I found it interesting that economic mobility can vary so dramatically from one neighborhood to another within the same city. We often talk about inequality as if it is primarily an individual or family issue, but this whole article goes to show that inequality can also be geographic. As we've been reading all week, where someone lives determines what resources and opportunities are available to them. This makes me continue to think about how policies focused only on helping individuals aren't enough. If the underlying conditions of a community remain unchanged, people may continue to face the same barriers even when they receive individual assistance.

This quote stood out to me because it contradicts the assumption of people's success being the result of individual efforts alone. The article shows that children who grow up in various parts of the country can have unequal probabilities of getting into the upper part of the income distribution. The probability of upward mobility is substantially higher for such cities as Boston and Seattle in comparison with Atlanta and Charlotte. It makes one think about the impact that school system, job prospects, transportation, and other neighborhood characteristics can have on a person's life even before he or she is able to make conscious decisions.

This passage stood out to me because of the urban renewal projects that continue to displace urban residents all over the U.S. today. It made me think of the stadiums, malls, and other commercial centers built over L.A. that displaced so many urban residents in the name of the economy and creating more jobs that would "benefit" such residents. However, if you don't have a home, then finding a job is not exactly the priority. This creates a domino affect that impacts families and moves them to neighborhoods that may have less resources, less community, or lower quality education. This process has always saddened me because for many people, ubran renewal projects look like a win-win, but no one is really winning.

This paradox crosses my mind every so often, and comes up in the policy world as well. I think the conclusion we can come to is that our systems and country as a whole were always meant to embrace diversity, which is why it is ever-growing in the United States. However, it was always meant to embrace diversity of upper- and middle-class white/European people; therefore, anyone who doesn't fit that profile is meant to be excluded and put down. It is ingrained in our system, but by acknowledging these systemic disparities and working together to combat them, I believe we move toward a truly integrated society.

This statistic stood out to me because of the tangible effects of integrating neighborhoods. I find it quite interesting the way your environment can almost predetermine things like income, job outcomes, and education levels. I think it goes to show just how important it is that we try our best to create equitable environments for our students because no student should make less money, be less educated, or have trouble finding a job due to factors in their life that they cannot control.

It is important to acknowledge that we must address the root of the problem (segregation) rather than just the resulting problems (lack of funding). I like how Ryan acknowledges that by producing a temporary solution we are inadvertently digging a deeper hole for ourselves long term because we are ignoring the real problem. I feel this is a reoccurring pattern in education policy and school reform that needs to be addressed and we should actively seek solutions for.

Connecting to Schneider, this section shows that the inequities in our school system have various intersectionalities and are deeply rooted within our system. Money alone cannot fix these problems because they are institutional. Finance reform is more of a band-aid solution rather than a long term one and although we as a society acknowedge we need to fund public schools more, it is hard to get money allocated towards this because the money has to come from somewhere and in many cases, it's simply money that we don't have.

This shows the intersection of race, politics, socioeconomic status, and place of residence. Various factors come into play when we look at why schools are the way they are and the inequities we are currently witnessing in our education system. It's important to consider ALL factors when creating or researching policy approaches to address inequities.

I found it really interesting that, at one point, California schools were more segregated than those in the Southern U.S. It is even more interesting that part of the reason for this period of high segregation was despite the California State Board of Education's intention to desegregate and balance racial demographics in schools, there was no specific direction, steps, or plans given to address the racial inequalities in the schools. This shows that large-scale action can occur only with specific plans and goals; otherwise, inaction will occur, and desired results will not be achieved.

This narrative stood out to me because of the blatant way that race and class segregation essentially drove middle-class white people away. The idea of using fear to maintain a racist standard after the Brown v. Board decision is not surprising, but what is surprising is that there was no fear of security when people of color were legally seen as "beneath" white people; but the moment they were legally seen as equals, they became a threat. It's no surprise that this occurred, but looking through the lens of the out-migration of white people occurring due to racism definitely makes the domino effect of urban school systems being left under-resourced and struggling much deeper than a "broken system".