Gentrification, Public Schools, Community Buy-in

[DoctorTaco]

I am new to town (6 months), but I’ve been loving it here, am loving this forum and am loving the sense of momentum OKC has. What follows is a series of muse-y questions. I’m trying to get at something about pride, public schools and neighborhoods that came up in a series of PMs I recently had with another forum member. Please forgive me if it is too rambly.

I found this interesting graphic (Wilson Elementary School, Oklahoma City OK School Profile, Ranking, and Reviews - SchoolDigger.com) which shows the effect gentrification of Mesta Park had on the student makeup of Wilson Elementary. Free and reduced school lunches plummet beginning around 2005 and reach a new, lower level by around 2009. Obviously the local neighborhood got nice, but also the more affluent people moving into that neighborhood didn't abandon the school the way that local schools in other nice neighborhoods have been abandoned by the locals (cough, Edgemere, cough, Horace Mann).

How did such a collective act of faith occur? I know that for the people of Mesta Oark/HH, Wilson is now a point of pride and a prime reason for moving into the neighborhood. I am guessing, based on this this was not the case 15 years ago. What happened? Some of the “pioneers” of Mesta Park are probably on this forum, so I’d love to hear their insider’s view.

Will all the relatively affluent young professionals moving into Gatewood reclaim and send their kids to their local school? As Helm Farm turns around will folks there send their kids to Horace Mann?

It takes an act of faith to be a pioneer like this. Sending your kids to a school you know is underperfoming, simply for the reason of civic-mindedness, is a big step I’m not sure I could take. On the other hand it is much cheaper than private school, so…

[soonerfan_in_okc]

I have always wondered what certain northside OKC public schools would be like if parents sent their kids there and became invested instead of sending them to private schools.

[krisb]

The big question for me is...is it possible to have a "good" school that is not predominantly affluent and White? Do students on free and reduced lunches have the same potential as those more privileged? The poor students who used to go to Wilson are now going to a worse school because they can no longer afford to live in that part of town. My daughter attends Kaiser Elementary School in a working class neighborhood in non-gentrified urban NW Oklahoma City. The school has ethnic and socioeconomic diversity and is using some excellent best practices in the classroom (Oklahoma A+ schools, Great Expectations, Core Knowledge, Farm to School). They also have an outdoor science classroom and community garden. My daughter is learning to read in Kindergarten. My point is that OKCPS has great schools beyond Wilson, Cleveland, and Classen SAS.

[DoctorTaco]

The big question for me is...is it possible to have a "good" school that is not predominantly affluent and White? Do students on free and reduced lunches have the same potential as those more privileged? The poor students who used to go to Wilson are now going to a worse school because they can no longer afford to live in that part of town. My daughter attends Kaiser Elementary School in a working class neighborhood in non-gentrified urban NW Oklahoma City. The school has ethnic and socioeconomic diversity and is using some excellent best practices in the classroom (Oklahoma A+ schools, Great Expectations, Core Knowledge, Farm to School). They also have an outdoor science classroom and community garden. My daughter is learning to read in Kindergarten. My point is that OKCPS has great schools beyond Wilson, Cleveland, and Classen SAS.

This is really good news to hear!

[DoctorTaco]

The big question for me is...is it possible to have a "good" school that is not predominantly affluent and White? Do students on free and reduced lunches have the same potential as those more privileged?

And to answer your question, of course it is, and of course they do.

To my mind the single biggest difference between an successful school and a non successful school is parental investment of time and energy. You can have the most enthusiastic, engaging teachers in town and if the local community just doesn't care, or abdicates all responsibility for education to the school, then those teachers can ultimately do little. What turns a struggling school around is not more dollars and not just better administration and/or better practices, it is community buy-in. Parents really really engaged with what their kids are learning. Healthy PTA. Etc.

This is a broad stereotype, I know, but in general affluent neighborhoods are known to be more engaged in this fashion than poorer neighborhoods. This is usually given as the reason that gentrification itself can improve a neighborhood school, even if teachers/admins at the school remain unchanged. Now I know this always isn't the case. My step sister teaches at a Catholic elementary back east, and she says the richest parents are the least engaged, the most entitled, the most "Teaching my kids is YOUR JOB, not mine." So there is that.

Now this might be polyanna-ish, but I really believe that if ther was some way to create parental involvement/community buy-in from scratch, than we could make any school a stellar school, rich, poor or otherwise.

[Dubya61]

Dr.T, I mostly agree with your conclusions (about parental involvement being the key), but I also think that the individual school has a LOT to do with it. If, as you say, Wilson is improving coincidental with gentrification (I don't really draw that conclusion from the linked page, but didn't dig any deeper, either), then there must also be some sort if draw the school is doing to lure the parents in. It's not enough to have the teachers interact favorably with the students. It's not enough to have the parents interact favorably with the students. The school must interact favorably with the parents. I think that the school must do this by becoming a focal point of the community at every possibility. The school must make it so that when the kids are grown and think back on their childhood, the school is where it all happened. They must make it so that when the parents have a question about what to do next, the school is the first place they look to for a resource. The school must find a way to be relevant in every possible respect to the family -- allow voting there, allow every possible meeting there, allow anything that might lure in the whole family.

[OSUPeterson]

I thought that Wilson becoming a magnet school was what turned it around and led to the waiting list and rush to get into MP...

[RadicalModerate]

I am new to town (6 months), but I’ve been loving it here, am loving this forum and am loving the sense of momentum OKC has. What follows is a series of muse-y questions. I’m trying to get at something about pride, public schools and neighborhoods that came up in a series of PMs I recently had with another forum member. Please forgive me if it is too rambly.

I found this interesting graphic (Wilson Elementary School, Oklahoma City OK School Profile, Ranking, and Reviews - SchoolDigger.com) which shows the effect gentrification of Mesta Park had on the student makeup of Wilson Elementary. Free and reduced school lunches plummet beginning around 2005 and reach a new, lower level by around 2009. Obviously the local neighborhood got nice, but also the more affluent people moving into that neighborhood didn't abandon the school the way that local schools in other nice neighborhoods have been abandoned by the locals (cough, Edgemere, cough, Horace Mann).

How did such a collective act of faith occur? I know that for the people of Mesta Oark/HH, Wilson is now a point of pride and a prime reason for moving into the neighborhood. I am guessing, based on this this was not the case 15 years ago. What happened? Some of the “pioneers” of Mesta Park are probably on this forum, so I’d love to hear their insider’s view.

Will all the relatively affluent young professionals moving into Gatewood reclaim and send their kids to their local school? As Helm Farm turns around will folks there send their kids to Horace Mann?

It takes an act of faith to be a pioneer like this. Sending your kids to a school you know is underperfoming, simply for the reason of civic-mindedness, is a big step I’m not sure I could take. On the other hand it is much cheaper than private school, so…

Perhaps a brief moment to define the terminology of the subject under discussion?
Question 1: Is "gentrification" a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?

i await your rational response.
(personally, i think that "gentrification" should be a positive goal of "education" in both public and private schools . . . fewer guns and pants worn at the proper height . . . and other stuff too.)

Welcome aboard, Doctorr Taco! (hope it doesn't turn out to be a "carnival cruise" . . . =)

btw: education is for children . . . training is for animals . . . i think the answer to the immediate question at hand tells the truth somewhere in between. =)

Question 2: Is there a difference between Magnet Schools and Magnate Skools? for extra credit: define why they differ in the immediate area under discussion from "gentrification" as compared to the reestablishing the urban core . . . as compared to the hood or whatever.

Question 3: Are dress codes a part of "gentrification" or simply a minimal standard for being part of the educational rather than training standard?


I sincerely apologize for anything posted, above, that might be misinterpreted as a slight or misapprehended as any sort of misinterpretation of a real question and concern on your part. It just gets a bit confusing in here at times . . . have faith, go with God, amen....=)

[DoctorTaco]

I thought that Wilson becoming a magnet school was what turned it around and led to the waiting list and rush to get into MP...

Is this what happened? See this is what I am trying to understand. Was it the chicken or the egg? The school became a hot item before the neighborhood, you are saying. I had assumed it was the opposite, but like I said I wasn't here. Do tell.

Perhaps a brief moment to define the terminology of the subject under discussion?
Question 1: Is "gentrification" a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?

i await your rational response.

I think "gentrification" is a loaded term that people immediately react to (I suspect there would be more discussion in this thread if that word wasn't in the title, for instance), but I think it is a useful word that describes something that happens in reality, so I use it. Gentrification is the gradual process where a decaying, usually urban, neighborhood becomes fashionable and more expensive. Usually this occurs in stages, where first a seedy neighborhood becomes hip with artists and edgy types, then more affluent types move in to take advantage of all the hipness that is happening. All these newcomers start having kids and become interested in safety and schools and such, and make concerted efforts to clean up the community. Eventually the entire population and character of the neighborhood changes during this process, with the end result being a blighted neighborhood becomes well-maintained, fashionable, more expensive and better aportioned with services.

Is gentrification good or bad?

Pros: Higher tax base for cities. Lower crime in urban areas. More civic engagement due to an influx of community-minded people into what was once a run down area. A virtuous cycle in decaying neighborhoods (people with money come in, stores and restaurants open nearby to get a piece of that money, people get hired at those stores and restaurants, more jobs and more money all around).

Cons: Poor people get priced out of their neighborhoods, have to move away and can completely miss out on all the virtuous cycling that is going on.

So there is my response. For me, an affluent white guy who wants to live in a more urban versus suburban neighborhood, but doesn't really have the stones to be an urban "pioneer", gentrification is great. If I was in a different socioeconomic situation, I might think otherwise.

[Frustratedoptimist]

IMO parental involvement and local partners, such as businesses, art programs and neighborhood associations, are essential to a having a successful school. Any school can get those things if the principals are strong, trustworthy LEADERS who see the big picture, beyond the classroom. One bad first impression or negative interaction with a principal is enough to make parents disengage or walk away. I've met 3 elementary principals in OKC (all underperforming and at risk) and all 3 seemed to be too overwhelmed and busy with administrative-related duties to work with parents or neighborhoods on issues that clearly impact thier school. Many OKC schools have Citizen Advisory Boards (similar to PTAs) and the ones I've talked with all mention the same problems with principals. The CAB members are working hard to make a difference and in one case, to keep the school open. Talk about something that will kill a neighborhood - close a school and leave it vacant for 3 decades.

[RadicalModerate]

Is this what happened? See this is what I am trying to understand. Was it the chicken or the egg? The school became a hot item before the neighborhood, you are saying. I had assumed it was the opposite, but like I said I wasn't here. Do tell.



I think "gentrification" is a loaded term that people immediately react to (I suspect there would be more discussion in this thread if that word wasn't in the title, for instance), but I think it is a useful word that describes something that happens in reality, so I use it. Gentrification is the gradual process where a decaying, usually urban, neighborhood becomes fashionable and more expensive. Usually this occurs in stages, where first a seedy neighborhood becomes hip with artists and edgy types, then more affluent types move in to take advantage of all the hipness that is happening. All these newcomers start having kids and become interested in safety and schools and such, and make concerted efforts to clean up the community. Eventually the entire population and character of the neighborhood changes during this process, with the end result being a blighted neighborhood becomes well-maintained, fashionable, more expensive and better aportioned with services.

Is gentrification good or bad?

Pros: Higher tax base for cities. Lower crime in urban areas. More civic engagement due to an influx of community-minded people into what was once a run down area. A virtuous cycle in decaying neighborhoods (people with money come in, stores and restaurants open nearby to get a piece of that money, people get hired at those stores and restaurants, more jobs and more money all around).

Cons: Poor people get priced out of their neighborhoods, have to move away and can completely miss out on all the virtuous cycling that is going on.

So there is my response. For me, an affluent white guy who wants to live in a more urban versus suburban neighborhood, but doesn't really have the stones to be an urban "pioneer", gentrification is great. If I was in a different socioeconomic situation, I might think otherwise.

So . . . as a survior of "The OKC Bombing . . . (and May Tornadoes and February ThunderHailSleetStorms and droughtwhatnots . . .)
I say: Follow Your Heart! Go For Gentrifyin' the Old Urban Core!
(suggested viewing: "Local Hero"/w that animal house actor and Burt Lancaster . . . But wye w'd ya use a LoadedTarm li' that . . . ["gentrification"]=)

[krisb]

I agree that parental involvement is important, but that looks different in each school. For working class and single parent families trying to make ends meet, showing up for a PTA meeting in the evening is not too high on the priority list. But there are other opportunities to empower and engage parents of all kinds. The traditional measures of parental involvement might not be adequate.