motorbird83

I was reading a study recently from the UK Dept of Education and Skills that asserted that it appears that much of the achievement gap between certain ethnic minorities and the white British population was attributable to socio-economic background. However, due to a lack of discrete data on race, economic background and achievement, it was impossible for the study to verify this statistically. Given the recent data coming out of the US regarding the narrowing of the black-white achievement gap, the simultaneous widening of the income achievement gap, and the growing size of the black middle class (estimated to be circa 50% of the black American population now) made me curious if anyone is aware of any studies that have been carried out that adjust life outcomes for minorities for socioeconomic background either in the US or the UK? I wonder if race would still be statistically significant once socioeconomic background was taken into consideration? So much of the discourse on achievement in school, crime etc. centers on race when it is possible that the most significant determinant might actually be poverty. For me, it then raises the question why certain minorities are over-represented among the poor and what the best strategies are to increase social mobility for all people in the lowest socioeconomic bracket.

I never said East Dulwich is perfect. My husband and I are currently deciding where we want to buy our family home when we sell our flat. We aren't planning to sell for a while but since we've been in ED on for quite some time now, we want to get to know other areas a bit better that offer things that ED doesn't (better transport links to the West End, a bit safer,though I think its pretty safe). However,ED, even taking into consideration what it lacks, still offers good value for money in my view compared to some of the places we are considering where we can only get a 3 bed "cottage" for the same price as a 4 bed house with a big garden here. Loz, I agree with you entirely. If the house is priced in line with market prices for similar properties in the area, the seller isn't greedy. Plus, buyers often have no idea what the current owner has done to improve the property (extension, loft conversion, full refurb etc). Market prices are a function of supply and demand intermediated by interest rates. Demonizing sellers is silly.

The post states 275K more than it was purchased for 2 years ago. I mis-read it the first time too...

I think the facilities are pretty good within East Dulwich and its easily accessible environs. The gyms get the job done and on top of that the large "fitness in the park" operations are in the area (Peckham Common and Dulwich Park). We have two golf courses, 3 tennis clubs, multiple squash facilities, great independent schools nearby, lots of green space (the parks and the woods), two museums, in addition to lively bars and restaurants. The cinema in Peckham is easy enough to get to though noisy kids can be a problem. East dulwich itself is small so lots of these things surround the local area but we are in the best position to access the wide range of the things the various south london neighborhoods, north, south east and west of us have to offer.

Ibilly99 --How much you asking for? I have a friend interested in moving to the area!

Our neighbour recently sold their 2 bed flat (no garden) for ?380,000 but its a very big flat. Look at the sold prices on right move as its the best way to see what properties are selling for along with all the details that were included when it was for sale on the website (floorplan, pics etc). I would say agents typically suggest listing for a bit more so its always worth haggling. However, our neighbours were willing to wait as they weren't in a huge rush and ended up getting very close to asking. The bits of ED that are closest to the new East London line extension seem to have gotten a boost. Good luck!

more just to confirm that this was the case as it's potentially something quite serious. Confirmation that shots were fired means I will call the police-- non-emergency line. I'm at work but will follow up this evening or tomorrow.

Someone should just call the police and find out what happened. My guess is nothing of consequence otherwise it would be in the press.

I was right there at 9:30 this evening on my way back from the Sea Cow. Hopefully, it hasn't ended in any kind of tragedy. It's very upsetting...

Was anyone hurt?

Jeremy, I agree with you but I am making a slightly different point. I think being in an environment in which low expectations are the norm (from school and family) significantly influences the outcomes of the children born into those environments. I think it influences the quality of education, how children approach education and work, plan for their future etc. Changing that environment in its entirety is in my view, the most effective way of increasing social mobility and breaking generational underachievement?XI have met a great number of working class people much more naturally intelligent than the people I went to university with but in part due to lack of parental guidance and low expectations from their community and schools never lived up to their potential. I am not saying that it??s impossible to be a success if you come from a disadvantaged background but rather that it would require a young person to have extraordinary vision and drive and therefore is not an even playing field. Many of the successful people I have met are not really that exceptional but rather have been groomed and trained for success and their entire lives have assumed they would be successful. Just look at the improving quality of education in Dulwich??s local state primaries as evidence of this as the parents and area has become more middle class. DJKillaQueen: I definitely agree that traditional schooling is not necessary to successfully carryout many jobs (though some form of accreditation following even an apprenticeship does seem worth arranging). I am not sure we have a shortage of semi or unskilled workers though?XI could be wrong, I honestly have no idea. Even though unemployment is increasing, the private sector is growing, just not enough to absorb the layoffs in the public sector and all the new graduates?Xparticularly as people are working longer. Once the public sector cuts are finally complete, the unemployment rate will slowly come down (no comfort to those out of work now I know). What is needed is targeted training to develop the skills that the current economy needs by looking at what sectors are growing and consulting the business community about what skills they need in the workforce. Spending more money on targeted training schemes for lower skilled workers would do much more to regenerate low-income areas than only providing benefits. Anyway, OP, East Dulwich is great and is increasingly attracting people who 10 years ago could have afforded to live in the West End but now are starting moving to the suburbs of London so they can have a balanced quality of life or because they are totally priced out. ED perhaps is starting to have the socioeconomic make-up of Notting Hill in the late 1990s but with a slower pace of life inherent to the suburbs?Xit comes with learning to wait 15 min for a train ??.

You have a point?the poor here are certainly better off than in the US (where I am from) and there is a much greater sense of entitlement (among all classes) than is found in most of the world outside of Europe. I have only been living here 7 years, but the underprivileged here seem to be subtly cut-off through a lack of quality education and more importantly a lack of expectations for what their lives can be. Your comment got me thinking and I guess the best ways to tackle this form of urban and social decay is through improving the quality of education for the less advantaged and eliminating large pockets of poverty. I don?t necessarily agree that the only way to improve the economy of an area is to move in the middle classes-- it?s more complicated than that. The reason I think you need to eliminate large pockets of poverty (like the huge estate in Elephant) is that places like that normalize poverty and I think potentially kills ambition for those who live completely surrounded by that reality. Making sure that each area of London takes its fair share of social housing so that no area is a ?poverty ghetto? solves multiple problems?improves the quality of education for the poor, increases general expectations about what is possible thus hopefully improving ambition and social mobility, ensures that all areas are mixed economically and socially etc. The government seems to be making strong efforts to do just that including housing people on benefits in ordinary housing in local areas rather than ghettoizing them in estates. The only reason I can see the strategy failing is that class mentality is so deeply engrained in this country that people seem to take for granted that certain things / opportunities are just not meant for them because of their background and so don?t strive to be better or improve their lot in life. Trying to improve you station here is almost taboo or vulgar where in the US it?s the dream!

I know a few people from Nottinghill who have moved here. Though I know more who have come over from Clapham. One of my friends from Clapham was thinking of buying here (she was renting before) but decided it was too expensive and went to Earlsfield, which apparently is becoming all the rage with professionals looking to start a family :)

Definite yes! I think the small shops will be fine as you can tell from the replies, they have a hard core base that won't leave them. As many people have mentioned, many in the area get deliveries from Ocado, so there is clearly a gap in the market here and need for an additional offering. I am guessing it is the large number of deliveries that has sparked interest from Waitrose in the first place...