Based on the academic research I’ve done and personal observations I’ve made, I feel that I can fairly conclude that poverty and education are two inextricably related institutions. While poverty can loosely be considered an institution, the idea that economic status affects the quality of one’s education and vice a versa, is a phenomenon that is undeniable. The question posed for the assignment calls for an assessment of this intersection from an individual, societal, and economic standpoint.

Individual

If one were to examine poverty on an individual level, a reasonable conclusion might be that one is poor because of laziness, flawed work ethic, etc—circumstances within the control of the individual. Therefore, a subpar school in a low income neighborhood would be justified because it would be a reflection of the general population. It feeds off of this idea that poor are savage, lazy, people who probably don’t care about education anyways. In the Changing Education Paradigms video, Robinson asserts that economics and culture are the two main factors in the reform of public education. From a more positive standpoint, reforming the education from an individual level, might involve giving government stipends to poor children to attend private and charter schools outside of their home districts.

Societal

I think America is just beginning to realize that poverty and poor education are societal issues. Viewing the problem from a societal paradigm involves evaluating the link between poverty and educational performance. Further, it involves taking that linkage and then evaluating how it affects the larger society. I feel like Waiting for Superman speaks to the idea that something is fundamentally wrong with our education and it is affecting the status of our country tremendously. I do not believe that it is any coincidence that while China and Japan begins to surpass us economically, our rankings for education continue to go further and further down. Bill Gates even once mentioned that he has to outsource employment in his company because there aren’t enough engineers in America.  

"Poverty is the unspoken and ignored weight on education outcomes, and while U.S. public education needs significant reforms, education reform will never succeed without the support of social reforms addressing childhood poverty and income equity". -Bill Gates

The Young Childless Couple..from my prospective of course lol : ]

At face-value the writing prompt for this week seemed very simple—decide where you would live if you were (insert chosen scenario here) and why.  Coming from the city of Detroit, I have strong feelings about both the gentrification of inner city or downtown area and the politics of the suburbs.  For the purposes of this assignment, I chose to be a childless couple because a.) it is was the closet option to my demographic and b.)  this a decision I someday hope (**crosses fingers for husband) to make. The question is rather vague, so I will use hypotheticals to create a framework for answering the question.  According to the Burgess Land Use Model, my significant other and I would likely find ourselves somewhere between zones 4 and 5. Most likely falling somewhere in the middle to upper middle class population, we would have the economic means to live beyond the woes that plagues zones 2 and 3. As we discussed in class gentrification and reconversion of land uses begins to sort of reconfigure these zones. They begin to expand into on another and zone lines become blurred. It would ultimately depend on the city we decided to settle in, but as a childless couple I would prefer to live in the city. In cities like Atlanta and Dallas however, suburbs are well developed enough to be relatively self-sustaining, offering all of the same if not more features than downtown areas. Again, I would prefer to live downtown. While I’m against the idea that gentrification benefits a specific population, the result of a gentrified area are often beautiful. As stated in the readings, gentrification is not simply the redevelopment of housing, but a reconfiguration of an entire area.  Thus, once vacant cities are transformed into lively, creative hubs for the young and mobile. All of these things lend themselves to a modern and creative environment.  For that reason, I would go against Burgess’ assertion and live in zone one. My vision would be to own a brownstone in a redeveloped area of Harlem, NY that would give access to immediate community and a connection to Manhattan and other boroughs via the subway. Living in the city provides the opportunity to be in the mix, and I enjoy the fast life. I want to work somewhere within the city or state government and thus being downtown would offer proximity to work in addition to the benefits already mentioned. 

An Introduction to my Cynicism... : ]

The introduction to the class URB 240 was intense to say the least. As one might imagine, giving a thorough overview of public/urban policy in addition to outlining the direction of the course, is no simple feat. As an Urban and Metropolitan Studies major, many of the topics touched on were ones that I have grown familiar with over the last three semesters. We began at the policy cycle and worked our way through voting with one’s feet. Though the overview was brief and compact, it definitely got me thinking. Taking a minute to review the policy cycle, I recalled my experience as intern at a government affairs firm this previous semester. The policy cycle begins with problem identification, followed by formulation of a plan, the adoption of a plausible plan, the implementation of that plan, and the subsequent evaluation of that plan. The office that I interned at was referred to as a government and public affairs office, but was essentially a lobbying firm. The life of a lobbyist is in essence the policy cycle, or at minimum I might use the metaphor of actor and script—the policy cycle playing the role of script and the lobbyist as the actor. These thoughts were most provoking when we discussed group theory and elitist. Everyone wants to believe that ordinary people can change the world, but perhaps politics has made a cynical of change. What I’ve learned about politics, particularly here in Arizona, is that change takes money. Our readings do a good job of explaining group theory.  I agree that groups like the AFL-CIO, NRA, and the NEA are capable of making change. There is however an air of elitism in the nature of the groups able to make change. AFL-CIO has hundreds of thousands of due paying members and is an umbrella organization. Said simply—they have clout! Further, I’ve seen the receipt books for lobbyist clients. It is safe to say that change is not cheap. We then went on to discuss elitist theory or the theory that only the elite in society are capable of making change. I for one subscribe to this belief because it is the only real reality that I’ve seen. Stay tuned for more cynicism folks!!

Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness <3

Allow Me to Introduce Myself..

Hello all! I'm Caprice Howard, an Urban and Metropolitan Studies major in my SENIOR year! I graduate May 3rd, 2012 and I'm ecstatic! I'm originally from Las Vegas, NV by way of Detroit, MI, but I also consider Atlanta to be my home as well. I believe I'm leaning towards urban development and would to develop urban communities internationally. I'm the low-key revolutionary when it serves me well, God fearing..soul loving,
 smart mouthed, poet..Beautifully spiritual, unapologetic, sister, daughter, lover, friend..and student for one more semester. Happy readings ya'll...