millennica

I agree that the reasons are complex; I just think high stakes testing is one thing that lowers the bar and is easily fixed.

We agree that high stakes testing is one thing that lowers the bar and is easily fixed. However, I am not hopeful that this easy fix alone will result in students being better prepared for college level work. Too may other factors conspire to keep that from being a reality. Complex situations require multi-pronged solutions and that to solve them we must heed Mencken

You can blame high stakes testing for that. I work in an HISD school that feeds directly to Lee and what proponents of high stakes testing either don't realize or don't care about is that kids have to be taught how to take a multiple choice test. It is not something inherently learned in any academic area. Sure, great teaching will lead to at least okay test scores, but great test scores come from teaching the test...and great money comes from great test scores...

Just my two cents.

While I agree that high stakes tests are a contributing factor to students not being prepared for the rigors of college level work, they aren't the sole factor. NCLB was not passed until 2002. When I first began teaching in the UC System in the early 1990s, California did not have high stakes testing and even then many students weren't well prepared for college level work. The reasons for students not being prepared are complex. There is no doubt that a singular focus on test scores, particularly if teachers feel compelled to teach to the test, is problematic, but to my way of thinking that isn't the only reason students entering college aren't prepared to do college level work.

Information about Charles W. Luckie from HISD Connect website

LUCKIE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

An article about Mickey Phoenix and the Luckie Elementary School

Can Mickey Phoenix save Luckie Elementary?

A stone's throw from downtown, where the East End and Third Ward overlap, there's a hippie living in a school house that blacks used to attend during the days of segregation.

Her name is Mickey Phoenix. When I met her yesterday, she rose from her computer desk to greet me, and I realized she was wearing petticoats, because, as she said, "I always wear something that's at least 100 years old."

The former Charles W. Luckie Elementary School is 100 years old, although the building Phoenix lives in only dates back to 1918, when the original Luckie school house burned down.

http://blogs.chron.com/eastend/2007/07/can...e_luckie_1.html

I wonder how the law will change once more scientific evidence comes out. I'm pretty sure I heard from a reliable source that second hand smoke isn't really that bad for you.

The Davis no smoking ordinance has been in place for more than decade. Knowing Davis as I do, I doubt that the law will change.

That's verbatim per the city?

The law is so restrictive that people say the only place it is possible to smoke is in one's home. Here's the municipal code that bans smoking in Davis.

City of Davis

Municipal Code Section 34.02.010. Prohibition of Smoking in Places Accessible to the General Public

Smoking shall be prohibited in the following outdoor areas, except while

passing on the way to another destination, within 20 feet or building of or close enough

to the following areas for smoke to travel into an area or building, where

smoking is prohibited, whichever is greater.

Public events including, but not limited to, sports events, entertainment, speaking performances,

ceremonies, pageants, and fairs

Seating provided by eating establishments and bars

Entrances and exits to enclosed public areas

Within the entryway of any enclosed public area

Stairways

Within courtyards and other areas where air circulation may be impeded by architectural, landscaping, or other barriers

Areas not open to the sky

Any place where people are using or waiting for a service, entry, or a transaction, including but not limited to ATMs, bank teller windows, telephones, ticket lines, bus stops, and cab stands

Any places where food and/or drink is offered for sale

Children's play areas

Public gardens

Open windows of any enclosed public area

Albuquerque here has a new ordinance saying absolutely no smoking on city property. So people at our baseball stadium actually have to go across the street to smoke since it's city owned.

The City of Davis, CA has a city-wide ban on smoking.

6.6.1) Davis, California = No smoking zone. There is no smoking in Davis by city ordinance. Not in any business establishment nor within 20 feet of any business establishment. The only place you can smoke is in your own home.

If that is even true, that must be a *very* recent development.

Having said that, UCLA has 2-3x as many incoming freshman as USC. Once you account for that, it's not even close.

Another big difference between UCLA and USC is that UCLA is a public institution, part of the UC System, whereas USC (University of Serious Cash) is a private institution that charges hefty tuition.

USCalifornia is pretty much downtown, isn't it? For some reason I have a thought in my head that it's not so nice around there either. Not sure.

USC's main campus is in the West Adams neighbohood approximately 2 miles

southwest of downtown LA. WA was once one of LA's richest neighborhoods. In the 20's when whites began moving to other areas, affluent African Americans began moving into WA and for several decades WA was home to affluent AAs. Over time as affluent AA moved to other areas of the city, WA became home to large numbers of working class AA who were followed by the growing Latino population. The areas contains houses of varied architectural styles. Currently, various sections of WA are being gentrified with people purchasing and restoring the houses.

I am bitter too.

It makes absolutely NO SENSE that we continue to fund schools after archaic guidelines established around 100 years ago back when there were no other public schools in Texas.

It's a disgrace. AND, it affects Longhorns and Aggies too by creating overcrowded conditions because there is a mindset that there are really only two options for top-quality public higher education. That's the main reason why UT and ATM continue to drop in the rankings. 34,000 full-time undergraduates is simply too many no matter how much money you have.

Texas needs to adopt the California system NOW. With top 50 schools at UC-Berkeley, UC-Los Angeles, UC-San Diego, UC-Irvine, UC-Davis, and UC-Santa Barbara with UC-Santa Cruz and UC-Riverside climbing towards the top 50 every year, they have an incredible system that makes multiple schools highly desireable to quality students. Full-time undergrad populations range from 12,000 to 23,000.

My ideal would have the following;

UT-Austin, UT-Dallas, UT-El Paso, UT-San Antonio, and UT-Pan Am would join Texas ATM, Texas Tech, and Houston as tier-one schools.

You'd have every major city/region covered with highly regarded public universities from Houston to El Paso and DFW to the Rio Grande Valley.

I'd cap undergrad enrollment at Texas and ATM at 30,000.

Houston and Tech could be capped around 25,000 to 28,000.

All the others should have undergrad numbers around 20,000.

It would be incredible for the state and for the state's most important feature; the cities. It would also be great for increasing opportunities in heavily Hispanic areas like El Paso and the RGV. With the demographics changing quite quickly, Texas simply needs to do a better job with educating Hispanics.

I'm going to throw my hat into this ring both to try and understand the Texas Higher Education System and to explain the California Higher Education System. I understand the suggestion and sentiment of having UTAustin, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Pan-Am join Texas ATM, Texas Tech, and Houston as tier-one universities but wonder how the system would work since as I understand it these schools belong to different systems. I'm not saying it isn't possible just wondering how this would work since I thought the different systems had different governing boards.

I know quite a bit about the system in California because I've been on the faculty of one of the UC schools for a while now and my spouse has been a teacher in one of the California community colleges for the same amount of time. All of the UC Schools--Berkeley, Davis, LA, Irvine, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Riverside and now Merced, the newest UC campus- belong to the same system with the same Board of Regents. That doesn't mean that aren't distinctions among the campus, both in tems of programs, prestige and rank, but to my way of thinking, the differences among the UC campuses are not as sharp as it is among the the various Texas Systems.

Not to say that the California system doesn't contain a hierarchy; it does. Although all of the UC campuses provide a solid education and the individual campuses have different strengths-- if a student wanted to study agriculture the best UC campus for that is Davis whereas if a student wanted to study cognitive science, the best campus for that is San Diego--LA, Berkeley, SD, Davis are still considered to be the top schools with the others jockeying for a position in the prestige line-up. However, most of the hierachy exists in the three-tiered system with the UC sitting at the top. UCs receive more funding, charge higher fees, have higher admission standards, and can award the PhD than the California State University System. Although the California State University, the mid-level of the system receives less funding, charges lower fees, has lower admission standards that UCs and can only award the first two degrees- Bachelors and Masters Degrees, some of its campuses have programs that don't exist at UC, for example the Bachelors Degree in Architecture is only available at two Cal State Campuses. The third level-- the community colleges are open enrollment institutions that charge exceptionally low fees, award Associate Degrees and certificates in various fields. Each tier of the California System has its own governing board, and is charged with a specific mandate by the Regents, but because the system is all part of the larger system, it is possible for students to move among the three tiers with students moving from a community college where they might complete their lower division courses to one of the Cal State campuses or UC campuses.

I'm not touting the California System or saying it is wonderful because having been involved in it for many years, I am aware of its many shortcomings and problems, that may not be visible to ousiders, but I am wondering how Texas with its multiple university sytems, UT, A&M, Tech-- each one able to award PhDs which in the university world equals quite a bit of power and influence would ever agree to merge, cooperate or even agree to equal funding. We have a saying in the academy that the reason the politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so low.

As far as Graduation rates, I don't know a good reason the number is so low...

A recent publication of the National Center for Education Statistics examines the

effect of part-time enrollment on degree attainment. The complete report,

approximately 111 pages, can be ordered by writing to:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

The citation, executive summary, and one of the main findings follow below:

Chen, X. (2007). Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education: 2003

An Aggie is a nickname for a student of agriculture. Numerous Argricultural & Mechanical Schools nicknamed their student bodies Aggies.

Students who attend UCDavis are called Aggies, too. This is because UCDavis was once only an ag school--originally founded in 1905, called the University Farm School and designed to give provide a farm and practical experience for UCBerkeley which offered coursework in botany and such, but nothing in the way of practical experiences. Not until 1959, did UCDavis become part of the UC system as a separate campus. Although it now offers a much wider range of majors-- including the only vet school in the UCSystem-- is still referred to as the ag school and subject to numerous jokes about being rural, backwards, and conservative, particularly when compared to its older more famous urbane, liberal brother UCBerkeley located 90 miles away.

I don't agree with you very often Millenica, but I agree with you here. Don't bother trying to change people. Just find a place where you can be happy for your own sake.

It's good to hear that you agree with me on something, but notice that I qualified my statement with the word sometimes. Although I've never been one to try and change people, that doesn't mean that I won't argue my point and fight to the bitter end for what I think I've earned, which has frequently meant ending up in places where I haven't been wanted.

Not to mention that it is hard to prove and detect.

Yes indeed. Notice how the realtor responded to Calikid when he confronted her: denial.

A typical response, "Prejudice, racism, bias? How can you say that? I don't agree." Oh how many times have I heard that response. The stories I could tell, but I'll spare everyone.

I think we made the right decision to move here. We are helping to set the new standard of acceptance, not trying to conserve the old enclave. This was my first experience with prejudice and it was an eye opener, it was so smooth and gentle you didn't know what was coming your way until it hit you.

The "smooth and gentle" kind of racism is often the most dangerous and it is exactly the kind I was referring to in my previous posts on this topic, the kind I have frequently encountered myself and which I believe can be the most damaging. So "smooth and gentle" that you often don't know what hit you.

I understand completely why you decided to walk instead of pushing the envelope to buy a house in RO.

Sometimes you simply have to adopt a motto I've coined: The days of saving people from themselves are over. Even though I'm not a Houstonian, I hope you enjoy Houston, a city I'm hoping to relocate to in the near future.

to sum it up...whites live in an area, blacks follow, whites move, blacks dominate for a short time, hispanics then move in droves to the now black area, blacks then move back with the whites, whites then move again...

basically, that's the story of Loop 610 to the Woodlands....Jeff Davis, Northline, etc. were white, blacks then moved in and now Aldine ISD is the white district, blacks get rezoned there from Acres Home and eventually move into the area, whites then move out to Spring while hispanics are closely making their way up I-45

I second that. This process occurs all over the US. Both my father and father-in-law worked for the post office and they both used to tell (laughing as they told the story) how they and other African Americans would ask their white co-workers where they lived. My father and father-in-law agreed that once Black folks found where the white folks lived, it was only a matter time before they would be moving out to those neighborhoods.

Honestly if you are playing the real estate game these days, whomever writes the biggest check wins. I don't care if I was living in a BLVD home, where the neighbors want to keep everything "the same."

Snoop Dog writes me a check for 4 million, Snoop gets the house............I'm moving anyway

Very practical, especially considering you're trying to sell your house in The Woodlands. I agree with Musicman; post some pictures of your house as I'd love to see them. Although I'm looking to buy a house in Houston, from everything I've read on this and other message boards, I don't see living in the Woodlands in my future. Good luck selling your house.

Does that apply to individual homesellers though ? Or does that just apply to businesses selling - prop. developers, apts., condos. etc.

I agree.. I'm just wondering legally, how hard would it be to come after an individul that did discriminate in deciding which of many perspective buyers he chooses to sell to.

I am fairly sure that the Fair Housing Acts applies to everyone--individuals as well as businesses that rent apartments and condo.You can read more about the law by going to the following website.

<http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm>

I know a person would have to prove that the individual seller discriminated against her/him. How hard would that be to prove? I guess it depends on the facts of the case and whether or not you have a good lawyer. I know that people do win housing discrimination cases.

I am also aware of test studies conducted to determine whether sellers are using race to discriminate. These often consist of individuals or couple being sent out to try and rent an apartment. Each individual/couple is given the same profile--job, earnings, savings, and other issues related to renting an apartment, with the exception that some of the individuals and couples are African American and some white. The purpose of these test studies is to see if the individuals/couples with the same profile but of different racial backgrounds are treated differently. I also have a colleague formerly at Stanford, but now at Wash U-St. Louis, who conducted sociolinguistic test studies to see how landlords respond to people calling who sound like they may be African American compared to those who sound white. This may surprise you, but there is quite a bit of evidence that people make judgements on the basis of whether people sound Black or white. That, however, is much longer discussion that is beyond this one.

I guess I'm breaking it down beyond neighborhood to the individual.

As an idividual selling my home... if I decided I only wanted to sell my home to someone of the same wealth, someone the same ethnicity as me, someone who went to the same university as me, someone of the same denomination.... etc.

As an individual, wouldn't it be my perogative to sell to whoever I wanted to an exclude whoever I wanted to from buying what it is I'm selling.

Would it be illegal for me not sell you my home becasue you arent ________ enough for my liking and instead sell my home to someone else.

Now if you have a collection of like-minded individuals that all do this......

Wrong, yes, but i just dont quite see how it's illegal.

The example I gave of having potential buyers write a letter explaining how they will honor the house is a process that suggests that people do make decisions on the basis of shared experiences whether these be working or having attended the same university, same wealth, class background, professional status, religious or racial background. According to the equal housing law, it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of religion or race. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not in a position to offer an informed comment on the law and I have no interest in debating whether particular behaviors are illegal. Because even such actions were illegal, they probably would be difficult to prove in court (maybe RedScare can weigh in here) The reason I provided the example in the first place, was only to say that even when particular actions taken may not be illegal, they still have the same force: excluding certain people from neighborhoods, jobs, schools...

Is it illegal ? I mean, are the real estate agents only acting on behalf of their clients, the current homeowner. And if I were a current homeowner looking to sell, couldnt I sell to whoever I wanted to and exclude whoever I wanted to.

If it were an effort by the real estate industy to keep blacks out of that market.. yes, that would be illegal.

But, it's basically alot of individual homeowner making decisions on who they rather sell and who they rather not sell to based on their notion of what they want their neighborhood to remain. Are those notions racist.. sure. But is that illegal.. for an individual to use race as a factor to decide who they want to sell their private property to ??

I'm not questioning if it's right to be selling your home based on race, obviously it isnt, Im just questioning if its in fact illegal

Even though it is illegal to exclude people from neighborhoods on the basis of race, there are kinds of subtle ways to keep certainpeople from purchasing a house in a neighborhood. The example I gave in post #66 in the SFBay Area of having people write a letter explaining how they would honor the house and neighborhood is an example. Ostensibly, the process is neutral with race/class/social position playing no factor in the decision, but I think this process is simply a more subtle and sophisticated (and likely not illegal) way of excluding people from the neighborhood.

And some suggest pushing the envelope and forcing the change, which is indeed possible. ometimes folks simply tire of fighting the racism to get what they are entitled to and decide it simply isn't worth the aggravation. Having been in situations of this sort, I have sometimes decided that a particular battle wasn't worth fighting and it was better to walk away.

In NYC you can't buy an "apartment" in a nice highrise no matter what your race or creed unless the owners agree to let you in. Usually no "show business" types are allowed. Also, they interview you and your life becomes an open book. They want to see your financial statements and your references have to be top of the line. It most certainly is discrimination of the worst sort and it is legal.

There are many ways to exclude people from a neighborhood or apartment, some more subtle than others. When the real estate market was booming out here in the SFBay Area, especially in some of the more desirable areas, where there were multiple offers on houses, people would ask those who put in a bid to write a letter describing how they would honor the house and neighborhood, which was factored into the decision about whose offer to accept. Several of my colleagues would discuss how, when asked to write such a letter, they were sure demonstrate their cultural and social capital by including the kind of things they knew would be perceived favorably and get their offer accepted. Given the slow down in the SFBay real estate market, this practice may be out of fashion.

Recently, I went house hunting in River Oaks with my wife who happens to be African American. We have just relocated from the WE HO area of LA a very integrated and forward thinking area. When I arrived first and started to look for homes on my own with my chosen agent everything was nice and polite and the agent was virtually kicking in doors of homes that were not "officially" on the market when she was informed this was going to be a cash sale and my price range was in the 7 figures. When my wife joined me to complete our house hunting all those not "officially" on the market homes disappeared, my agent wanted us to look at homes in Royal Oaks, Riverside Terrace, Braes wood , Meyer land. All of a sudden the homes that were of interest to us in River Oaks were being described as old,needing lots of updates,or owners reconsidering selling. I am fully aware that we were being discouraged from living here, when it was discovered that an interracial couple wanted to move in. We finally decided on a new home in Sienna Plantation. I would never step foot in this "hood" ever again. They are racist, but very nice!

Although a situation like this is not unique to Houston, I'm not surprised that this happened.

Interesting. Where exactly in Houston is the neighborhood located? I'd like to visit it when I'm in Houston this summer.

I have attended many higher ed professional conferences in the last 5 years and all of them spent much time talking about how useless AP is now. There was a time when AP was for the top students. Now it seems AP is for everyone and the program has been watered down. Some of the top universities in the U.S. are now not taking AP for college credit. If I'm not mistaken, the representatives from the University of Chicago said they were no longer taking AP courses. There were others who said that their university had done away with it as well.

The main point I was making about Westside is, once their kids get to college, they seem to be average at best. Those students are not any more prepared for college than some of the inner city schools.

If you read the Chronicle of Higher Education, there are many articles about the declining standards at many universities. The main reason they are having to lower their standards is because high school students going to college are not doing well. At my university, the faculty refuse to offer remedial classes, which makes it difficult to keep enrollment up. More and more students are graduating from high school without the basic skills to succeed in college.

It is a sad situation.

I've been an academic for more than 2 decades who currently teaches in the University of

California system and agree that many students are not prepared to handle college/university level work. But believe me it's not just the students who have attended urban schools. Many students even those who have attended schools that have good reputations are not prepared for the rigors of college work. While many of these students do possess the "basic skills" of literacy, they aren't the "basic skills" needed for success at the university. Too many students aren't able to read difficult texts critically, write coherent, analytical papers, synthesize, summarize, or back up their opinions with strong arguments.

My old friend from middle school moved from Spring Branch ISD to Houston ISD and went to Lee as part of the graduating class of '98. She was never ghetto before, and I recently met up with her last month and she is G.H.E.T.T.O.

I'm the person who asked a poster to explain his use of the term MEXICANIZED, which might explain why I am writing again, this time to ask for an explanation of the term G.H.E.T.T.O. Exactly what does this term mean? Please explain as I need to see the specific details that help me understand how this term is being used.