Week 7 Readings

Exploring Sean Reardon’s data on school segregation, I learned that racial segregation absolutely goes hand in hand with poverty segregation. As stated, “…black-white score gaps were larger in more residentially segregated cities” (9). The example of cities made it easier for me to connect the dots. Growing up in North Philly, my k-12 experience was indeed segregated. I never had a white classmate until I was in high school. The same goes for never having a classmate from another financial status group. While the problem seems to be linked more in poverty-based segregation, we cannot dismiss race because that is the origin of where it came from. It stems from a ‘if we can’t be racially segregated then we will make it poverty segregated’ mentality, in which poverty will consists, mainly, of black and latinx people. Using the data from my elementary school I found that 96% of students qualified for free/reduced lunch. The average test scores were 1.86 grade levels below average, the learning rates were 6% less each grade then average, and the trend in test scores decreased an average of 0.11 grade levels each year from 2009–16.

It is not surprising to me to read Chetty’s information on elite schools having lower social mobility. From watching movies and shows about the elite, like Legally Blonde, the majority in those schools were wealthy. Them going to ivy league schools only kept them at the top. It was surprising to learn about schools that are less selective having competing social mobility, for those coming from the bottom fifth area, as ivy league schools. For example, Temple’s data on mobility show that 24% of students moved up two or more income quintiles, which was among the highest. In comparison, University of Pennsylvania’s data show that 13% of students moved up two or more income quintiles, which was among the lowest in Pennsylvania. Temple’s students have more mobility than UPenn’s students. This supports Chetty’s information on elite schools having less social mobility.