Title: Mixed‐income schools and housing: advancing the neoliberal urban agenda
Abstract: Abstract This article uses a social justice framework to problematize national and local policies in housing and education which propose to reduce poverty and improve educational performance of low‐income students through mixed‐income strategies. Drawing on research on Chicago, the article argues mixed‐income strategies are part of the neoliberal restructuring of cities which has at its nexus capital accumulation and racial containment and exclusion through gentrification, de‐democratization and privatization of public institutions, and displacement of low‐income people of color. The ideological basis for these policies lies in racialized cultural deficit theories that negate the cultural and intellectual strengths and undermine the self‐determination of low‐income communities of color. Neoliberal mixed‐income policies are unlikely to reduce inequality in education and housing. They fail to address root causes of poverty and unequal opportunity to learn and may exacerbate spatial exclusion and marginalization of people of color in urban areas. Building on Nancy Fraser's model for social justice, the article concludes with suggestions toward a framework for just housing and education policy centered on economic redistribution (economic restructuring), cultural recognition (cultural transformation), and parity of political representation. Keywords: neoliberalismracehousingmixed‐income schoolssocial justice Acknowledgements I would like to thank Stephen Ball, Eric Gutstein, David Hursh, Ruth Lupton, Pamela Quiroz, Thomas Pedroni, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, and Heather Horsely for her research assistance. Notes 1. This is reflected in various forums and symposia that convene housing and school officials, key foundations, and local political actors — for example, Building Successful Mixed Income Communities: Education and Quality Schools, Invitational forum co‐sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation and Metropolitan Planning Council in coordination with the Chicago Housing Authority, 17 November 2005. 2. Between July 2004 and September 2005 we attended and/or participated in monthly school board meetings, CPS public hearings, rallies and pickets, press conferences, community organization and teacher meetings and forums, coalition meetings, planning meetings, and congressional task force meetings. We had regular conversations with teachers and community organizations. From September 2005 to June 2006 Lipman participated in monthly coalition meetings and numerous community hearings and discussions with community organization members, teachers, parents, and local school staff. 3. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a development tool. The city declares an area 'blighted' and unlikely to be developed without the diversion of tax revenues. Once declared a TIF, property tax revenues for schools, libraries, parks and other public works are frozen for 23 years, and all growth in revenues above this level is put in a TIF fund. TIF funds subsidize developers directly and pay for development infrastructure costs. As of fall 2007, Chicago had created 153 TIFs, many in the downtown and areas already undergoing real estate development (Smith 2006 Smith, J.L. 2006. "Mixed‐income communities: Designing out poverty or pushing out the poor?". In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 282–300. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. [Google Scholar], 291). For extensive coverage of Chicago TIFs see The Reader TIF Archive: http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/. 4. For a counter perspective, see Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997 Schwartz, A. and Tajbakhsh, K. 1997. Mixed income housing: Unanswered questions. Cityscape, 3(2): 71–92. [Google Scholar]; Bennett 1998 Bennett, L. 1998. Do we really want to live in a communitarian city? Communitarian thinking and the redevelopment of Chicago's Cabrini‐Green public housing complex. Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(2): 99–116. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Bennett and Reed 1999 Bennett, L. and Reed, A. Jr. 1999. "The new face of urban renewal: The Near North Redevelopment Initiative and the Cabrini‐Green neighborhood". In Without justice for all, Edited by: Reed, A. Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [Google Scholar]; Smith 2000 Smith, J.L. 2000. The space of local control in the devolution of US public housing policy. Geografiska Annaler, 82B(4): 221–33. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 5. Non‐exempt heads of household must work a minimum of 30 hours per week and all other non‐exempt family members between ages of 18 and 61 must also work 30 hours per week or be in qualified alternative activities (e.g. enrollment in education program, training, verified job search, etc.) Public housing tenants are subject to drug testing housing keeping checks, specific behaviour rules, and exclusion if there are convicted felons in the family. 6. Kahlenberg is a fellow of the Century Foundation, a liberal think tank that supports 'a marriage of capitalism and democracy': http://www.tcf.org/about.asp. 7. Funding disparities range from annual per pupil expenditures of more than $15,000 to less than $4000 (Biddle and Berliner 2002 Biddle, B.J. and Berliner, D.C. 2002. Unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8): 48–59. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The wealthiest 10% of school districts spend almost 10 times more than the poorest 10% (Darling‐Hammond 2004 Darling‐Hammond, L. 2004. "What happens to a dream deferred? The continuing quest for equal educational opportunity". In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, , 2nd ed., Edited by: Banks, J.A. and Banks, C.A.M. 607–30. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar], 608). Spending in Illinois varies from a high of almost $23,700 to a low of less than $4500, which is almost $2000 below the amount the state's Education Funding Advisory Board determined was necessary for an adequate education in the state (Center for Tax and Budget Accountability 2006 Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. 2006. The current status of public education funding in Illinois http://www.ctbaonline.org/Education.htm [Google Scholar]). 8. These include: equalization of financial resources ('opportunity to learn' standards), changes in curriculum and testing (ending tracking to differentiate curriculum and reforming assessments and their use to focus on improving teaching rather than sorting students), investing in good teaching for all students (strengthening the knowledge base for teaching and ensuring that students have equal access to competent, caring, and supported teachers).
Publication Year: 2008
Publication Date: 2008-03-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 107
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot