Stop White Genocide–Swing Dancing
Share on Facebook
|
||||
My younger son goes to Temple, where he’s a sophomore. This year he’s living in an apartment with two friends at 19th and Diamond, just a few blocks from campus. It’s a dangerous neighborhood. Whenever I go see Nick, I get antsy and wonder what I was thinking, allowing him to rent there.
One day, before I pick him up for lunch, I stop to talk to a cop who’s parked a block away from Nick’s apartment.
“Is he already enrolled for classes?” the cop says when I point out where my son lives.
Well, given that it’s December, I think so. But his message is clear: Bad idea, this neighborhood. A lot of burglaries and robberies. Temple students are prime prey, the cop says.
I’ve shared my view of North Broad Street with people—white friends and colleagues—who see something else there: New buildings. Progress. Gentrification. They’re sunny about the area around Temple. I think they’re blind, that they’ve stopped looking. Indeed, I’ve begun to think that most white people stopped looking around at large segments of our city, at our poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods, a long time ago. One of the reasons, plainly put, is queasiness over race. Many of those neighborhoods are predominantly African-American. And if you’re white, you don’t merely avoid them—you do your best to erase them from your thoughts.
At the same time, white Philadelphians think a great deal about race. Begin to talk to people, and it’s clear it’s a dominant motif in and around our city. Everyone seems to have a story, often an uncomfortable story, about how white and black people relate.
Another story: Dennis, 26, teaches math in a Kensington school. His first year there, fresh out of college, one of his students, an unruly eighth grader, got into a fight with a girl. Dennis told him to stop, he got into Dennis’s face, and in the heat of the moment Dennis called the student, an African-American, “boy.”
The student went home and told his stepfather. The stepfather demanded a meeting with the principal and Dennis, and accused Dennis of being racist; the principal defended his teacher. Dennis apologized, knowing how loaded the term “boy” was and regretting that he’d used it, though he was thinking, Why would I be teaching in an inner-city school if I’m a racist? The stepfather calmed down, and that would have been the end of it, except for one thing: The student’s behavior got worse. Because now he knew that no one at the school could do anything, no matter how badly he behaved.
Confusion, misread intentions, bruised feelings—everyone has not only a race story, but a thousand examples of trying to sort through our uneasiness on levels large and trivial. I do, too. My rowhouse in Mount Airy is on a mostly African-American block; it’s middle-class and friendly—in fact, it’s the friendliest street my family has ever lived on, with block parties and a spirit of watching out for each other. Whether a neighbor is black or white seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.
Yet there’s a dance I do when I go to the Wawa on Germantown Avenue. I find myself being overly polite. Each time I hold the door a little too long for a person of color, I laugh at myself, both for being so self-consciously courteous and for knowing that I’m measuring the thank-you’s. A friend who walks to his car parked on Front Street downtown early each morning has a similar running joke with himself. As he walks, my friend says hello and makes eye contact with whoever crosses his path. If the person is white, he’s bestowing a tiny bump of friendliness. If the person is black, it’s friendliness and a bit more: He’s doing something positive for race relations.
On one level, such self-consciousness and hypersensitivity can be seen as progress when it comes to race, a sign of how much attitudes have shifted for the better, a symbol of our desire for things to be better. And yet, lately I’ve come to fear that the opposite might also be true: that our carefulness is, in fact, at the heart of the problem.
Fifty years after the height of the civil rights movement, more than 25 years after electing its first African-American mayor, Philadelphia remains a largely segregated city, with uneasy boundaries in culture and understanding. And also in well-being. There is a black middle class, certainly, and blacks are well-represented in our power structure, but there remains a vast and seemingly permanent black underclass. Thirty-one percent of Philadelphia’s more than 600,000 black residents live below the poverty line. Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of a crime or commit one, to drop out of school and to be unemployed.
What gets examined publicly about race is generally one-dimensional, looked at almost exclusively from the perspective of people of color. Of course, it is black people who have faced generations of discrimination and who deal with it still. But our public discourse ignores the fact that race—particularly in a place like Philadelphia—is also an issue for white people. Though white people never talk about it.
Everyone might have a race story, but few whites risk the third-rail danger of speaking publicly about race, given the long, troubled history of race relations in this country and even more so in this city.
A few months ago I began spending time in Fairmount, just north of the Art Museum. Formerly a working-class enclave of rowhomes, it’s now a gentrifying neighborhood with middle-class cachet and good restaurants. I went to the northern edge, close to Girard Avenue, generally considered the dividing line from North Philly, and began asking the mostly middle-class white people who live there, for whom race is an everyday issue, how it affects them.
Strangely enough, a number of them answered. Their stories bring home just how complicated white people’s negotiation with race and class is in this city, and how varied: Everyone does have a race story, it turns out, and every story is utterly unique.
Early on, during my walks around northern Fairmount, I’m surprised by a couple of things. One is the international flavor. On a warm Sunday in October, I buttonhole a woman I’ll call Anna, a tall, slim, dark-haired beauty from Moscow getting out of her BMW on an alley just south of Girard College. Anna goes to a local law school, works downtown at a law firm, and proceeds to let me have it when we start talking about race in her neighborhood.
“I’ve been here for two years, I’m almost done,” she says. “Blacks use skin color as an excuse. Discrimination is an excuse, instead of moving forward. … It’s a shame—you pay taxes, they’re not doing anything except sitting on porches smoking pot … Why do you support them when they won’t work, just make babies and smoking pot? I walk to work in Center City, black guys make compliments, ‘Hey beautiful. Hey sweetie.’ White people look but don’t make comments. …”
American whites I talk to in Fairmount have a decidedly different take. Our racial history, as horrible and daunting as it is, has created a certain tolerance of how things operate in the neighborhood, an acceptance of an edgy status quo.
One Fairmounter blames herself for her grill being stolen from her backyard, because if you don’t fence it in, she tells me, you’re asking for it. A pumpkin gets lifted from her front stoop in the fall, she buys another. That one gets stolen, she gets one more. It’s called city living. Flowerpots, even trash cans—they don’t stick around. Porch chairs have to be chained together. Your car window is likely to get smashed every now and then.
The danger can be a little steeper. One afternoon, at Krupa’s Tavern at 27th and Brown, a guy named Bob tells me about working in the mailroom at Rolling Stone magazine years ago and shows me an anthology of Beat-era writers he’s reading. I can’t resist asking him about his wire-rim glasses, which are way down on his nose and twisted at an absurd angle—there’s no way he can see out of them.
“Oh,” he says, smiling, “I went home one night from the bar and two guys smashed my face into the cement steps of my house”—that’s what messed up his glasses. “A few days later I got my wallet back in the mail—they had thrown it in somebody’s mailbox.”
He acknowledges that his assailants were black. “Not that that matters,” he says.
In 1950, Philadelphia was a predominantly white city, with blacks comprising about 20 percent of the population. A decade later, that number had risen closer to 30 percent, and four years after that—in the summer of 1964—racial unrest flared in North Philadelphia, largely over brutality against blacks by white cops. Hundreds were injured or arrested, and more than 200 stores in North Philly were damaged or destroyed in three days of rioting, with many never reopening. White flight only accelerated in the next decade, and today blacks make up 44 percent of the city’s population, and non-Hispanic whites 37 percent.
John, who lives on Woodstock, a leafy side street between Poplar and the northern stone wall of Eastern State Penitentiary, has seen the city’s demographics shift firsthand. He’s 87, and has lived on this block since he was five. Since 1930.
It was a different place then, before the war. You could walk home from the Blue Jay restaurant, at 29th and Girard, at any hour. Or up to Ridge to the Amish Market.
John worked in the offices of local long-distance haulers.
Milk and bread and ice delivered to your door. A city worker coming by every evening to climb a ladder to light the gas lamps that cast a beautiful glow. There were four nearby houses of prostitution, and tailors and drugstores, a butcher, barbers, a candy store—a self-contained world. Everybody had a laundry tree in the alley out back, and every Monday there’d be a snow of white—until shirts and towels and sheets began disappearing, right after the Second World War.
That’s when blacks from the South, with chips on their shoulders, John says, moved North. They moved into great brownstones above Girard and trashed them, using banisters and doors to stoke their furnaces instead of buying coal. Before long, it looked like Berlin after the war. Whites moved out.
I ask John when he was last above Girard Avenue. He thinks for a moment. “To a football game,” he says. When? “In 1942.”
Over the years he’s been mugged twice, once for a hundred bucks, once for the bottle of liquor he’d just bought. His house was once broken into, and he lost coats and money and Christmas presents and his father’s gold watch. A steel-tipped arrow once shot through his rear kitchen window, impaling a chair just after his nephew had gotten out of it. He watched as four or five black men appeared on the block one afternoon and tried to break into his brand-new Chrysler Imperial. John stood at his door—they walked away when they saw him. Last summer he was sitting on his stoop in a lounge chair and went in to use the bathroom, and when he returned, there was no chair—a neighbor watched a black kid on a bike zero in to lift it.
There’s more. But John doesn’t express sweeping bitterness or anger. “Oh, I have no problems with blacks,” he says. He was once quite friendly with black neighbors on Poplar, whose alley garages he can see from his porch. “They were working people, nice people, lovely people. I hated to see them move.”
Given the monumental changes he’s seen and his declining health, John no longer risks venturing alone beyond his block. There is a monumental spread, too, in his thinking, when he considers the range of black people who have entered his neighborhood.
He tells me about the time, a Saturday afternoon more than 10 years ago, when he came downstairs to his living room to find a stranger had come in through his front door—“It was a nigger boy, a big tall kid. He wanted money.”
It’s a strange moment, not only because of the ugly word, but because of John’s calm in delivering it, as if it is merely fact, one that explains the vast changes in his world.
Fairmount is now a destination of choice for a certain breed of young professional. And among them I discover a tried-and-true test of racial comfort.
Jen lives on Mount Vernon with her husband, an architect, and two children, eight and six; she’s been in Philly since she came to Drexel from Egg Harbor Township on a basketball scholarship two decades ago. Four years ago, Jen began looking into where Sebastian, now in third grade, would start school.
There’s a very good elementary school in Rittenhouse: Greenfield. And that’s the school the parents in Fairmount—the white, middle-class parents, which is Fairmount—shoot for if they’re going public.
Jen took a look at Bache-Martin, the public school four blocks from her house and 74 percent black: Teachers engaged. Kids well-behaved. Small classes. Plus a gym and an auditorium and a cafeteria, a garden, a computer lab. She enrolled her kids there.
Jen was not in the majority. Other mothers told her, “There is a lot of Greenfield pressure.” That pressure is from fellow Fairmounters: pressure to send their kids, collectively, to the right school. Greenfield test scores are a bit higher. It’s also not nearly so black.
Another mother told Jen: “I didn’t want to be the first”—in other words, the first to make the leap to Bache-Martin. “It takes a special person to be first.” Another told her: “Not everybody is as confident as you.”
Sipping tea in Mugshots on Fairmount Avenue, Jen rolls her eyes over the nut of the problem: Unfounded fear. Groupthink. A judgment on a school without even setting foot in it. “I wouldn’t like to imply that it’s about anything else,” Jen says, but of course it is: race.
Most Fairmounters, of course, aren’t trying to push up into Brewerytown, and their concerns are a little more pedestrian. In early December, I go to a civic-association meeting. On the agenda: the upcoming house tour, the winter social, patio planter boxes to help lessen rainwater in the sewers, and the neighborhood scourge: parking! I talk with Eileen and Bruce, who’s the association’s head, in the cozy glass-enclosed back room of their rowhouse on 25th Street. They’re both retired Philadelphia schoolteachers; we discuss neighborhoods.
Brewerytown residents tend to stay above Girard, they tell me. “At Halloween,” Eileen says, “that’s the only time we see them. Lot of little kids from the other side of the tracks—African-American kids. People still give them candy.”
“People get upset,” Bruce says. “We used to have a parade on Sunday afternoon, kids would get nicely dressed up, and kids from up there”—he points north—“would come barely dressed up.”
Eileen says, “People say—”
“At least dress up,” Bruce says. “Unless they’re working here, most of them don’t come in this direction. They seem happy to stay in their little lot, as it were.”
In a way, that sounds an awful lot like the Philadelphia of half a century ago. Before the race riots of that era, before Frank Rizzo, before race relations became openly tense and violent, the old rules applied. Black people knew their place. The difference now is that white people seem to know their place as well—white people stay in their little lot, too.
The problems seem intractable. In so many quarters, simply discussing race is seen as racist. And so white people are stuck, dishonest by default, as we take a pass on the state of this city’s largely black inner city and settle for politely opening doors at Wawa, before we slip back to our own lives.
We’re stuck in another way, too. Our troubled black communities create in us a tangle of feelings, including this one: a desire for things to be better. But for that sentiment to come true—for it to mean anything, even—I’ve come to believe that white people have to risk being much more open. It’s impossible to know how that might change the racial dynamics in Philadelphia, or the plight of the inner city. But as things stand, our cautiousness and fear mean that nothing changes in how blacks and whites relate, and most of us lose out on the possibility of what Jen has found: real connection.
But this is how I see it: We need to bridge the conversational divide so that there are no longer two private dialogues in Philadelphia—white people talking to other whites, and black people to blacks—but a city in which it is okay to speak openly about race. That feels like a lot to ask, a leap of faith for everyone. It also seems like the only place to go, the necessary next step.
Meanwhile, when I drive through North Philly to visit my son, I continue to feel both profoundly sad and a blind desire to escape.
Though I wonder: Am I allowed to say even that?
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/
Share on FacebookThe record number1 of Latinos who cast ballots for president this year are the leading edge of an ascendant ethnic voting bloc that is likely to double in size within a generation, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data, Election Day exit polls and a new nationwide survey of Hispanic immigrants.
The nation’s 53 million Hispanics comprise 17% of the total U.S. population but just 10% of all voters this year, according to the national exit poll. {snip}
However, their share of the electorate will rise quickly for several reasons. The most important is that Hispanics are by far the nation’s youngest ethnic group. Their median age is 27 years—and just 18 years among native-born Hispanics—compared with 42 years for that of white non-Hispanics. In the coming decades, their share of the age-eligible electorate will rise markedly through generational replacement alone.
According to Pew Hispanic Center projections, Hispanics will account for 40% of the growth in the eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, at which time 40 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote, up from 23.7 million now.2
Moreover, if Hispanics’ relatively low voter participation rates and naturalization rates were to increase to the levels of other groups, the number of votes that Hispanics actually cast in future elections could double within two decades.
If the national exit poll’s estimate proves correct that 10% of all voters this year were Hispanic, it would mean that as many as 12.5 million Hispanics cast ballots. But perhaps a more illuminating way to analyze the distinctive characteristics of the Hispanic electorate—current and future—is to parse the more than 40 million Hispanics in the United States who did not vote or were not eligible to vote in 2012. That universe can be broken down as follows:
Thus, generational replacement alone will push the age- and citizen-eligible Latino electorate to about 40 million within two decades. If the turnout rate of this electorate over time converges with that of whites and blacks in recent elections (66% and 65%, respectively, in 2008), that would mean twice as many Latino voters could be casting ballots in 2032 as did in 2012.
This turnout could rise even more if naturalization rates among the 5.4 million adult Hispanic legal permanent residents were to increase over time—and/or if Congress were to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that creates a pathway to citizenship for the more than 7 million unauthorized Hispanic immigrants already living in the U.S.
The Pew Hispanic Center survey finds that more than nine-in-ten (93%) Hispanic immigrants who have not yet naturalized say they would if they could. Of those who haven’t, many cite administrative costs and barriers, a lack of English proficiency and a lack of initiative. For example, according to the survey, only 30% of Hispanic immigrants who are LPRs say they speak English “pretty well” or “very well.”
In addition to all these factors, there is the as-yet-unknowable size and impact of future immigration. About 24 million Hispanic immigrants have come to U.S. in the past four decades—in absolute numbers, the largest concentrated wave of arrivals among any ethnic or racial group in U.S. history. Some 45% arrived in the U.S. legally, and 55% arrived illegally.4
Assuming Hispanic immigration continues into the future—even at the significantly reduced levels of recent years—the Hispanic electorate will expand beyond the numbers dictated by the growth among Hispanics already living in the U.S. And because immigrants tend to have more children than the native born, the demographic ripple effect of future immigration on the makeup of the electorate will be felt for generations.
Share on FacebookDisney Junior will introduce Princess Sofia on November 18, its first Latina animated character, in the upcoming television film ‘Sofia the First.’ And while many have praised Disney’s efforts in creating a royal for Hispanic audiences, her debut has also been shadowed by criticism.
Previously, Entertainment Weekly reported executive producer Jamie Mitchell confirmed the star of the upcoming film “is Latina,” but the milestone has not received the same attention as the 2009 film The Princess and the Frog, whose main character Tiana “bears the traits of African American women.” EW also quoted the channel’s Vice President of original programming, Joe D’ Ambrosia, stating that Disney team is purposely not placing emphasis on Sofia’s ethnicity because every school girl can identify with Sofia.
While Sofia’s mother, Queen Miranda, is noted for having a darker complexion, Sofia bears lighter features, blue eyes and reddish-brown hair, leading to controversy within social media.
Disney has not provided more details on where Sofia’s Latin roots may come from, but the team could have drawn inspiration from real-life Queen Sofia of Spain, who also has auburn hair and blue eyes. Her granddaughter, Princess Sofia, is blonde with similar light features. Queen Sofia, however, was born in Greece.
Mashable is reporting the new Disney character has generated criticism from people on Twitter and Facebook. Many online users have stated Sofia “looks white.”
Meanwhile, others have argued that Hispanics come from various backgrounds and Disney should be praised for not instantly using dark features to showcase a Latina.
When asked about Sofia’s ethnicity, a Disney spokesperson said they’re dedicated in promoting diversity for their audience.
“The range of characters in ‘Sofia the First’-and the actors who play them- are a reflection of Disney’s commitment to a diverse, multi-cultural and inclusive storytelling, and the wonderful early reaction to ‘Sofia’ affirms that commitment,” said the spokesperson.
The spokesperson also said Sofia’s mother, Queen Miranda, was born in the fictitious land of Galdiz, “a place with Latin influences.”
Share on FacebookA Towson University student has proposed a campus White Student Union, leaving administrators and the student government walking a fine line between students’ First Amendment rights and avoiding what many are calling outright racism at the Maryland university.
“Every ethnic group has its own advocacy group but white students don’t,” Matthew Heimbach, a senior studying U.S. history at Towson, told The Huffington Post.
Tensions were further inflamed last week when the group brought Jared Taylor to campus. Taylor is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “white nationalist” who has argued black hate crimes against whites exponentially outnumber white-on-black hate crimes. Taylor came to offer support for the proposed White Student Union, claiming it “a spectacular double standard that only whites are singled out and told they can’t have a race-based organization.”
In his presentation at Towson, Taylor reportedly explained why diversity is a problem, citing examples like race riots in prisons.
Heimbach is no stranger to controversy. He led a campus chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, an anti-multiculturalism right-wing group which lost its recognition by the Towson student government last spring when its faculty adviser resigned. Members of the YWC were accused of chalking ”White Pride” around campus.
“Any time there’s a group with conservative principles and white students standing up for themselves, it’s a battle cry for radical leftists on campus,” Heimbach said. “There’s nothing I could do or say … to try and get these people on the same page as us.”
Many of the students who spoke to HuffPost compared this White Student Union to that now-disbanded Towson chapter of YWC.
“The rhetoric used to justify the YWC and now the White Student Union is just a means to legitimate open hate speech on the grounds of embracing the right to free speech,” said Raul Ceballos, a 22-year-old junior at Towson.
Glenn Daniels Jr., who graduated from Towson last year, said the White Student Union would be the exact same thing at the YWC, and he isn’t wasn’t sure why the university is giving Heimbach a chance to form another group. Daniels said many students don’t feel comfortable with a group like this on campus.
“I have full confidence that the president is taking the right steps [but] I’m disappointed in the Student Government Association,” Daniels said. He hopes the SGA denies Heimbach’s request to be an official Towson student group.
{snip}
So far, 1,128 people have signed a petition calling for Towson President Maravene Loeschke to denounce the White Student Union.
Victor Collins, assistant vice president of student affairs for diversity at Towson, insisted in a recent interview with HuffPost Live that it will not allow racist groups on their campus.
“The organization has the right to exist as long as they follow all the rights and regulations; we cannot stop a group from forming an organization,” Collins said. “No student organization on our campus can in fact restrict by race membership. The black student union has white members.”
Many also questioned why a student would feel the need to form a White Student Union, given that the school is predominately Caucasian.
Heimbach said there are many issues his group would address. He said he knows white female students who feel they’re not protected on campus and white students who have been reluctant to file bias reports. d “stop talking about white identity as something that’s negative,” Heimbach said. He also hopes to launch “an awareness campaign about the rising black on white crime, especially in the Baltimore area.” He also recently announced his group would perform night patrols and potentially make “citizen’s arrests.”
Share on FacebookAs part of “a new era of civil rights” at the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced Monday that Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who believe USDA discriminated against them can file claims to get a piece of at least $1.33 billion in cash awards and tax relief payments and up to $160 million in farm debt relief, beginning this week.
“Hispanic and women farmers who believe they have faced discriminatory practices from the USDA must file a claim by March 25, 2013 in order to have a chance to receive a cash payment or loan forgiveness,” Vilsack explained in a statement Monday. “The opening of this claims process is part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers.”
In February 2011, Vilsack announced the historic “path to justice for Hispanic and women farmers” to offer them an outlet to receive compensation for past wrongs without having to go to federal court.
“When I was sworn in as secretary of Agriculture two years ago, President [Barack] Obama and I made a commitment to mend USDA’s troubled civil rights record,” Vilsack said in 2011 statement. “Since then, we have taken comprehensive action to turn the page on past discrimination. Last year we entered into a settlement with black farmers in Pigford II to address pending claims, and finalized a historic settlement agreement with Native American farmers under Keepseagle that faced discrimination by USDA.”
The $1.25 billion Pigford II settlement—which covered black farmers who charged that the USDA had discriminated against them when applying for loans from 1981 to 1996 but missed the filing deadline in the original 1999 Pigford settlement (named for the lead plaintiff, Timothy Pigford, in a class action lawsuit against the government)—made headlines in 2011 for the allegations of fraud in the program.
The Keepseagle settlement made $760 million available to Native American farmers and ranchers who believe they did not receive the same farm loan opportunities as whites between 1981 and 1999.
Share on FacebookEvery public school in the United States has aimed for the same goal over the past decade: that all students be proficient in math and reading by 2014.
But that noble ambition, educators and experts almost universally agree, was never realistic. Now, in the District and many states, goals over the next five years tend to be lower for black, Hispanic and poor children than they are for white and Asian students, and in the District, they tend to be higher at schools in affluent areas than in poor neighborhoods. It’s a policy shift that strikes some parents as a form of prejudice.
Officials say the new targets account for differences in current performance and demand the fastest progress from students who are furthest behind. The goals vary across much of the country by race, family income and disability, and in Washington, they also vary by school.
At Anacostia High, which draws almost exclusively African Americans from one of the District’s most impoverished areas, officials aim to quadruple the proportion of students who are proficient in reading by 2017, but that would still mean that fewer than six out of 10 pass standardized reading tests. Across town at the School Without Walls in Northwest Washington, a diverse and high-performing magnet that enrolls students from across the city, the aim is higher: 99.6 percent.
Meanwhile, at Wilson Senior High, 67 percent of black students—and 88 percent of Asians and 95 percent of whites—are expected to pass standardized math tests five years from now.
Setting different aspirations for different groups of children represents a sea change in national education policy, which for years has prescribed blanket goals for all students. Some education experts see the new approach as a way to speed achievement for black, Latino and low-income students, but some parents can’t help but feel that less is being expected of their children.
City and federal education officials say they’re not retreating from the conviction that all children can learn. Instead, they say, they’re trying to bring about real change by setting attainable goals that reflect an unavoidable truth: Some schools, and some students, lag far behind others.
Under the new approach, low performers will be required to make larger gains each year than higher-achieving students so that the gap between student groups is cut in half by 2017.
The policy shift follows intensifying criticism that No Child Left Behind—the federal education law that requires 100 percent proficiency by 2014—unfairly punishes schools for failing to meet pie-in-the-sky achievement targets.
Besides the District, 27 of the 33 states that won waivers—including Maryland and Virginia—have set different targets for different groups of students.
In Maryland, state officials aim for black students statewide to progress from 76 to 88 percent reading proficiency by 2017. White students’ reading proficiency should grow from 92 to 96 percent over the same period, according to Maryland targets.
Virginia officials originally put forth goals that would have narrowed racial achievement gaps only slightly. That prompted complaints from civil rights groups, and in August, state and federal officials agreed to make revisions. The state education board will set new targets in late September, targets that are expected to vary by student group.
Citywide [in D.C.], the proportion of white students who pass standardized tests in reading will have to grow from 88 to 94 percent by 2017, or about 1 percentage point each year. Pass rates for black children, meanwhile, must grow five times faster—from 41 to 71 percent.
Share on FacebookFor the first time in history, enrollments at four-year colleges for Hispanic students between 18 and 24 topped 2 million in 2011. Hispanics are now the largest minority on college campuses, making up roughly 16.5 percent of all U.S. college students, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center that used newly available U.S. Census Bureau data. Hispanics are also making strides in two-year colleges, according to the study, making up roughly one quarter of all 18-to-24-year-old students.
“The new milestones reflect a number of continuing upward trends,” the study’s authors write. “Between 1972 and 2011, the Latino share of 18- to 24-year-old college students [in four-year colleges] steadily grew—rising from 2.9% to 16.5%.”
This growth in Hispanic college enrollment has also translated to a growth in the number of degrees earned. A record 140,000 Latinos earned a bachelor’s degree in 2010, while 112,000 Latinos earned an associate degree, also a record-setting number, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. In 2010, only 9 percent of Hispanics enrolled in a four-year college or university earned a bachelor’s degree, compared to 10 percent of black students and 71 percent of white students who earned their bachelor’s degrees that year.
Share on Facebook