CPS Brings STEM Curriculum to District

This post first appeared on March 18, 2014 at CPSObsessed.com

What’s up with CPS’s decision to introduce and ramp up STEM curriculum within district schools, as it announced yesterday in a press release? 

On its face, the district’s decision to add computer science as a core subject to city high schools seems like a good one. It’s not all that different than earlier administrators’ addition of typing classes to the curriculum. 

What is the district really trying to achieve by introducing a curriculum that is heavy on science, technology, engineering, and math? Is it trying to get ahead of a projected shortage of qualified candidates in those fields? Does it reflect a need at U.S. colleges and universities to matriculate students who are able to work at advanced levels of math and science, at a rigor that would make them able to “compete” with their global counterparts? 

What is driving this policy? 

Despite the persistent idea that our schools are not preparing students for the kinds of jobs the market offers, a look to historical STEM trends suggests that the renewed emphasis on STEM within CPS may be another manufactured crisis. 

Back in 1997, a Stanford-educated researcher named Gerald Bracey suggested that the National Science Foundation may have started what could now be traced to the current “inadequacy” in STEM education. When Sandia Labs undertook a study of the issue in the late 1980s, they concluded that the biggest risk to education of U.S. students was the H.S. dropout rate—not the quality of STEM education or number of STEM degrees awarded. 

The biggest driver of growth in STEM competitiveness may have come in 1957, with the launch of Sputnik. Yet even Congress agrees that the percentage of postsecondary science and engineering degrees awarded in the U.S. has remained steady at 17 percent. Is there job growth to justify this kind of subject-matter emphasis? The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the fastest growing occupations are largely medical and vocational—not high-tech. Will increased STEM fluency increase students’ ability to compete for jobs? Will it improve their chances at success?

Perhaps the important question is not why CPS is pursuing this policy, but what it can hope to achieve? How will a renewed emphasis on STEM education affect our children? Will they be better off for having this kind of education? Or will this policy further cream or tier an already stratified system? Who does a STEM curriculum help?

The Culture of Testing at CPS (or Why I Opted Out)

Last year, I attended the Raise Your Hand coalition's community forum on the culture of testing at CPS. One outcome of the forum was More Than A Score, a newish coalition of parents who are concerned about the number of tests and assessments given in CPS as well as the purpose of the testing itself.
Last year, each of RYH's five panelists talked about his or her experience and opinions on learning and standardized testing, and then they responded to questions and comments from the audience. Noah Sobe, a professor of Cultural and Education Policy at Loyola University, spoke about the history of standardized testing, the myth or misconception that American education has "always" used tests as a gauge of teaching or learning. What we've lost in creating this culture of testing is the definition of what we want our schools to do for our children, what we want our children to learn in the process of their education. He also pointed out the differences amongst (1) teacher-designed assessment, which he said is a critical part of teaching, (2) standardized testing, and (3) high-stakes testing.

Later in the evening, there were "breakout" sessions of things we could do to prevent or arrest the standardized test momentum within CPS. That assumes that all of the attendees were there for a common purpose.  We were not. As Wendy Katten acknowledged in her opening remarks, forum attendees had different reasons for being there: (1) to gain clarity in our understanding of standardized tests; (2) to learn or understand the impact of standardized tests on our students and the system; (3) to learn how to opt your children out of standardized testing at their CPS schools.  I really only have two problems with testing and assessments. The first is the use of student growth or progress as a way to evaluate teachers. The second is testing that doesn't have a clear, demonstrable point: when data is not recognizably useful to students, parents, teachers, the school, or the District. For me, this year's ISATs are a perfect example of a test that doesn't produce useful data. I opted my children out of the test this year. I want to be clear that this wasn't a decision I made alone, or in a vacuum, or without the input and counsel of others I trust and who are knowledgeable about such things.  First, in late January, I asked our principal for information on this year's ISATs, their import to both the school and my children, and her take on things. Dear readers, she was not surprised that I was asking, nor that I had a  fair bit of necessary background information on this. Our principal, like everyone else, I suspect, is somewhat used to me being the Person with the Questions. Not surprisingly, and also not to her detriment, she didn't convince me that the soon-to-be-obsolete AYP measure was enough reason to have my children take the test. 

Then I had a serious and ongoing debate of the merits of this particular test in this particular instance at length with The Dad. The Dad's arguments for taking the ISAT were that it's good practice. Um, for what? Boredom? Waiting? Standardized tests? They have the NWEA and the STEP tests already; The Boy also took the now-defunct Scantron test; how much practice for standardized testing do they need? Also, the ISAT is a pencil-and-paper-scored-bubble-test; the only other  pencil-and-paper-scored-bubble test in the distant horizon is the ACT and it's distance doesn't provide enough reason to take the last year of the ISAT.

I also thought about the results of the test. The Boy has two years of ISATs under his belt already, so it might be interesting to see how he scored comparatively this year compared to previous years. But the state messed around with the cut scores in 2013, and changed the test again in 2014; I couldn't muster enough support for this particular argument. There was even less of an argument for The Girl to take the ISAT for its ultimate and her inaugural year. 

Reaching for straws for reasons to justify spending 5 hours taking a test that didn't appear to have much meaning, I put it to the would-be test-takers themselves: I asked the kids. I laid down the pros and cons with them, letting them each know that there was no penalty either way. The Girl said, "Let me think about it." Then she came back and said, "No thank you." In preparation for the post, I asked her what went through her mind when making her decision. She said, "It's not going to be all math." (Some performance anxiety about reading comprehension there.) And "it's just like NWEA: test bubbles. I don't need any practice on test bubbles."  The Boy also wanted to think it over, but reached a similar conclusion to that of his sister: he'd rather have an extra hour of "sustained silent reading," to borrow a phrase from one of child lit's favorite characters/authors (Ramona Quimby, Beverly Cleary). 
And so, I made the decision to opt my children out of this year's ISAT, submitting a hard copy letter stating such to our principal and my children's classroom teachers. That I had reached this conclusion surprised no one within the building.  I was and remain open about this decision, and have fielded a fair number of questions about it. So here's my own little FAQ about the opt-out process:

Q. Will you opt out of next year's PARCC? Probably not, but it depends on the read about it I get from teachers and admin at school. For me, opting out of the ISAT this year is really a no-brainer. There is no point to this test this year, and the school doesn't really use the results for anything. I've heard from The TWN's teacher that she likes NWEA and other teachers like STEP as assessments because the data can be useful to good teaching practice. I've never heard a teacher say that about the ISAT.
Q. Who do you think is going to teach your kids while everyone else takes the ISAT?
Not everyone or every class takes the ISATs. I am confident that school staff will find something suitable for my kids to do every day for the 45-60 minutes it takes for the ISAT.  Q. Why not just keep your kids home during the testing period? 
I am not keeping my kids home for 7 hours each day because 45-60 minutes of the day will be spent taking the ISAT. Perhaps my kids can be helpers in younger classrooms (leadership), work on school auction projects (funding), D.E.A.R. (literacy), participate in another grade's art class (especially important because my 5th grader doesn't get art this year - integration*), complete homework (independent study), troubleshoot and do computer maintenance (5th grader's elective/technology). All of these are appropriate uses of time and provide opportunities for learning. 
Q. Will you also opt your kids out of the selective enrollment testing?
I have two things to say on this subject. The first is that opting my kids out of the ISAT this year has never been an objection to all testing and assessments. The second is that I am letting my kids opt themselves into that testing if they want to pursue admission to a selective enrollment school. They have a few viable options for high school; if they want to go for the gold of the SE process in Chicago, I will encourage and support them, but at this point, I am not willing to push or nudge them into that direction. 

* The explanation for this basically comes down to (a) budget cuts and (b) prioritization of student choice over 6 enrichment classes in a 5-day week. 

Public Servitude

Before the September Board meeting, I ran into our school's contact in the Office of LSC Relations in the lobby of the Marquette Building. 

We spoke briefly about my ongoing request that the BoE include a teacher preference percentage into its admissions policies. Although he is a 20+-year veteran of CPS and his children went through the system under the previous policies, our contact told me that he doesn't support my request for several reasons, but chiefly because it is a requirement of public service that you don't give yourself perks. My changes, as proposed, would be "too much of keeping the best for ourselves."

We challenged each others' thinking for bit, exchanging ideas and beliefs about the issue, and then he went for coffee and I went up to attend the September BoE meeting. 

But the more I think about it, the more this particular stance ticks me off. As I said to our contact. if it were true that public servants should consider personal sacrifice as part of their job description, why is it only the rank and file teachers who must adhere to this mindset? 

Why does Tim Cawley get a residency pass to live in Winnetka? Why is there no outcry that the mayor sends his kids to Lab? On the current Board of Education, appointed by mayor Rahm Emmanuel in 2012 and 2013, there are are only a handful of members (Andrea Zopp, David Vitale, Mahalia Hines) who sent their children to CPS--and even then, only Hines's son attended a non-selective school (Luther High School South). 

On CPSObsessed this week, there is raging debate about how much access individual schools should give to individual parents. Inevitably, the discussion in comments turned to teacher perks. 

I don't get this us versus them mindset that seems to prevail whenever parents and teachers begin to bemoan the problems of a deeply imperfect and under-resourced system. I truly do not understand why we as a society cannot view the school environment as a school environment (even if it is a work environment for teachers/administration) and not as a corporate environment. As Dorothy Shipps chronicled in her book, School Reform, Corporate Style, business has been trying to modernize schooling to corporate ideals for over 90 years. Now the “free market capitalist” mindset toward public education has so infiltrated our collective psyche that the public is in on the cry for modernization as well. Even worse, we think it’s OK to compare every public service and agency to a private one. 

As I wrote last year, I believe in the teachers union. Even more important, I believe in the teachers themselves, and in the strength and integrity of their profession. I have been extremely fortunate that I have met only a handful of less-than-great teachers, and my children have been taught pretty much exclusively by good to great teachers. 

The mindset that teachers have it so easy--summers off, the laundry list of holidays, make more than the rest of us, automatic pay increases, work partial days, have funded pensions, to name a few things I've read about teachers lately--is farcical. It implies that there is only so much pain and suffering and general pain-in-the-assishness to go around, and that office workers have a lock on it. 

The teachers versus corporate workers comparison is reminiscent of conversations in the Great White Moose of an afternoon: does The Boy's loss of his favorite jacket trump The Girl having to be partners again with the boy next to her in line? Or does The Tot Who's Not trump them both because he's mortified that I told his uncle a story about The Tot and gummy bears?  

The fact is: if you're not a teacher, you have no idea how much the work day or work week can stink. (And if you've never worked a crummy corporate job, you've likely no idea how much the work day or work week can stink.)  That corporate America no longer gives the so-called white-collar knowledge worker a sense of purpose and control over his/her work environment is a great point of sociological discussion, but it has no bearing on what is happening systemically in public education or other public agencies. 

Performance Policy

Claudinette (Didi) Schwartz, CPS Director of Assessment, also spoke to the PTA Advisory Council last week about her department's work. Her office sits within the CPS Office of Accountability under John Barker. 

Her introduction, like most of her remarks, were heavy on the education version of corporate speak: Assessments are a reflection of learning expectations. Assessment is a constant process, not an end-game. It happens every day, in every classroom, with every student. At least in theory it does.


Like Annette Gurley, she was short on time and most of her talk took the form of a Q&A session, which I've transcribed from my notes below:

Q. Explain the reduction in number of assessments for this AC2013-2014 versus AC2012-2013.

A. We reduced the number of assessments because 
(a) we wanted to increase instructional time   
(b) we wanted to emphasize that we assess students not on one measure

Looking at data points are equally important. District eliminated fall NWEA tests except for those students who didn't take the spring test and tehrefore didn't have a baseline test. The NWEA baseline allowed us to diagnose interventions and ways to work on them. 

Q. Can networks administer NWEA this fall anyway?

A. No. The NWEA is not available except for students in the primary grades who didn't have a baseline test from last year. Schools do not have to use NWEA as a fall baseline assessment they can also use DIBELS or another assessment tool. Testing in January is optional, although schools determine whether or not to give the mid-year NWEA assessment which measures a midpoint progress of skills. The end-of-year NWEA assessments is given to all 2nd-8th graders in late spring. 

Q. Is there NWEA training in place for parents?

A. No. The District doesn't have training for parents on how the assessments work and/or how they can help their kids through the assessment. We do have parent reports and strongly encourage teachers to print out these reports and share/explain them to parents. Assessment is not available at home. It asks skills-based questions, but those skills can be developed and practiced anywhere--not just on a PC. 

NWEA is a multiple choice test, starts at grade level and then gets easier or harder depending on how a student answers. Multiple choice in itself a bad thing. ACT is multiple choice and has been for 70 years, but when students can answer complex questions in this way, it can be a valid assessment tool. The NWEA asks a balance of questions between basic and stretch or complex questions.

PARCC will have multiple choice and construction response questions. Multiple choice may have multiple right answers or a matching activity. Constructive response is another term for "performance-based response." The District is looking at making the same components in a paper-based test in the lower grades. The PARCC is not a traditional timed test. It is an assessment meant to feel more like classroom work with the results given to teachers for help in developing tasks and interventions.

Q. Are there accommodations for students with IEPs?

A. There is so much we can do to accommodated IEP modifications with the PARCC. We can do more with font, size, color, and contrast. We can add a line reader. Some modifications, such as magnification, will be available to all students, while other modifications are set by the teacher.

The District is still determining what kind of read-aloud accommodations/modifications will be made for ELL students. It is a matter of determining whether the District is measuring English language or comprehension? 

Q. Are any Illinois programs based on Massachusetts's protocols? 

A. Yes. CCSS was developed by a coalition of states. Looked at what college students need, and what industry needs. Looked at the standards and then unpacked backwards down to K. 

Q. Can you share the new CPS Performance Policy?

A. Ryan Crosby, who manages the relationship with ISBE, also owns the performance policy. 

Q. Can you explain the changes to the ISAT and the way that was communicated to parents? 

A.  CPS sent letters home to parents announcing the difference in ISAT cut scores. The bar is still higher and test content is still changing. Communications are coming. Schools' accountability based on NWEA--not ISAT--in FY2014-2015. In the first year of anything, there are challenges. The transition from ISAT to PARCC for accountability purposes won't begin until FY2015-2016

Q. Are there sample questions from the NWEA?

A. Yes. 
 

Teaching and Learning

Yesterday's PTA Advisory Council meeting was a bit disappointing. Our speakers, Annette Gurley and Claudinette Schwarz, each spent what felt like very short periods of time with us. It gave us just enough time for an overview, but not for the rigorous, deep dive discussion that I've come to expect from the monthly PTA Advisory meeting. 

Annette Gurley introduced herself by saying that the title of her office (Office of Teaching and Learning) is actually quite descriptive and accurate of the work done by the office. What her office does is to enhance teaching to provide better learning for the students within the system, she said. 

All this talk of Common Core and emphasis on college, career, and life success is actually important. The rigor of teaching in the 21st century focuses on teaching students to think critically and solve problems--the kinds of tasks they'll need to perform daily in our post-modern, meta-data, information-obsessed economy.  In other words, the very opposite of what Esmee Greenfeld is apparently doing at the NYC Lab Middle School for Collaborative Studies. Rote memorization--the kind of kill-and-drill learning environment that many of us grew up in--is no longer relevant, Gurley said. 

This departure from the teaching methods that brought us through an industrial age is a game changer for everyone--from teachers to students to their parents. There is a renewed emphasis on experiential learning. Gurley quoted Richard Elmore's "task predicts performance" philosophy, saying that the professional development sessions her office are conducting focus on helping teachers to design tasks that help students think critically. (I've since read a bit on Richard Elmore, and it's nice to see a CPS Central Officer quote someone who actually makes sense. )

Gurley also acknowledged that the current academic year is a huge transition year for her office. She suggested that parents take time regularly to learn more about Common Core and its ongoing implications for children and families. 

She spoke about the changes in cut scores for the ISAT, a state decision to mitigate the collective shock we'll all feel when the District switches to the PARCC assessment next year. I prefer to think of the PARCC assessment as a way to make sure our schools are teaching our children what they need to know--not as an opportunity to trip them up and spit them out. I suspect Dr. Gurley has a similar philosophy. She told us that she doesn't want children to get to the PARCC and then not be able to complete it.

She told us that a sample 5th grade question on the PARCC tripped her up, and that her office has found the rigor expected of the PARCC to be "an eye-opener." 

In addition to preparedness for PARCC, Gurley reviewed the emphasis on the NWEA assessments, saying that these tests are diagnostic in nature and the baseline tests from last year are being used to develop Learning Maps that are aligned to each individual's learning growth targets. Only children who didn't take the NWEA in the spring last year had to take it this year, Gurley said. These Learning Maps allow a teacher to customize learning experiences to each child, providing time for acceleration or intervention (remediation) during times built into the school day for such work.

Gurley told us that CPS typically categorize learners into three tiers: ones get the lesson 80 percent of the time; twos need a little extra support to get the lesson 15 percent of the time; and threes still don't get it even with extra support. Gurley estimates that there are 3 "threes" in every classroom in CPS. Oy. The recommended intervention for those threes are 3x45-minute sessions each week. Although Gurley noted that good teachers differentiate anyway, I can't help but to wonder how any teacher with 37 kids in his/her classroom has the physical space or the head space to devote to 8% of the class, 5% of the time.  

With Greenfeld's article fresh in my mind, I asked Dr. Gurley about homework. She told me that the individual learning can take place in the classroom, but that it doesn't have to. Sometimes it takes place in a pull-out class, but sometimes it takes place at home via homework. What she said about homework is fuzzy within my notes, but I was left with the impression that the new Teaching and Learning paradigm is going to drag me into the role of after-school/homework tutor. Homework is an opportunity for students to reinforce and practice what they've learned at school, and for parents to preview and understand the concepts their children are in the process of acquiring. If I look at the bright side, it's possible that I may finally learn higher-level math.

Education: a Muse

Last week, I met with BoE member Deborah Quazzo about my pet project during one of her board office hours slots. The meeting was not productive on my end, but as we were walking out, Ms. Quazzo paid me what I consider to be a compliment when she asked me what subject I teach. 

I don't teach, and don't think I'd make a very good classroom teacher. As this TFA has-been writes, teaching is as much about classroom management as it is about teaching. Especially in many CPS classrooms. 

But I am a learner and consider myself an advocate for anyone else who follows a similar path. I am reminded of my days as a lycéenne; in French, the word for "teach" and "learn" is the same: apprendre. This is a conflation Americans could stand to make. 

I guess you could say that Education is in my DNA. It's only now that my kids are in school in a debt-ridden, politically questionable system once deemed "the worst public school system in America," that I've realized how deeply and widely the theme of education--both as a journey and as a destination--ran through my childhood. 

In my family, we talk about education a lot. My parents were each the first in their families to go to college and as their parents' only children of the Baby Boomer generation, embraced the culture of the time that held that formal education was critical to financial success. They were part of the 6 percent in 1970 that has now become the 70 percent of degree-earning bottom/top quartiles in 2011. 

But they were also part of the minority who were able to gain advantages despite their relative economic, political, and socially disadvantaged backgrounds when they landed in the college-bound HS track in NYC in the 1960s. My father was the youngest child of an orphaned, first-generation Hungarian Jew and a first-generation Roman Catholic Italian who learned to speak English only after she started school in Union City, NJ as a child. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science. 

Bronx Science is considered by many to be one of the first specialized magnet schools in the country, let alone NYC. Interestingly, the NYC BoE counts nine SEHSs (or Specialized High Schools) in its "portfolio." Compare that to Chicago's 10 SEHSs, despite a significantly smaller student population (400,000 ish to NYC's 1.1 million), and the popular demand for more SEHS seats becomes murky. Why create more tracking for the top XX percent (or as Sue Serra in this Reader article states, the top 10 percent)? Where is the equity in creating echelons of HS within the public system? 

But creating echelons in the public system is exactly what we're doing when the Chicago Board of Education allows Ald. Michele Smith to cede her public comment time to two Lincoln parents who happen to agree with her development plans without enforcing its own rules about such tactics. And it's exactly what it's doing when Estella Bertran rushes the anti-development side off the microphone in later public comment. It's exactly what we're doing when Todd Babbitz makes system-wide decisions—behind closed doors—about whether adding air conditioning or resolving overcrowding within CPS buildings are a better use of its $200M capital budget. It's exactly what we're doing when application-required charter schools claim they're "open enrollment" on the public record. It's exactly what we're doing when mostly Northside schools use parent fundraising to pad the CPS budget gap, leaving SpEd teachers like Jacqueline Casimir out of work.

And that's just (some of) the inequalities in CPS. State-wide, even nation-wide, the contrast between the haves and have-nots educationally is more striking. In Illinois, our property tax structure rewards rich districts and penalizes poor ones, and ISBE per-pupil foundational spending recommendations don't even come close to covering the extrinsic costs of educating Illinois's children. 

CPS's EFMP: A critique

In early September, CPS embarked on a series of community engagement meetings ostensibly to gain feedback on its 10-year Educational Facilities Master Plan, a draft of which the District published in May. Critics of the 458-page document maintain that it offers little substance about what, exactly, its “long range plan and current recommendations” are. 

They're right. I've read it.

There's very little of substance in the document, which I had somehow imagined would read more like this June Board of Education Report. Most of the EFMP reads like a group project paper, with the unifying theme taking the form of an oft-repeated refrain of its "educational goals" of who, what, where, and when the District teaches its students. 

In 78 pages of summary text, the District makes exactly nine statements of what it will do, although it offers little--if any--plans as to how it actually will accomplish these goals. 

p. 49: "We will be constructing and replacing playgrounds for those schools that have the capacity for them." 

Except that CPS fails to mention which schools have the capacity for playgrounds, which schools need them replaced versus new ones, when these playgrounds will be constructed, and what and how the budget will be. 

p. 49: "We are expanding certain facilities to provide universal Full Day Kindergarten. In our FY13 Supplemental Capital Plan, we have allocated approximately $13.4 million in classroom build-out to prepare all schools for Full Day Kindergarten. Another $2.0 million has been set aside for kindergarten appropriate furniture across the district."

I wonder how K students in 1/2 day K managed without furniture all this time? I looked up the FY13 Supplemental Capital Plan and there are only 13 schools listed in the plan as receiving funds. One of them is Smyser, which lists its ideal enrollment as 860 and its actual AY2012-13 as over 1,000. How on Earth 
can CPS carve space out of an overcrowded 81-year-old 

building? 

p. 50: "We will expand Gifted/Selective Enrollment opportunities." 

Because there will be more seats? Or is this an allusion to the work scheduled to be done at Walter Payton? 

p. 56: "We will expand our International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes."

p. 56: "We will expand STEM Elementary Schools and Programs, and Early College STEM" 

p. 62: "We will expand Career and Technical Education....During SY13-14, CTE academies or CTE programs will be added to 6 high schools (Roosevelt, Southside Occupational, Prosser, Gage Park, and South Shore). Of these, Roosevelt and Southside Occupational will require facility modifications to support the expanded program offerings. In SY14-15, CTE academies or CTE programs will be added to 5 high schools (Bowen, Farragut, Kelly, Ray Graham, and Foreman). Of these, Bowen and Ray Graham will require facility modifications to support the expanded program offerings."

Finally: some substance! But still: lots of questions remain about what sorts of facility modifications will be required to support expanded CTE options. Also, while computer science and drafting are included in CTE, it's unclear if those will be among the offerings at these 11 high schools. 

p. 67: "We will expand our Service Leadership opportunities....For SY2013, two proposals were submitted into the Call for Quality Schools authorization process to expand Rickover Naval Academy and Marine Math and Science Academy to include 7th and 8th grades. While the Board of Education has approved these grade level expansions, the schools will require new, larger facilities to support the increased demand for both its existing grades as well as the additional 7th and 8th grades. Furthermore, both Rickover Naval Academy and Marine Math and Science are co-located schools that will more easily achieve building efficiency standards once in their own building." 

p. 68: "We will be elevating Arts Education to a core subject." 

Great, but no funding or capital improvements set aside at this stage, which suggests that this is an afterthought, not an actual budgetary priority. 

p.69: "We will provide innovative, bold and effective instructional practices for students with diverse learning needs while being a credible, supportive partner for schools, parents, students and the community at large. All student s with disabilities have the right to access quality public education options designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for postsecondary education, employment and independent living" 

Again, no funding or monetary amounts mentioned in conjunction with this. Another afterthought. 

p. 15: "We have protected and increased investments in programs that boost student learning such as full school day, early childhood development and maintaining class size, while at the same time expanding high quality school options across the district to give parents more choices." 

Would to know how CPS can justify maintaining class sizes of 28-38 students/classroom--if we use AY2013-14 numbers--as a good thing.

"Expanding high quality school options to create nearly 6,600 new seats in high quality magnet, selective enrollment, Charter, International Baccalaureate, Science Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) programs"

How to discount "new" seats from seats converted from existing programs within an existing building? Indeed, p. 56 details new programs at existing schools: 

"In Fall of 2013 CPS will open 5 new IB high school programmes (Farragut, Kennedy, Juarez, and Bronzeville), expand 6 other high schools to become Wall to Wall IB high schools (Hyde Park, Senn, Taft, Lincoln Park, Clemente, and the new Back of the Yards High School), and if recommended school actions are approved, will implement new IB in the following elementary schools: De Diego, DePriest, Ellington, Fiske, Jenner, Mollison, and Wells."

p.17: "Similarly, we need a long term view into population trends in areas of overcrowding, particularly in areas where we may be contemplating capacity expansions. "There are approximately 65,000 fewer students enrolled in neighborhood elementary schools in areas that are underutilized today than enrolled 10 years ago."  

Does this reflect a real population shift or increased enrollments in charter schools in some areas? The "schools of choice" argument suggests that many children go to school outside their neighborhood schools. I wonder how in-depth CPS got into the demographics? Did they perform any impact studies? 

p. 39 "If a principal enrolls out of area students, year after year, as the school’s capacity is increasingly utilized, a school can become overcrowded. Because of this, for elementary and high schools with traditional geographic attendance area boundaries (e.g., neighborhood schools), CPS measures the school’s actual enrollment efficiency, based on total enrollment relative to capacity, as well as the school’s notional enrollment efficiency, based on the percentage of enrollment consisting of students residing within that school’s attendance area boundary. The notional enrollment efficiency rating assists the District in determining the extent to which a neighborhood school’s efficiency or inefficiency relates to a high or low number of out-of-area students enrolled relative to the facility’s capacity." 

Translation: if you are overcrowded because you over-enrolled non-neighborhood kids as a school of choice, too bad. This suggests that the District thinks that only magnet, SE, and charter schools should be "schools of choice" within the District. Choice is an illusion. Indeed, if you look at the "notional utilization" rate assigned by CPS to each "overcrowded" District school, the utilization rate drops down to a more reasonable level. Belding's 139% becomes 110%, for example. However, Gray, Palmer, Prussing, and Smyser hold steady at utilization rates at 126% and up. 

p. 42: "We believe that if these alternative methods of overcrowding relief were fully deployed, overcrowding could be solved with approximately $500-600 Million, but it is unrealistic to expect those other means could be successfully deployed to resolve each of these situations."

There are only 13 schools targeted to receive additions to relieve overcrowding, (p. 46) although the authors of the document fail to include status (and cost) of the projects within this report.

It's Back

CPS is back in session and with it, the PTA Advisory Council. 

I seriously don't understand why more parents don't attend this monthly meeting. Although like many open meetings in the city, it is held downtown during the workday, it is absolutely a wonderful pipeline to new initiatives and information coming out of CPS and a great way to network with other involved parents within the system. It is not limited to PTA members or member PTA representatives, although we encourage and support members of the group to join the PTA. Our CPS host is Carl Hurdlik, Community Coordinator within the FACE office, and our PTA moderator is Cassandra Eddings, a parent and volunteer who can be reached at ilptaadvisory at gmail dot com.

Our meeting today focused on a presentation from Andy Pickett and Jamie Tully with the LearnWell initiative. Part of the overall Healthy Schools campaign, CPS's LearnWell initiative centers on physical education within CPS, and is functionally organized under the Office of Health and Wellness. Is CPS really listening to parents and community members? I couldn't tell you, although the existence of this entirely grant-funded department/initiative suggests to me that they are.

Andy and Jamie shared with us an overview of a new CPS Physical Education policy that covers everything from suggested instructional minutes and methods to individual waivers to inclusion techniques. A central idea is that children should have 60 minutes of physical activity each day, or 150 minutes of P.E. time each week. For this fall, the LearnWell team has started a pilot program called 30/20/10 in 36 elementary and high schools. Under the pilot, children have 30 minutes of P.E., 20 minutes of recess, and 10 minutes of classroom exercise each day.

Sounds great, right? 

Right. Except that right now, there are little to no funds to support this policy, which will become a mandate when the BoE votes on it in October 2013. As a Blaine parent articulated and the LearnWell team confirmed, there are no budgetary concessions for this within the restrictive per-pupil allotments under which all District schools must now work. And I believe Andy and Jamie when they said that they understand the physical and budgetary constraints under which the vast majority of schools must work. But I'm not concerned about my kids having to go through gym class in a field, on a sidewalk, or within a hallway--all (good) suggestions made by the LearnWell team. I'm concerned because this kind of unfunded mandate stuff from CPS is maddening and ongoing.

The Boy has had daily recess and weekly P.E. classes since he started kindergarten six years ago, so I get the importance of free play and daily movement. Indeed, Andy pointed to research in the Kansas City schools that said behavior problems plummeted when children had daily physical activity. And his team's professional development meeting in August drew a crowd to its training and informational sessions. But even with the team's proposed three-year gradual policy rollout, the fact remains that school administrators must identify and budget for P.E. instruction within their schools. 

To encourage creativity and provide some financial support for schools that are willing to identify Wellness Champions, create Health and Wellness Committees, and really engage around student activity, the LearnWell team will release an RFP on October 1st under which schools can apply for small grants of up to $2500 to implement wellness initiatives in their communities.

In addition, the LearnWell team will work to educate parents, principals, and teachers about the role of P.E. in high schools. While elementary children in Illinois are only required to have gym once/week, the ISBE waiver permitting CPS to bypass gym requirements for its students in 9th and 10th grades will end at the conclusion of the 2013-2014 academic year.

Overcrowding on the NWside

Last night, I attended the North/NWside Collaborative's community meeting at Taft High School. This was to provide feedback on the CPS Educational Facilities Master Plan. Todd Babbitz conducted the presentation and took feedback. His employee, Portfolio Manager Ben Felton, co-moderated. Ben spoke to the PTA Advisory Council last year.

Irritatingly, the drafters of the CPS Education Facilities 10-Year Draft Plan have divided the city's schools in yet a new way, using some of the city's 17 community areas rather than the FACE designation of Networks or the Areas previously established by our federal Secretary of Education. 

This makes an apples to apples comparison difficult. Does CPS deliberately slice and dice the data a new way each time? In February 2013, we discussed overcrowding in the O'Hare Network, which contains 44 elementary schools, of which 21 were deemed above ideal utilization rates by CPS itself. In the Facilities draft, the O'Hare, Ravenswood-Ridge, and Fulton Networks were combined and then subdivided again into Albany-Irving, Sauganash, Ravenswood, and other community areas. 

My comments here--and my comments last night--concern the Albany-Irving area specifically, as these students and their families are my neighbors and/or friends. Under the draft plan, Albany-Irving has 31 schools, 10 of which are overcrowded by CPS's 30-to-a-homeroom averaging formula. Tim Meegan, whose point often gets lost in his "everything is wrong with CPS" perspective, pointed out in his comments that the only school in the Albany-Irving area that is under-utilized is Aspira-Haugan Middle School--and this despite overcrowded conditions in the three schools nearest to the building. And yet, although CPS owns the building (or at least paid for it), it appears to have no plans to phase it out. (Perhaps as part of the "several" charters that CPS has closed, per Barbara Byrd-Bennett?) 

Presenter Babbitz asked for directed feedback to the plan, asking participants their opinions on the "guiding principles" outlined in the draft plan, priorities, and suggested solutions. Of course, since the BoE and CPS provide most parents with only two minutes of speaking time, most people use public forums like these to vent all of their frustrations with CPS on the poor, but highly paid, Central Office soul sitting on the stage, while Network managers hover in a cluster nearby. Last night was no exception. 

Ald. Smith droned on for nearly 15 minutes about the overcrowding at Lincoln Elementary, causing one parent in the back row to stand up with a "point of preference" that Smith had outrun even the most lenient timekeeping of a two-minute speaking allotment. Ald. Arena kept it briefer, highlighting three 45th ward schools with the worst overcrowding conditions (Hitch, Belding, and Prussing) and noting that 85 percent of 45th ward residential real estate are single-family houses. (And to his point: this neighborhood has enjoyed a steady, owner-occupied, mid-price range residency since 1942; contrast that with Census figures for Halsted and Fullerton for the same era. The data is available in the government records section of Harold Washington Library.)

Two speakers--Decatur's principal and a parent of a 13-year-old--advocated for more SE considerations. Three speakers advocated for more space/additions/improvements for Taft H.S. One, a teacher and parent, William Angel, pointed out that the feeder schools for Taft have mostly received additions without thought to where these students will go for high school and where they can put them within Taft. Six speakers alternately challenged and agreed with Ald. Smith about Lincoln Elementary, suggesting that a neighborhood with $1.2 million SFHs didn't need an addition/expansion just because they were rich and demanded it. Others suggested instead that CPS de-magnetize Newberry and/or LaSalle (because the rich people demanded it? Oy vey.) Two speakers from Wildwood Magnet (is this a magnet or a magnet cluster? CPS.edu lists it as a magnet) spoke about severe overcrowding at their school. Jill Wohl from Raise Your Hand live-tweeted it from the forum if you'd like more information from the forum.

I hadn't gone in to the forum intending to speak, but did want to provide feedback on on parts of the draft plan that I read:

My name is Caroline Bilicki, and I have three children at Disney II Magnet School. I have three comments on the draft plan. One--really more of a question: How can CPS promote a 21st century learning environment without a science lab, like Scammon or Murphy, or without a tech lab, like Belding or Henry?

Two it's not so much that I'd like to see you offer more programs, but sustain what you have. As Ben knows, I sit on the PTA Advisory Council, and every year, we are introduced to new heads of new initiatives that disappear 12 months later. 

And three, another question: Why does CPS want to pursue choice as a strategy? Is this a method to reduce costs? Is this something that parents want? Because I'm pretty sure that most NWside parents don't want charters as a choice. Another comment on choice: with open enrollment, neighborhood CPS schools become "schools of choice" in ways that belie the Census projections used by CPS in the Albany-Irving areas and/or within the O'Hare Network. 

Down to the Nitty GRITty

At each of the past three BoE meetings I've attended, the budget looked large. Everyone from Barbara Byrd-Bennett to Laurence Msall to Tim Cawley brought up pension reform in August. Tim Cawley also brought up the need for additional revenue from Springfield. Pension reform is a sticky wicket as well as a straw man in my opinion. I think that reforms to the state pension should be forward-going only. That is, the Illinois General Assembly can move to a defined contribution plan for current teachers and civil servants (ahem, elected officials), but it may not strip pensioners of their restful, albeit meager retirements after 40+ years in the trenches of CPS.

However, an increase in the state income taxation process is something I can get behind. And it's a common theme at the BoE. BBB brought it up. Karen Lewis brought it up. Even Henry Beinen brought it up.

At last: a common cause for education wonks in Chicago.

I hope it works. I've attended several presentations put on by the Illinois League of Women Voters,  the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, and most recently, A Better Illinois, about the subject of Illinois's tax mess. I have found the argument increasingly convincing each time. 

The more I learn about the campaign, the more I think it makes sense. Illinois was one of the first states in the union to promote many child-focused initiatives. It would collectively do well to reclaim some of that positivity (as opposed to notoriety) by funding its state programs fairly and more appropriately. If that means that I pay more tax, so be it if that is fair. However, I'm inclined to think it would be more fair for corporations to pay their fair share of tax, rather than doling out foundation dollars to the CEO/Board of Directors' pet causes. (If corporate foundations still want to do so, great, but the public good should not depend on private monies to survive/exist.) 

According to information provided by Advance Illinois, Illinois ranked 48th in state funding of education, as a percentage of total funding, in 2009-2010. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) allegedly funds schools at a rate of $11,634 per pupil per year, which puts Illinois in the middle of the pack. But given that my kids' school received just over $4,000 per pupil for the 2013-2014 academic year, I'm not sure what accounts for the nearly $7K per pupil difference. Pension payments? 

As this HuffPo analysis of the NEA stats says, Illinois is the most regressive in its education funding.  And this (downstate) reporter explains how the published numbers are not the same as what school districts actually get. 

So now that I've established how low the rate at which Illinois funds its schools actually is, back to my point: this is unacceptable. Now a base state ranking means that  one state has got to be last, but there is last by a neglible amount (Illinois versus Utah or Idaho) snd there's last by a ridiculous amount (Illinois versus New York or Massachusetts). This difference is revolting, it's disgusting, it's criminal, it's base. And I don't see how we can raise future productive citizens of the world if our students aren't getting the support they so desperately need. 

I want to move to Iowa like I want a hole in my head, but Iowans know how to breed--and educate--a thinking body politic. And they do this in part by funding their education system from a fair and equitable income tax structure. As do 33 other states that follow a graduated rate income tax (GRIT) structure. In fact, all of the other Midwestern states follow GRIT--except Indiana, which appears to be only steps ahead of Illinois in shady educational policymaking. 

Under GRIT, the plan is simple: increase revenues by changing the income tax in Illinois from a fixed rate flat tax (currently 5 percent, will sunset down to 3.75 percent in fiscal year 2016 and drops again to 3.25 percent in 2024) to a graduated rate. That means that those with a higher income will be taxed at a higher rate and those at a lower income will be taxed at a lower rate. There are several models floating around about what this might look like in Illinois. According to one of these models, those at the top income brackets would see only a 3 percent increase in income tax payable to Illinois. 

I daresay they (we?) can afford it. What do you think? 

Still Boring

Last week, I attended the August Board of Education meeting, mercifully without my children, who would not have sat through another two-hour filibuster masquerading as the CEO's Report. Public participation began at nearly 1 p.m. and as speaker #58, I was one of the last people called to the podium.

This turned out to be a blessing in disguise as Board members were more willing to interact with me. Except David Vitale--he still looked bored (or, as The Boy said in June, like he had to pee). Or maybe it was my promise to come back every two months until the Board responds to my request. Andrea Zopp complied, although she questioned my premise. 

My public comment was about a little-known issue that has become increasingly important as the Board has codified its enrollment and admissions policies, and discontinued long-held admissions practices:

Illinois general superintendent of schools Ted Kimbrough wrote, "The most important instructional resource is staff, particularly teachers." This is as true in 2013 as when he wrote it in 1992 in an analysis of the first 7 years of state report card data. 

I believe that the Board of Education recognizes on some level the instructional importance of CPS teachers. But teacher salaries are only one part of the resources our teachers and our schools need. 

That is why I am here today, again, to urge the Board to reconsider its magnet and selective enrollment admissions policy #602.2. As you may recall, I was here in June to address the Board on the same topic. And I will return every two months to speak to this issue until the Board takes it for the serious matter that it is. 

The current policy as it is written is exclusive by omission. There is no policy concerning teachers' children within the system, and there is a perception among parents and the general public that teachers have some kind of clout list to get preferential treatment, like children of returning Rhodes scholars. That's just not accurate. 

Chicago is often a pioneer in its policies and practices. Sometimes that has produced positive results and sometimes that has produced negative results. From my research, I can't tell if magnet schools around the country grant admission to their teachers. But I can tell you that if Chicago embraces a policy for teachers' children, it will be a mark on the positive side of pioneering programs.

So I stand here today to ask you to what I need to do, what you will do, to ensure that great teachers are retained in the schools where they teach. I know it is not the Board's practice to respond to public participants, but I'm speaking to with respect and an expectation of accountability, and I expect that you will do the same. 

Please make this process more transparent for parents, teachers, students, LSCs, and other citizens of Chicago. 

For the record, as far as I can tell, there is no clout list for teachers and administrators within CPS. I can't say whether Mayor Rahm Emanuel maintains his own clout list (given the way politics in Illinois works, it wouldn't surprise me if he did), but I'm fairly confident that Barbara Byrd-Bennett does not. (If she did, perhaps Tim Cawley would be a Chicago resident.) I know Jean-Claude Brizard did not. These stories may be anecdotal, but I can name at least five CPS teachers and administrators who have played--and lost--the admissions lottery, like everyone else now fleeing the City for more educationally and financially sound pastures. 

Also, for the record, I'm not asking for automatic entry for teachers' kids. The only admissions that are guaranteed are those at one's own neighborhood District school. Charters, magnets, gifted, classical, and out-of-boundary neighborhood schools all require some type of admissions filter and I am not advocating for a change. 

What I'm ultimately asking for is the following: 

Amend the BoE policy 602.2, Board Report #11-0824-PO2 to include enrollment for elementary-aged children of teachers+* after siblings in both entry and non-entry@ years. Sample wording is provided below in bold: 

“Elementary Magnet School Lottery Selections – Entry Level: 

a. Siblings 

– All sibling applicants shall be offered seats to the extent space is available. Lotteries will be conducted as necessary if the number of sibling applicants is greater than the number of available seats, and a designated sibling wait list shall be established if there are more sibling applicants than available space. To be eligible, the enrolled sibling and the applicant sibling must reside in the same household and must be attending the same school at the same time for at least one school year. For the purposes of this policy, the term sibling means natural siblings, step siblings, foster siblings and adopted siblings, as evidenced by documentation required by the CEO or designee. A sibling of a student who will be graduated, or who is scheduled to transfer to another school, prior to the enrollment of the sibling who is applying for admission, shall not be eligible for this priority. 

b. Teachers Elementary-Aged Children

-- After placing siblings as described above, all teachers’ elementary-aged children shall be offered seats up to ___ % of the remaining seats. To be eligible, teachers must have worked at the magnet school for at least one year prior to application. The applicant and the teacher must reside in the same household and must attend school and work at the same school at the same time for at least one year. 

b. c. Proximity Lottery

– After placing siblings and teachers’ children as described above, 40% of the remaining seats will be allocated to the proximity lottery and the balance to the citywide SES lottery. Proximity determinations will be made by the CEO or designee through a geocoding-based proximity analysis conducted prior to the lottery. All applicants will be placed into the proximity or citywide lotteries based on the application address. If the number of proximity applicants is less than the number of seats allocated for the proximity application process, those applicants will be given offers and the remaining seats will be filled through the citywide SES lottery. 

Where there are more proximity applicants than available seats, computerized lotteries may be run for applicants residing within a 1.5 mile proximity radius of the elementary magnet school and a 2.5 mile proximity radius of the magnet high school. The proximity radius is determined by a straight line method that does not consider driving distances. A sufficient number of offers will be made in lottery order to fill the seats allocated to the proximity selection process. The remaining proximity applicants will be placed on a proximity wait list. In an effort to ensure ongoing diversity in these programs, if more than 50 percent of the entire student body, according to the current 20th day file, is comprised of students within the proximity and if more than 50 percent of the student body is any one racial or ethnic group, no proximity lottery will be held for that school. Where both conditions are met, all applicants, including those living in the proximity area, will be placed into the citywide SES lottery.”

+Q: How will this work for elementary-aged children of H.S. teachers, like those at Ogden, Alcott, etc.?

*Q: Should this include aides, administration, office staff, and/or custodial staff?  

@Q:  Should this include both entry and non-entry years? 

Early critics of this plan include part of the Chicago PTA (the P in PTA), who believe that teachers have a secret in. This perception persists despite system-wide changes to the admissions policy in 2011, 2010, and 2009. The District needs to confit its admissions policy for neighborhood schools as well as for magnet and SE schools. Policy by omission isn't transparent.