The Victims of PASSHE Gentrification
Virtually every word
in the dictionary has “synonyms,” that is words that carry roughly the same
meaning; but many words have few if any “antonyms,” that is words that carry an
opposite meaning.
For example the word
“victim,” defined as “someone or
something sacrificed or preyed upon,”
has thirty-six synonyms
but only two antonyms—“criminal” and “culprit”—according to Thesaurus.com.¹
“PASSHE
gentrification” has been defined as “the displacement of less-affluent students
by more-affluent students in PASSHE classrooms.” The existence of gentrification trends at
public universities across America generally has been documented since the 1990s.²
The existence of gentrification at
PASSHE universities was first documented by Chart 21 in my book, Privatization Without a Plan in 2013.³
In previous blog
posts we have focused primarily on the “culprits” behind “PASSHE
Gentrification,” that is, the elected and appointed officials who control every
aspect of the PASSHE system of 14 universities.
The PASSHE
universities include Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg,
Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg,
Slippery Rock and West Chester.
Synonym and
Antonym
The words “benefit” and “detriment” form a perfect synonym/antonym
pair: Each is the antonym of the
other! Just as there must be a culprit
for every victim; there must also be a benefit for every detriment.
Question: “Who are the victims of PASSHE gentrification?” Or equivalently, “To whom is PASSHE
gentrification detrimental?”
Answer: A closer look at Chart 21³ by
means of a small spreadsheet⁴ answers that question:
Between 2002 and 2011, the pace of gentrification at a typical PASSHE
university (depicted by Chart 21) increased dramatically as seen from the
following figures:
In the span of those ten years (with nine changes), the percentage of
less-affluent PASSHE students (from the bottom two quartiles of annual family
income) fell from 80% to 67%.
At the same time, the percentage of more-affluent PASSHE students (from
the top two quartiles of annual family income) grew from 20% to 33%.
A shift from 80%/20% to 67%/33% is clearly huge, but the true impact of
what PASSHE gentrification is doing to the majority (67%) of PASSHE students is
best seen in the dollars, rather than the percentages.
Quartile 1 has a family income range from $0 to $40,000, with an average
of $17,863.
Quartile 2 has a family income range from $40.000 to $69,999, with an
average of $54,817.
Quartile 3 has a family income range from $70,000 to $99,999, with an
average of $83,816.
Quartile 4 has a family income range from $100,000 or higher, with an
average of $135,677.
To get a sense of how many less-affluent students have been displaced by
more-affluent students from 2002 to 2011, one needs to convert the percentages
in Chart 21 into numbers by using total enrollment for each of the years. An attached spreadsheet⁵ calculates those
figures. They are summarized below:
1.
421 Quartile 1 students were displaced by more
affluent students between 2002 and 2011;
2.
384 Quartile 2 students were displaced by more
affluent students between 2002 and 2011;
3.
167 Quartile 3 students displaced less affluent
students between 2002 and 2011; and
4.
639 Quartile 4 students displaced less affluent
students between 2002 and 2011.
In total then, 805 (421+384) Q1 and Q2 students were displaced by more
affluent students;
And 805 (167+639) Q3 and Q4 students displaced the less affluent
students.
Since these data represent the gentrification figures for just one
PASSHE university whose size was intermediate among the other thirteen PASSHE
universities, the total gentrification figures for PASSHE as a 14-university system
would come to approximately 11,270 (805 x 14).
From 2002 to 2011, some 11,270 less-affluent PASSHE students were
displaced by an equal number of more-affluent PASSHE students. Since it took place over ten years (nine
changes), the average annual loss of less-affluent students (and gain of
more-affluent students) was about 1,250 per year (11,270/9).
Between 2002 and
2011, some 11,270 of PASSHE’s less-affluent (Q1 & Q2) students (who in 2011
accounted for about two-thirds of all PASSHE students) were displaced by
some 11, 270 of PASSHE’s more-affluent (Q3 & Q4) students (who in 2011
accounted for about one-third of all PASSHE students).
Who are the Beneficiaries of PASSHE
Gentrification?
The beneficiaries are
clearly the approximately one-third of PASSHE students who come from PASSHE’s
more-affluent (Q3 & Q4) families, with average annual incomes of $83,816 and
$135,677 respectively.
PASSHE’s gentrification policy—which is based on its Act-188 defying
“low-tuition-for- all” policy, and which makes tuition-discounting
impossible—is giving Q3 and Q4 students an unneeded State subsidy!
While the Q3 and Q4 students are beneficiaries of the Board of
Governors’ gentrification policy, they are not the culprits previously
identified as one of the antonyms to the victims of PASSHE
gentrification.
Who are the
Culprits behind PASSHE Gentrification?
The culprits are clearly the elected and appointed members on the PASSHE
Board of Governors who since 2002 have ignored the Act 188 statutory purpose of
the fourteen PASSHE universities which is: “To provide high quality education
at the lowest possible cost to the students.”
Instead they have provided steadily eroding quality education at the
“lowest possible tuition (sticker price)” rather than at the lowest possible
cost to the students (bottom line), as per Act 188.
These culprits are also major beneficiaries of their own Act-188 defying
PASSHE gentrification policy. High elected
officials get campaign donations from their political supporters, and in
return, some political supporters get appointments to various State boards
including the PASSHE Board of Governors. And as we saw last time, some of the
highest ranking political appointees on the PASSHE Board of Governors have managed
to “grab” multi-million dollar contracts with PASSHE universities, meeting or
exceeding the definition of “Legal Corruption.”
A Word about the
Victims of PASSHE Gentrification
Students from Pennsylvania’s
least-affluent families are condemned to one of two terrible fates: 1)
years of crushing student-loan debt for students lucky enough to gain admission
despite substantial financial obstacles; or worse 2) the inability to even
attend a PASSHE university because the BOG’s gentrification policy creates
financial obstacles for them that are simply too enormous to overcome.
Students in group 1) will have their lives and
future prospects diminished, or at least postponed, by their student-loan debt,
though in time they may be able to overcome such setbacks and achieve their
dreams. But the college-prepared students in group 2) who are being
denied access to a college education—not because of academic deficiencies but
rather because of insurmountable financial obstacles—will find their lifetime
opportunities few, and their future prospects bleak.
To
be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment