Sharkey and Milwaukee

 Considering he started by declaring his work pessimistic, I suspect Professor Sharkey had a hard time saying he was optimistic about Milwaukee's urban revitalization.  If, as he contends, generations upon generations of socialization create current patterns of behavior, it would seem hard to look at the current reform initiatives and honestly hold out much hope for near-term positive change.  I've rarely met an optimistic sociologist and that’s what makes them so damn interesting.

2.    When I talked with educators about the concept of neighborhood effects during my dissertation days, most were simply not able to appreciate its influence.  They did not want to use the surrounding neighborhood as an excuse for poor performance in schools, a worthy attitude, albeit a bit frustrating to those of us in the Sharkey camp.  The point isn’t to use the neighborhood as an excuse, the point is to recognize the need to address neighborhood revitalization as part of the plan for improving schools.  What makes those of us who really believe in the plausibility of Professor Sharkey's argument is the fact it has been so ignored as part of the explanation for why urban schools fail.

3.    This is not to say there are not a plethora of organization working on behalf of neighborhood change.  There simply may be too many.  A few years back at one of these On the Issues the Executive Director of COA mentioned the existence of silos as a fundamental obstacle to positive change in neighborhoods. As one new to the world of urban reform, I thought this a rather interesting term and sought to learn more about this phenomenon.  As I did more and more field work at Walnut Way (Maple Heights in my actual dissertation), I began to see silo-like attitudes and corresponding duplication of program.  The result was competition for dollars across the spectrum of well-intentioned community-based organizations and youth serving agencies doing the same thing. For instance, how many literacy organizations can one city have?! Then, the leviathan Milwaukee Succeeds decides to start its own literacy program, but because it has NML money, is assured of staying in business.  Considering no one is sure it is actually doing any good, it might be better to change the name to Milwaukee Might Succeed....

4.    Walnut Way was an interesting organization to study because it was/is positioned to act as a connecting organization in an area with a lot of CBO’s and youth serving agencies. When I was doing my field work there, I noted it did not have a lot of programs under its belt and. therefore, did not pose a threat for resources. Milwaukee is really missing organizations that can facilitate cooperation. The absence of organizations that can provide safe places for collaboration,  get organizations to think about sharing, recognize when a different CBO did the same program better, is a major problem for Milwaukee. If someone would have been around to tell the YMCA it was moving away from its core mission, it might still be thriving.  Its desire to expand its programs into areas for which there were already successful programs, and then needing money to sustain these programs, is a plausible example of the outcome of silos and duplication.  Don’t be surprised if the Boys and Girls Clubs don’t usurp Milwaukee YMCAs one of these days.

5.    The Walnut Way people have what I referred to in my dissertation as "local knowledge," authentic knowledge that only comes from living and working in the very neighborhoods they want to help. These are the people who show up every day, the real stakeholders and residents who have invested in this neighborhood. What I used to learn during my neighborhood walks around Lindsay Heights with Sharon Adams and a number of local residents. It was extraordinary. Milwaukee needs to seek out and support these leaders and organizations who through their actions have demonstrated a deep seated commitment and corresponding understanding of the real issues facing their neighborhoods.  It may seem like common sense, but it is not happening. Perhaps this attitude is not surprising; it is reflective of a racially segregated Milwaukee.

6.    Zilber is an extraordinarily unique partner because it identifies and respects local knowledge. Perhaps due to Joe Zilber's personal style, the foundation seeks out proven organizations, provides significant investment, and then acts as an authentic partner in seeing that organization succeed. Walnut Way is a perfect example. Zilber provided resources, but what they then did was trust Walnut Way to responsibly and smartly put those resources to work for the neighborhood. This is so not the norm in this city.  

7.    I would argue one of the real problems going forward is the inability of the white community, especially the downtown business community, to respect and support local knowledge? My God, look at your audience yesterday. Well intentioned people who pray their car never conks out in Lindsay Heights! Yet, they think they know how to solve the problems in that neighborhood? It is actually a manifestation of racist-like attitudes, but is subtle because it hides behind good intentions.  

Professor Sharkey knows there are deep-seated problems facing this city. If he had stuck to his initial pessimism, I may not have been compelled to go on this harangue. If you intend to write about his appearance in your weekly column, please do not end with some comment about his prediction of a bright future. Until the existing patterns of behavior by the power elite in Milwaukee changes, until CBO’s and youth serving agencies either collaborate or go out of business, until we put our faith in those most worthy of said faith, substantive change in urban neighborhoods will be fleeting at best.  

Neighborhood Effects: Random Thoughts From the Pat Sharkey Presentation on Problems Facing Urban Neighborhoods.

Does this apply to la Casa? Is neighborhood effects as big a problem in Waukesha or is it family dynamic?

Who is taking ownership of neighborhood revitalization and are they supported?

Duplication of programs, silos, and absence of institutions that can connect. 

Schools are hostage to neighborhood effects. Absence of empowerment in local leadership big obstacle. Also, duplication of programs and lack of collaboration another obstacle. 

Failure to address corporate role. Zilber is a rarity. Zilber trusts local leadership.

If I argued that Zilber is an extraordinarily unique partner because it has identified and respects what i call local knowledge. Local knowledge is tied to deep support for those leaders who live and work in the very neighborhoods where neighborhood effects theory manifests itself. What would you say if I argued one of the real problems going forward is the inability of the business community to respect and support locally created reform initiative.

Said he was an optimist about the future of Milwaukee, but I think he was pandering to the audience.  If his argument that generations of generations pile on negative socialization, it will take sustained change to overcome the powerful effect this socially created reality has had on behavior.  It becomes an intellectual straitjacket.

Random Thoughts From The Real World

Legitimacy essay is based on economic status not any real knowledge of the realities facing those for whom they have deemed themselves save years.

Understanding leads to acceptance which generates equality. 

Understanding>acceptance>equality

The personalization of reality offers a strong challenge to the rather an emotional detachment one gets when looking at things theoretically.

Race and class interconnected. Low income neighborhoods of color.  

Education cannot operate in isolation from other revitalization programs. This is neighborhood effects theory.

Class versus Race

In a recent discussion, I mentioned I am struggling with the question of class versus race as the primary creator of social reality and one's future.  Perhaps my struggle is tied to the potential of either class or race to alter the trajectory of one's future.  Let's focus this short discussion on influence and assume it also has implications for one's future behavior and, logically, success and/or experience.  While many assume race trumps class when attempting to rank their influence, I believe class ranks just a little ahead of race.  With the disclaimer that both are greatly interconnected, reality is that people can to a certain extent escape the challenges of race through their movement up the class structure.  A Black family that has achieved middle class status still faces racism (due to the inability to unpack tacit knowledge) has a good chance at long range success due to the options economic power provides--not only in purely economic ways but in the way it influences the creation reality.   I have a brother and sister-in-law who are solidly middle class people.  While they are still subject to overt and covert racism, they are also able to provide a social reality to their children that will greatly impact their children's attitudes and values.  Under no circumstances is this statement meant to reduce ideas that lead to racist actions, but to merely suggest that class has the potential to significantly challenge the social reality that is created by race.  

The Interaction of Equality, Acceptance, and Understanding

In a chat with some friends yesterday, I mentioned that one of my co-workers recently got her GED. I was a little surprised by the reaction of my friend.  It was not a reaction of disdain, but rather of uneasy surprise.  It is quite possible my friend has never (knowingly) met a person with a GED and the reaction is merely another validation of the power of tacit knowledge exerts over behavior.  I suspect she was simply not exposed to the type of knowledge acquisition necessary to have any other reaction.  Her reaction reflected her solidly middle class socialization experience, one that largely created her social reality. (The assumption here is class has a powerful influence on all behaviors.  I just happen to be talking about a friend who is in the middle class.)

This got me to thinking about the relationship between acceptance, understanding and equality.  Is it possible to see people as equals in the absence of acceptance?  Is is possible to accept people in the absence of understanding?  I find myself continually amazed at the reaction of people to stories I tell about people I interact with in my current position.  Most come from the lower class and from a social reality quite different from my own social sphere (not sure this is the right description).  This is the "other" I have referred to in different posts. The more I interact with the "other," the more the other is demystified and, for me at least, understood and accepted.  In the absence of these two learning opportunities, equality as a core value one really believes in will remain quite elusive.

In Defense of Local Knoweldge

I find the continued belief that the white suburban upper class, the same group of people who has perhaps never set foot in what might be considered an impoverished urban neighborhood, somehow believes they have the knowledge to solve problems facing the same urban neighborhoods.  

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/defend-public-schools-our-children-our-democracy-fs8gpnr-188424701.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/work-toward-a-unified-education-agenda-ag8dq5h-187539521.html

It’s not so much I am defending the public school monopoly.  My argument is the white suburban elite, those  with the least amount of local knowledge, are creating educational initiatives on behalf of impoverished urban area.  In my three years patrolling the neighborhood around 15^th and North, I never saw any of the people who created Milwaukee Succeeds! The process of creating reform has marginalized local leaders.  It is blatant white man’s burden, class chauvinism.  It makes me sick to my stomach.  

The people who have staked a claim to their neighborhoods, the ones who show up every day, who own a house in the neighborhood, they possess the type of local knowledge that is essential to the development of a plan and a process for true change.  This is not even about grass roots organization,  This is about those with the most understanding about realities facing these areas.  

The white aristocracy has one responsibility;  give these local leaders the resources they need to get the job done. After that, go back to your mansion, Have a nice dinner at your club.  Open that expensive bottle of win.  Just get out of the way.  

Poverty and the Creation of Social Behavior

In my short time working at a community-based neighborhood association, I have begun to authentically understand the realities of poverty.  It is one thing to to make sense of it when you are reading about it in a book; it is entirely different when you are working side by side with people who are the reality of poverty.  I do not use the phrase "victims of poverty" because that has a negative connotation associated with blame about their ability to challenge the effect poverty has had on their lives.  I will instead refer to it as the "effects of poverty" because the real life situations facing the people I work with can at least be traced to a world greatly impacted by economic realities.  The more I am in contact with people of poverty, the more I think they are courageous in their ability to challenge the conditions that have created their social reality.  How they challenge these conditions and the outcomes from their behavior runs the gamut.  There is the reformed ex-gang leader who is now holding down a solid job and providing for a family.  There is the person who  made different choices and is now looking at incarceration.  While I do not want to call this person a victim of poverty, I cannot help but think had they grown up in different circumstances, their life would be far better.

I am working with young kids right now and I truly believe none of them are hoping for a life of incarceration.  However, if that premise is right (uneasy optimism), the knowledge acquisition that results from their social realities makes me think they to a certain extent are powerless to the effects of poverty.  Does this make them victims of poverty?  Perhaps not completely, but it does make them human....

Stewardship

The problem people have with the idea of stewardship is they still think it is connected to the donor's financial commitment.  We often hear "we have to be good stewards of a donor's money, contribution, etc."  I consider stewardship the top of the giving pyramid/relational hierarchy--the advancement version of Maslow's hierarchy.  When I think of stewardship, I transition my thinking about the donor from financial wherewithal to their core values and beliefs. When  a donor gets to stewardship level, they have already made that major gift. Therefore, you transition from thinking about the gift itself to knowing how the donor finds meaning in the gift.   If you have any hope of additional gifts, you need to be a good steward of the"values" of the donor. I have seen organizations lose the donor because they lost sight of the values and beliefs that moved the donor to make that major gift.  This is what separates a one-time major gift from a long-lasting, deep-seated relationship between the donor and the organization.  Giving becomes almost spiritual, much more from the heart than from the head. When you have reached this stage of meaning with a donor, you have truly created something special.

If you have any chance at reaching this stage, though, you have to be authentic and humble. Arrogant advancement people will never reach this stage because it is all about them.  I'm sure some CFRE guru has written this kind of stuff, but I'd rather put my hand on a hot burner then take a class in fundraising.  Besides, this type of attitude/style cannot be taught in a class or learned over time (unless you have a truly transformational personal and or professional experience),  You either are or you are not capable of caring more about others than yourself.

Paradigm Lost

The term "Paradigm" is perhaps the most poorly understood word in the English language.  It is often times used to describe a change in the structure of an organization or perhaps to describe when an organization changes its model.  The other day I heard it used to describe the changing style of NBA resulting from the success of the Golden State Warriors.  While not completely off as a way to describe a new model or approach, paradigm is often, as my old Chinese professor Lin Yu Sheng used to say, reduced in significance as a way to describe change.  For Professor Lin, as well as the father of the concept, the famous philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued, the paradigm results not from physical structures, but rather from the very ideas that generate social action and behavior. Paradigmatic--or revolutionary--change only occurs when the very foundational ideas are changed. 

To use the word paradigm to describe any small-scale change, then, is to engage in reductionist thinking about just what the nature of change is.  I find myself cringing when I hear someone invoke the word paradigm to describe what can only be considered small scale change, tinkering as it were.  Professor Lin was known to spit and stutter when we would talk about certain change events some viewed as revolutionary.  To intellectual historians, they could only be characterized as revolutionary if the very ideas that produced behavior changed, perhaps if a country overthrew an entire system in favor of a radically different one.  

How would this happen?  For Kuhn, a paradigm’s continued value as a determinant of behavior is tied to its continued ability to produce acceptable, reasonable, and relatively acceptable results.  For him, there were certain discoveries in the scientific community to led scientists to rethink every previously held truth, but because science is exact and  can be empirically tested for validity, it is perhaps a little easier to wipe the board clean of previously flawed thinking.  Is it truly possible to apply this kind of deep-seated, revolutionary change to social behaviors?   

The rise of an effective alternative school paradigm is tied to the way new groups work to create and develop a different set or ideas, values, and beliefs that then become the basis for paradigmatic change.  When Jean Anyon (2005) called for a new educational paradigm, an important part of this new paradigm was her conception of the way we traditionally comprehend community.  For many school-community theorists, community is largely limited to teachers, administrators, and parents.  Anyon saw community as not only parents, but surrounding churches, businesses, social service agencies, non-profits, and politicians who she thought needed to be mobilized on behalf of a large-scale plan for social, cultural, educational, and economic change.  Because these groups also shared an interest in student performance, they, too, had a stake in education.  However, their involvement—and potential power—was largely overlooked or undervalued.  When adequately prepared for mobilization, these groups could bring 

In his terrific work on the May 4th Movement in China, Professor Lin (1979) argued a group of intellectuals in China, so dismayed with the failure of Confucianism to produce action in a more modern world, were attempting to use education to teach the Chinese new ideas, values, and beliefs. However, the deep seated historical hold of Confucian beliefs created what Professor Lin called an intellectual straitjacket” in China,  

In conclusion, when thinking about using the term paradigm to describe change, you need to ask yourself, is the change so deep-seated, so revolutionary, it warrants invoking the term paradigm to describe it. If it is, use some other term to describe the new structure. No one wants to see Professor Lin spitting in intellectual outrage.