The winner is the player with the greatest population, which is the game's victory points measure. Players determine if any objectives have been achieved and adjust their borough's population per the objective's criteria. When the "1 More Round" tile is drawn, each player takes a final turn, then the game ends. Upon reaching each marker, the player loses a point of income, to reflect the greater costs of municipal services, and one point of reputation, to reflect an increase in crime and pollution accompanying greater density. The population board has a number of red markers at various points. The turn is completed by sliding all tiles in the real estate market to the right and adding a new tile at the leftmost position.
The income a player collects is based on their position on the income track, and the population adjustment is based on their position on the reputation track. An investment marker is used to double all values printed on a tile already placed in the player's borough. A tile is obtained from one of the seven tiles in the real estate market by paying its face value cost (if it is one of the two rightmost tiles), or its face value cost and an additional positional cost (for the remaining five tiles). On their turn, players execute four actions: obtain one tile or investment marker and place it in their borough, collect income, recalculate their borough's population, and add a new tile to the real estate market. Upon achieving a personal or public goal, the player receives a population bonus. All players must also achieve a set of public objectives, the number of which is based on the number of players. Once the game setup is complete, each player chooses a personal objective from two random draws. Each player adds a population marker to the population board. In short, centralization was supported by a coalition of affluent, well-educated, and elitist city residents determined to impose an ostensibly cosmopolitan vision upon advocates of localism and the ward system.All players start with a Borough Board, adjacent to which are arranged three hex tiles (one Suburbs, one Community Park, and one Heavy Factory), $15 in coins, and three investment markers. These groups appealed to somewhat different constituencies, but were united in support of bureaucratic reform. Tyack quotes David Hammack's analysis of social groups supporting school centralization in New York, which identified “three over-lapping elites: aggressive modernizers from business and the professions, advocates of efficient, non-partisan municipal government, and moral reformers determined to uphold Protestant values in polyglot New York City” (149). The classic study of the development of urban school systems and the role of elite groups is Tyack, David B., The One Best System: A History of Urban Education in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), Part IV, where he described the “interlocking directorate” of like-minded civic leaders who promoted organizational reform in the schools. and Satcioglu, Argun, “Suburban Advantage: Opportunity Hoarding and Secondary Attainment in the Postwar Metropolitan Northeast, 1940–1980,” American Journal of Education, 118 (May 2011): 307– 42.
Regarding larger patterns of urban and suburban educational development, see Rury, John L. and Sugrue, Thomas J., “ Introduction,” The New Suburban History ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 6. Little has been written, however, about how the rise of such “localism” in suburban political culture affected the schools.ġ0 On the tendency of wealthy suburbanites to view local institutions in these terms, especially with respect to “hoarding of opportunity,” see Kruse, Kevin M. Recent studies have documented how this contributed to a widespread “tax revolt” during the latter 1970s, and a sharp conservative turn in politics that accompanied it. Neighborhood schools were sites of political conflict over these issues in Southern California and elsewhere, as suburbanites asserted their independence as property owners. Education became a critical element in suburban struggles to create distinctive local identities in the wake of metropolitan development and liberal reform. This is surprising, given the importance of schools in the development of many suburban communities, especially during the postwar era. As a number of commentators have noted, however, historians have devoted relatively little attention to the development of these educational systems. Suburban public schools have become the predominant form of American education in the past fifty years.
0 kommentar(er)
