to create their own threads. But, when we've discussed schools in the past, (and yes, we've discussed schools in this forum a number of times in the past) the conversation rarely went anywhere. After all, if a quick or easy solution to poorly performing urban schools were found, that information wouldn't stay isolated to this forum for long.
Having a ready answer to urban issues isn't a prerequisite to discussing something. We can all use topics about various urban issues to learn and discuss.
The average white parent might not talk like a racist anymore, but they still act like one.
It does not describe me or any of my friends, and unlike most on this forum, we've actually raised kids through high school graduation.
This post is quite ironic on several levels. Basically eschaton was agreeing with what you have said many times; many young adults embrace the urban life, including the diversity, UNTIL their kids reach school age, at which time they head for the suburbs for better (whiter?) schools. If you had quoted eschaton's whole post instead of just one line you would see that.
Second point is you have strongly encouraged discussion of urban school issues and as several have pointed out, it is hard to discuss urban schools without also discussing racism.
Third, you take this all too personal. Every point made about suburbs, or generaltional differences or about race is not a personal attack on you and does not have to be defended.
Finally, your comment above (bold & underlined) repeats what you said in an earlier post where you discounted someones contribution to the urban school discussion because "they didn't have kids". Seems to me that solving the problems of urban schools will have to include the participation of the young adults that don't yet have kids but wish to stay in the city when they do have kids.
My only contribution to the discussion of urban schools is to quote my sister, who has taught in urban schools for almost 40 years, "the biggest indication of success in school is not the color of the student body or the level of funding, but the involvement of parents in THEIR child's education".
I have certainly seen this in the 20 & 30 year olds that I know. Few own homes, most have changed jobs several times and often moved across town rather than stay in place and commute. They saw the damage the recession did to RE and also have seen the rental areas are more walkable than owner occupied areas.
There was an article in Builder magazine by the chief economist (David Crowe) for the National Association of Home Builders that states, "Gen X is not getting married or having children-two critical factors for homeownership-at the same rate as their parents." Seems builders are selling about 20% of homes to first time buyers as opposed to a more normal 30% rate. Birthrates are half the level of the baby boom and marriage rates are the lowest in 100 years. From 2004 to 2012 the number of renters grew by 1.7m and the number of owners fell by 1.3m.
The building permit numbers in many metro areas reflect the numbers above. During the housing boom most residential units built were single family homes, now many areas are seeing more multifamily rental properties. This is also a result of the mortgage crisis where it is harder for individuals to get a mortgage and large institutional investors and pension funds are jumping in to rental properties as rents go up.
The marriage rate of college women is basically the same as it's been for the past 50 years. It's the uncollege-educated, those less likely to buy a house in the first place, that now have a lower marriage rate. (I don't know why this article focused on women, not men, regarding marriage.)
money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/
Clearly, with the push for gay marriage, there is a desire to be married.
But what he cited was looking at data trends over a century. The Great Recession has nothing to do with the decline in birth rates since 1950.
Well, we don't know that!
"The birth rate has largely been declining since the post-World War II baby boom, but that fall accelerated during the Great Recession, as high unemployment derailed many young people's plans to move out and start families.
About 22% of 18-to-34-year-olds surveyed by the Pew Research Center in December 2011 said they had postponed having a baby because of economic conditions. "
Also: "While overall fertility rates have fallen, trends vary by age, race and ethnicity.
For example, the fertility rate decreased among teenagers and women in their 20s, but rose slightly among those over age 30.
It held steady for white women, fell among blacks and Hispanics, and rose among Asians and Pacific Islanders last year. "
So perhaps women are still having babies, just a little later? This, of course, would make for smaller families. It's hard to have 10, or even three, if you don't start until 30, although I will note both my grandmothers (b. 1877 and 1891) had all three of their kids in their 30s.
To relate to the article in Builder Magazine, claiming that Gen X is not getting married or having children, college educated women are as likely to get married as ever, then have kids in their 30s.
This post is quite ironic on several levels. Basically eschaton was agreeing with what you have said many times; many young adults embrace the urban life, including the diversity, UNTIL their kids reach school age, at which time they head for the suburbs for better (whiter?) schools. If you had quoted eschaton's whole post instead of just one line you would see that.
Second point is you have strongly encouraged discussion of urban school issues and as several have pointed out, it is hard to discuss urban schools without also discussing racism.
Third, you take this all too personal. Every point made about suburbs, or generaltional differences or about race is not a personal attack on you and does not have to be defended.
Finally, your comment above (bold & underlined) repeats what you said in an earlier post where you discounted someones contribution to the urban school discussion because "they didn't have kids". Seems to me that solving the problems of urban schools will have to include the participation of the young adults that don't yet have kids but wish to stay in the city when they do have kids.
My only contribution to the discussion of urban schools is to quote my sister, who has taught in urban schools for almost 40 years, "the biggest indication of success in school is not the color of the student body or the level of funding, but the involvement of parents in THEIR child's education".
Over two hours ago I saw this post and decided to follow the rules, and "don't respond, report". However, nothing has happened, so I'm taking the risk of replying myself.
Eddyline, it is clear you don't particularly like me. Regarding this I could not care less. I'm sure that many of your friends are repping you, and/or saying, "go get her". However, there is another subset that is probably thinking, "give it a rest". This foolish personal crap (which I have NOT returned) is impeding the progress of this thread.
You are not the mod. You do not get to tell me how to post.
I do not appreciate comments about "the average white parent" from someone who seems to feel he is above all the rest of us, and who is stuck in 19th/early 20th century socialism.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-24-2014 at 10:33 AM..
But we do know that. If birth rates started declining long before anyone knew there would be a Great Recession, then there can obviously be no causal link between the Great Recession and the decline of birth rates since 1950.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So perhaps women are still having babies, just a little later? This, of course, would make for smaller families. It's hard to have 10, or even three, if you don't start until 30, although I will note both my grandmothers (b. 1877 and 1891) had all three of their kids in their 30s.
Women are having children later and having fewer of them. It's hard to have ten, or even three, when the cost of attendance at many state universities is over $25,000 per year ($50,000+ plus for a lot of private schools).
The marriage rate of college women is basically the same as it's been for the past 50 years. It's the uncollege-educated, those less likely to buy a house in the first place, that now have a lower marriage rate. (I don't know why this article focused on women, not men, regarding marriage.)
money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/
That link didn't work. I did find a Pew study from 2010, however.
As those numbers attest, marriage rates among adults in their 20s have declined sharply since 1990 for both the college-educated and those without a college degree. But the decline has been much steeper for young adults without a college education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
