Category: Uncategorized

Ask someone about gentrification and there’s a fifty-fifty chance they’ll tell you it’s a good thing, however, there’s also a fifty-fifty chance they could tell you it’s a bad thing. The word gentrification seems as though to have both positive and negative connotations, so why is that? It’s because gentrification brings along both good and bad things and depending on who you’re talking to will determine which outcome is more important.

Let’s talk about the main good effect gentrification brings about; an improvement in the local economy. Gentrification brings along a lot of jobs as more businesses move into the neighborhood. As a neighborhood gets gentrified some businesses see that as a sign that more middle to high-income households are moving into the area. This causes major corporations to look into investing in those areas. Gentrification also brings about more smaller businesses owned by the residents who plan to or already live there. They see the neighborhood changing and are more inclined to take the risk of starting and developing a business. Both these effects bring in more jobs to the area, they also improve the economy as more people have more money to spend on luxury items.

However, the biggest negative effect of gentrification is population displacement. As more middle to high-income households move into a neighborhood the rent for that neighborhood increases. This cause the existing residents to look to other areas for cheaper rent. Even with the creation of more jobs, of the pay stays the same but the rent increases it will force many to move out of the area. This indirectly adds to another problem, overcrowding. As rent increases in low-income neighborhoods, low-income residents are forced to find housing in other low-income neighborhoods. This causes an overcrowding problem in those areas as people are then forced to comprise for lesser conditions or pack more people into a residence then what can be provided.

The solution to eliminating the negative view of gentrification would be to put in place laws that prevent population displacement. One of the major ones would be outlawing the development of housing that would charge rent significantly out of the price range that the current residents pay. This would lessen the likelihood that rent would increase and decrease the rate at which rent would increase. Another would be to freeze the rate that the current property tax is for residents who have lived in a neighborhood for a while. This would eliminate the fear of property taxes increasing and allow those residents to remain in their homes.

Overall, the real problem is population displacement rather than gentrification. If laws were set in place that allowed the current residents to enjoy the benefits of gentrification just as the new residents do, then the willingness towards gentrification and the view of it would change for the better.

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/this-is-what-happens-after-a-neighborhood-gets-gentrified/432813/

https://shelterforce.org/2014/05/23/7_policies_that_could_prevent_gentrification/

Civic discourse is defined as when people discuss the world around them. (American University). This discussion can range from a simple discussion, to heavy debate, to a nasty argument. As long as there’s a discussion of ideas and opinions about the world. However, people are becoming against the thought of civil discourse and questioning the effectiveness of it. This is because now when people talk about their opinions and ideas they are more likely to get defensive and argue rather than discuss. This blocks people off from learning new ideas and stops the idea of civil discourse.

To begin with, many people question whether civil discourse actually achieves its goals, specifically when it comes to arguments. When people argue, they become defensive and rather then become open to the other side they become closed off and try to prove their side is the right side. In an argument there seems to always be a desire to have a winner and loser and no one wants to be the loser. Even in debates were the goal is to bring out all points from each side there seems to be winner and loser mentality. This even leads to people no longer wanting to discuss their ideas as they feel no one will want to listen to them rather just argue until one of them gives up. However, the solution to this is to change the societal norm of the winner-loser mentality.

The solution to this would be teach children from a younger age that civic discourse is more than proving to someone that you’re right and they’re wrong. To start debates at a young age so children can see how to bring about their points and ideas in a way that eliminates the winner-loser mentality. It’s also important to teach children how to argue in a productive and healthy way as to defend their points without getting defensive. Another solution would be to show a healthy debate through the media. The media is a big influencer in everyone’s lives and as of now they have been not only been showing but contributing to unhealthy civil discourse. It seems as though every day there’s someone yelling at someone else that they’re right on the news. This show makes it seem as though this behavior and way of communicating is acceptable so it’s important to change this view. By changing it people will be more likely to change their way of debating and arguing.

Overall, as of now civil discourse is in bad shape. It’s only causing people to argue and bicker rather than discuss their ideas with one another. It’s causing many to feel as though discussing their ideas will get no one where as someone will argue and tell them they’re wrong. One way to fix is this is to teach children how to properly discuss their ideas and opinions. Another way, would be to change the way the media displays civil discourse as they are a strong public influence.

Source:

https://www.american.edu/spa/civildiscourse/what-is-civil-discourse.cfm

https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/free-speech-and-toleration/civil-discourse-important/

College sports are seen as a great way for students who are excellent in certain sports to get through college. Athletic scholarships, especially football, pay for a major portion of their tuition and help them remain active. However, when many look into the lives of college athletes they question whether now they have the same motivation.

To begin with, many professional sports leagues, such as the NBA and NFL, are requiring that all new athletes come from college-level sports leagues. This is because of a variety of reasons but the biggest is safety. For example, in the NFL, players that come out of high school are significantly smaller than players that are already established in the NFL. This can cause them to get injured more easily and decrease the number of new players joining the NFL.  The NFL chooses to have players go through the college level leagues so their risk for injury decreases significantly as they improve their skills and bodies. However, as this may seem like a good way to decrease injuries in the NFL it is causing problems for college athletes specifically those who play sports to get through college.

The requirement that athletes go through college level leagues before joining professional leagues is causing more problems. The biggest problem it is causing is now athletes are going to college, not to learn, but to play a sport. This undermines the purpose of college and to many athletes makes college seem like a waste of time causing them to do poorly or to pick majors that won’t be too intensive, so they can focus on their sport. On the other, there are college athletes that do care about college and their success in it. However, college classes require a lot of focus and time as do college sports. This can put extreme stress on college athletes and force them to choose between one of the two. If they choose the sport then they undermine the purpose of college, if they chose college then they may lose their spot on the team.

One solution could be to not require athletes who want to go into professional leagues to go to college. Rather they would have to wait four years and develop their skills until they are able to join the professional league. The only problems with this another league would have to be set up in order for athletes to even consider taking this route. This league would also have to be just as popular as the college level league too. Even though, it seems as though there are problems with the solution, it would solve the major problem of student-athletes not focusing on school.

Overall, college sports on paper seem like a great idea, they keep students active, provide entertainment for the school, and help pay for tuition. However, in practice, it causes more problems. It makes college seem more like a bridge to professional sports teams rather than a higher learning institution. It also makes student-athletes who are dedicated to both school and their sport chose between the two.

Source:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/college-athletes-academic-performance-graduation-13308008.php

Most children in America are required to take a standardized test sometime throughout their academic career. Whether it’s just a way to let the state gage where the students are academically or way to move onto the next grade. Standard testing is defined in the name, it’s a test that has a standard set of information a person is required to know. The standard is set by a group of academic experts, for example, the College Board or the Board of Education. On paper, the idea sounds fantastic, have a standard set information every student should know so no student gets left behind. This allows for the gap between education in good schools and education in bad schools to close. However, in recent years standardized testing has seemed to miss its the target and rather become a burden for students and teachers required to take it.
To begin with, it’s believed that standardized testing creates a “teach to test” atmosphere. Rather than teaching the curriculum that was decided upon, a school district would be required to teach the information on the standardized test. This can cause a gap in learning for students who haven’t reached the level standardized testing requires. School districts are forced to teach the information on a standardized test rather than their own curriculum because in many situations’ schools get federal funding is a certain number of students pass the test. Teachers also feel forced to teach the information on a standardized test because many times their evaluations are done through the standardized test. The number of students that pass a standardized test can determine whether a teacher gets a promotion, raise, or even fired. This “teach to test” atmosphere can also be extremely harmful, because some schools will teach their curriculum and cram the standardized testing information at the end of the semester. This not only causes unneeded stress on students but also teaches them to try to learn the material for a week rather than long term. In addition, standardized testing is also harmful because it can decrease a student’s academic confidence.
Moreover, a student’s academic confidence can be demolished by a standardized test. This circumstance is aimed mainly at schools that require students to pass a standardized test to continue onto the next grade. If a student fails a standardized test and in return has to repeat a grade they may feel as though, ‘what’s the point’? If they couldn’t pass it the first time how can a second time at the same curriculum, at the same pace, with the same learning style work? Nothing’s different, so expecting change is unrealistic. Failing a grade is also seen as a sign of laziness, immaturity, and unintelligence by society. This stigma has been extremely hard to break and even harder to change, however, a shift seems to have taken hold of societal views as more information on academic disabilities, such as dyslexia, comes out.
Overall, standardized testing seems to have caused more problems than created. It has caused curriculums to change to fit the test rather than the academic needs of the students. It has also caused many students to give up school altogether. Although standardized testing seems like a great idea on paper, in practice, it’s unreliable and problematic.

Sources:

https://www.whitbyschool.org/passionforlearning/the-pros-and-cons-of-standardized-testing

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don%27t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx

Public education is available to everyone in the United States. In most states, children are required to go to public school if they are under the age of sixteen and allowed to an alternative route, whether that be home school or private school. However, in recent years many people have been questioning the role and goals of public education. This stems from the number of students who either after high school don’t continue their education or the students who drop out before they get their diploma.

The questioning of the roles and goals of public education and whether they are achieving them are based on the original roles and goals of public education. Public education began before the United States was founded, however, here mandatory public education can be traced back to Massachusettes, who was the first to pass  Compulsory Education Laws in 1852. The role of the law was to ensure that children understood how to write and do simple math. The goal of the laws was different. Legislators passed this law because of the growing fear of foreign and Catholic values, that were becoming popular during this time. The United States was a very strong Protestant country during this time and the fear that people would convert was vast. Another reason was the growing worry over child labor and the hope that the passing of this law would discourage those from overworking children. This fear was heightened during the Industrial Age when children began working in factories that had extremely dangerous working conditions. By mandating attendance for primary and later on high school, many legislators believed this would then decrease the risk of child labor. However, currently, laws limit the exposure of children to harsh working conditions, specifically by limiting the hours and regulating working conditions. This creates a safer and friendlier working environment for children. The creation of a safer work environment and the discontinuing of the fear of foreign values makes many question the goal of public education in the present day.

However, many people the goals for public education have changed rather than disappeared. Many believe the goals of public education is now to help children better their future. In a survey conducted by the National School Board Association, they state that 42.6% of the 875 participants believe that the goal of public education is to “Help students fulfill their potential” (National School Board Association) and 31.7% of participants believe public education is to “prepare students for a satisfying and productive life” (National School Board Association) While these answers may seem vague and indirect many say these new goals help move society forward. That the new goals are for the betterment of society rather than a political agenda or safety concern. The National School Board Association argues that many jobs require a high school degree because high school teaches the basics of how to be productive at life. By mandating public education, many children are not only learning how to be productive but progressing the basic knowledge of society.

Sources:

https://www.nsba.org/sites/default/files/The%20Purpose%20of%20Public%20Education%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20the%20School%20Board_National%20Connection.pdf

https://education.findlaw.com/education-options/compulsory-education-laws-background.html