terrific Washington Post article about Shaker Heights, integration, and schools (Cleveland: rental, homes)

[kpl1228]

What a solid article. From a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...h/?arc404=true

[ferraris]

Letter to the Editor from former Mayor Leikenl


Follow up article in the Post

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by kpl1228

What a solid article. From a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...h/?arc404=true

That article was also featured in the Sunday Plain Dealer a couple weeks ago.

[wrightflyer]

Interesting piece. Here's my two cents.

I have heard that story from others over the last 10-15 years. That Shaker Heights, especially at the high school level, has two school environments. What is surprising is the amount of internal bickering among parents, teachers and administrators portrayed here. There is obviously a problem, one that is not easily solved. But I have to agree that the former superintendent that left for Alexandria is right. He just went about it in a blunt way. While that may work in theory, white people (myself included sometimes) get defensive (whether that is right or not depends on the situation but usually is not warranted) to the point that we get passive aggressive (or worse). This I think leans into a lot of the feelings among minority communities on white people, including ones as "integrated" as SH's white population. Implicit racism is a thing, and that defensiveness certainly is a contributor. That can be plainly seen in some of the parents' and local politicians' concerns about wealth flight under the previous school district administration.

This is one thing that disturbs me about Shaker Heights. It is a beautiful community. I have been there for work and driven through to show family when visiting Cleveland. I have colleagues that grew up there (he now lives in CH vs. SH but parents still live in Shaker). But when digging into the demographic and economic income data on City Data but census tracts, I would assume these data points are, it becomes quite clear that places around Van Aken, Shaker Square and south (Ludlow, Onway Moreland, Lomond and even in parts of Sussex and Boulevard, plus City of Cleveland areas zoned Shaker Heights Schools) are predominantly black, tend to have more rental occupied homes, more vacant lots that have tear down scars, less upkeep with SH zoning codes and much lower income than other places in Shaker. Now that isn't to say these neighborhoods are poverty stricken and in crisis, but it is a stark contrast to other neighborhoods in SH, which makes the contrast much more noticeable. On the flip-side, when comparing these neighborhoods to immediate neighborhoods that share common borders inside Cleveland proper, SH's minority neighborhoods would be considered well off.

Neighborhoods like Mercer, Malvern, Fenway and eastern parts of Boulevard around the lakes are vastly wealthier, though wealth here is even higher than typical middle class and even upper-middle class families. But they also are vastly white. So, demographics as a whole may paint an integrated picture, but when you get down to neighborhood and tract data, it tells a different story in some respects. Not surprising that plays out in educational opportunities and environments among schools, students and parents.

I would say this is an eye-opening article. But definitely not "terrific." Terrific makes it sound like the piece is lauding Shaker Heights.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by wrightflyer

What is surprising is the amount of internal bickering among parents, teachers and administrators portrayed here.

Such is the Shaker way

As a newer Shaker resident, the things people debate about and the way they debate them are sometimes shocking to me. I guess the positive spin on it is that Shakerites are always striving for improvement and towards perfection.

Perfect is often the enemy of good.

But when digging into the demographic and economic income data on City Data but census tracts

The "other side of the tracks" aspect of Shaker is often alluded to, but it's not nearly as stark as it's made out to be. The census tracts north of Chagrin and east/north of Van Aken are all 10-30% non-white. And aside from the Moreland neighborhood, which is just 2 census tracts, all of the remaining areas have significant non-black populations.

So yes, there are trends, but it's far from some sort of a "black people live here, white people live there" situation.

It's also worth noting that there are significant foreign-born and Jewish populations, which isn't conveyed in these sorts of census stats.

Now that isn't to say these neighborhoods are poverty stricken and in crisis, but it is a stark contrast to other neighborhoods in SH, which makes the contrast much more noticeable. On the flip-side, when comparing these neighborhoods to immediate neighborhoods that share common borders inside Cleveland proper, SH's minority neighborhoods would be considered well off.

100% agree with this. The economic variance within Shaker is quite unusual for an American suburb.

From former Mayor Leiken's letter to the editor:

Ironically, it’s the minority of school districts such as Shaker that are both academically strong and highly integrated that are often questioned the most

I think this is a really important point. It's not so much that Shaker is failing at being integrated -- it's that there are so few integrated schools to even be measuring. Few people are going to look into issues of equity within schools that are racially homogeneous.

Indeed a common complaint among my neighbors regarding this article in the Washington Post was that it failed to recognize that black students at shaker still outperform their socioeconomic peers outside the district.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by ferraris

Such is the Shaker way

As a newer Shaker resident, the things people debate about and the way they debate them are sometimes shocking to me. I guess the positive spin on it is that Shakerites are always striving for improvement and towards perfection.

Perfect is often the enemy of good.



The "other side of the tracks" aspect of Shaker is often alluded to, but it's not nearly as stark as it's made out to be. The census tracts north of Chagrin and east/north of Van Aken are all 10-30% non-white. And aside from the Moreland neighborhood, which is just 2 census tracts, all of the remaining areas have significant non-black populations.

So yes, there are trends, but it's far from some sort of a "black people live here, white people live there" situation.

It's also worth noting that there are significant foreign-born and Jewish populations, which isn't conveyed in these sorts of census stats.



100% agree with this. The economic variance within Shaker is quite unusual for an American suburb.

From former Mayor Leiken's letter to the editor:


I think this is a really important point. It's not so much that Shaker is failing at being integrated -- it's that there are so few integrated schools to even be measuring. Few people are going to look into issues of equity within schools that are racially homogeneous.

Indeed a common complaint among my neighbors regarding this article in the Washington Post was that it failed to recognize that black students at shaker still outperform their socioeconomic peers outside the district.

No question, to say all the neighborhoods south of Van Aken Rapid tracks are African American is a lazy stereotype that's not true. For example, the old Sussex school district neighborhood (now Lomond east) has been very stable racially, with many young white couples (and others, including mixed ones) moving in.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by TheProf

No question, to say all the neighborhoods south of Van Aken Rapid tracks are African American is a lazy stereotype that's not true. For example, the old Sussex school district neighborhood (now Lomond east) has been very stable racially, with many young white couples (and others, including mixed ones) moving in.

I was thinking about this some more earlier and it's interesting how we (Americans in general) describe neighborhoods.

70% white? That's "diverse"

70% black? That's "predominantly black" or "majority black", or just a plain "black neighborhood"

So we wind up with places like Solon, almost 78% white, being touted as diverse. Yet Lomond in Shaker Heights, which has 4 census tracts ranging from 45-79% black, does not get the same reputation.

[dr_j_planning]

Originally Posted by ferraris

Such is the Shaker way

As a newer Shaker resident, the things people debate about and the way they debate them are sometimes shocking to me. I guess the positive spin on it is that Shakerites are always striving for improvement and towards perfection.

Perfect is often the enemy of good.



The "other side of the tracks" aspect of Shaker is often alluded to, but it's not nearly as stark as it's made out to be. The census tracts north of Chagrin and east/north of Van Aken are all 10-30% non-white. And aside from the Moreland neighborhood, which is just 2 census tracts, all of the remaining areas have significant non-black populations.

So yes, there are trends, but it's far from some sort of a "black people live here, white people live there" situation.

It's also worth noting that there are significant foreign-born and Jewish populations, which isn't conveyed in these sorts of census stats.



100% agree with this. The economic variance within Shaker is quite unusual for an American suburb.

From former Mayor Leiken's letter to the editor:


I think this is a really important point. It's not so much that Shaker is failing at being integrated -- it's that there are so few integrated schools to even be measuring. Few people are going to look into issues of equity within schools that are racially homogeneous.

Indeed a common complaint among my neighbors regarding this article in the Washington Post was that it failed to recognize that black students at shaker still outperform their socioeconomic peers outside the district.

According to the Ohio Department of Education (FALL 2018 ENROLLMENT COUNT), Shaker Heights is the only school district in Cuyahoga County and only one of five (5) school districts within the seven counties of Greater Cleveland-Akron (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit) that does not have a majority race/ethnic group. The other districts are: Akron, Clearview, Lorain and Oberlin.

The FALL 2018 racial/ethnic breakdown for Shaker Heights School District:

Black (43.7%)
White (41.1%)
Mixed (8.2%)
Asian (3.7%)
Latino (3.3%)

Also noteworthy is that Shaker Heights School District has experienced the largest increase in white student representation of any district in the seven-county Cleveland-Akron region over the past decade. If current trends continue, white student enrollment may surpass black student enrollment by the FALL 2020 ENROLLMENT COUNT for the first time since the early 1980s. This shift is primarily because of a sharp decrease in black student enrollment (-24.9%) over the past decade versus a slight increase (+0.2%) in white student enrollment during the same period.

DR J

[kpl1228]

Originally Posted by wrightflyer

I would say this is an eye-opening article. But definitely not "terrific." Terrific makes it sound like the piece is lauding Shaker Heights.

I meant "terrific" in the sense of being well-written and the points it considers and spotlights. I thought it very nuanced, balanced, and, yeah, terrific. Terrific writing.

[kpl1228]

Originally Posted by wrightflyer

I would say this is an eye-opening article. But definitely not "terrific." Terrific makes it sound like the piece is lauding Shaker Heights.

I meant "terrific" in the sense of being well-written and the points it considers and spotlights. I thought it very nuanced, balanced, and, yeah, terrific. Terrific writing.