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. 

Thinking About the Teachers Again

Yesterday, I took The Boy, The Girl, and The Tot Who's Not to their first Chicago Board of Education meeting. On the train, in the rain, despite the flooding, despite the no-food-in-chambers policy that made an over-lunchtime meeting difficult for children used to eating at 11:38 a.m.

But I went because I had signed up to address the Board. And I took them with me because I thought it was important that they see how their government works. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned lunch situation, we left chambers after my remarks, but before a group of high school students demonstrated their displeasure with the system. 

I wish I were that brave. 

Instead, I stayed on-point in my message to the Board of Education: asking them to reconsider their 2011 decision not to amend magnet enrollment policy 602.2 to include teachers' children. My statements elicited no response from David Vitale or Barbara Byrd-Bennett, in marked contrast to the response that another parent received when he asked that CPS hold his kid's magnet school spot while they went to Bejing on a Fulbright scholarship. (According to The Boy, BBB was stone-faced and he thought Vitale looked like he had to pee.)

Here's what I said:

My name is Caroline Bilicki and I'm the parent of three children--who are here with me today--at Disney II Magnet School, which lost $270,000 in the transition to system-wide per-pupil funding and despite an expansion to high school. But that's not why I'm here today.

I'm here today to ask the board to reconsider its 2011 decision, based on Blue Ribbon Comission rcommendations at the time, regarding admission of teachers' children. My family has benefitted from the 2011 revision to policy#602.2 and I can report first hand the peace of mind I feel in knowing each of my children have an opportunity to share experiences, teachers, and community.

So I'd like you to consider amending the current policy to include a provision for magnet teachers' children. Such an amendment could include a percentage of the class and/or a length of service requirement. I've included sample wording in my handouts, which I provided to the board earlier. I believe a policy that supports enrollment of teachers' children in the schools where they teach is in the best interests of the board for three reasons: 

First, it keeps families and school communities together, emphasizing the shared experiences of school and learning. 

Second, it keeps great teachers in the city/CPS, which provides students with a stability that is so critical in today's times. 

And finally: it is the right thing to do.

Thank you. 

There is more to this story that I did not share with the board: that one of our founding teachers, assistant principal, and indeed, a preschool parent, left system and the city because her rising K kid did not gain admission to any magnet, SE, or neighborhood open enrollment school where she, a top-notch educator, felt comfortable sending her child. That many people I've talked to about this initiative believe teachers have some kind of "in" to better schools or seats. Perhaps that was true during the principal discretion days, but I can name at least five CPS officials who I've met in various capacities whose kids played the lottery like everyone else. That the Board of Education should get its policy house in order for open enrollment/neighborhood/magnet cluster schools in the same way it did for SE and magnet schools. That the inequities in Chicago education are not only around money.

 

Don't Shoot the Messenger

Whenever I attend CPS meetings, I always ponder the wisdom of sharing what I've learned or keeping it to myself. Part of me thinks that it's important for CPS (and by extension: me) to be as transparent as possible. But the other part of me winces when I envision an angry mob with pitchforks heading in my direction as I read the comments. I now realize that my CPS experience as a parent is pretty much unlike that experienced by any of my peers or neighbors. For that reason, perhaps I should go back to straight reporting rather than editorializing? 

So with that out of the way: don't shoot the messenger.

This morning, I attended, via teleconference, the November monthly meeting of the PTA Advisory Council. My attendance, either in person or via phone, is mostly sporadic, but I've written about my experiences in the past, and you can read more about the advisory council here. Due to a previous commitment, I had to drop off the call just at the point that the conversation turned to school closings and became heated. But I did hear the first presenter, a man by the name of Ira Rounsaville, who is tasked with revising the district's policy for family life and comprehensive sexual education. 

He started his presentation by saying that he really wants to increase parent involvement in policy development at the district level. (See above.) His department, the newly created Office of Student Health & Wellness, reconstituted from the ghosts of CPS Offices past, is in the process of revising the comprehensive sexual education policy from 2008. The 2008 policy is a revision itself, of the 1965 policy. 

The reason for this, he said, is two-fold. One, there is no uniformity in implementation of sexual education curriculum across CPS currently. And two, and probably more importantly, they looked at the data and trends of what age, and in what ZIP codes they reside, people are getting sexually transmitted diseases. 

He shared that in some areas of the city, kids as young as age 10 are contracting sexually transmitted diseases. He also said that Chicago is the top U.S. city for gonorrhea and chlamydia. In his view, student health affects educational outcomes.

So how is this happening? In what I imagine is a similar method to that employed by the instructional strategy office for Common Core rollout, the Office of Student Health & Wellness went backward from a high school senior to figure out what kinds of knowledge should be covered in each previous year, from a health and sexual education point of view. 

He said that the policy in draft form now would have children in grades K-4th taught the basics of family life as a precursor to sexual education: what the body parts are called, what is good touch/bad touch, what families look like in a general sense--all using age-appropriate terms and concepts. Comprehensive sexual education would begin in 5th grade, again using age-appropriate terms and concepts. The idea is to give students a basic understanding of how their bodies work. 

Currently, the 2008 policy says that condom demonstrations are allowed in 7th and 8th grade with principal consent, and in grades 9-12th with principal notification -- too late to prevent a 10-year-old from contracting gonorrhea. The draft policy would have students see a demonstration of condom use in 5th grade, period. He pointed out that even if you think your 5th grader is not ready for sex; he or she may be targeted by the sexually mature students in his or her class or in 6th grade. 

The draft policy would have the curriculum integrate with a core subject, such as science or social studies because, especially as kids get into high school, they are more likely to have these subjects every day and the sexual education component can be integrated easily into a discussion of biology, discovery of AIDS, or history and civics lessons, for example. Also, he pointed out that the draft policy aims for spending 625 curriuculum minutes each year on sexual education, and it's important that students have physical exercise during their P.E. classes.

The draft policy calls for parent notification via a letter, and suggests that schools should offer a parent/guardian informational meeting about the program with a curriculum breakdown and opportunity to ask questions. Parents/guardians will be able to opt their children out of the program by submitting it in writing to the individual school offices -- again, per the draft policy. 

He pointed out that CPS does not follow an abstinence-only curriculum, and that in a sample 10-lesson unit at the high school level, maybe only two lessons would discuss abstinence. 

Another important point that Mr. Rounsaville made, repeatedly, is that he believes that parents and the Board of Education should hold schools accountable for following the policy. When I asked about transparency in the policy and parent feedback, he was very receptive to that. Next steps for his department and the draft policy are to go through a few internal levels, through the CPS law department and then simultaneously onto the website (not yet launched) and to the Board of Education for consideration. A vote may take place on the policy at the BoE's January meeting.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns about the policy or process, please contact Ira Rounsaville directly at 773-553-8384 or irounsaville at cps.edu

Strikers

So it's the end of Day 3 of the 2012 CTU strike and I'm feeling much the way I felt on August 27: utterly sick of my children. To quote a fellow Disney II parent, "I've grown tired of attempting to be cheerful with my kids." The boredom-induced bickering is just one of the reasons that I hate summer. 

But. 

I get that this is what the CTU and our teachers need to do. And suffering through more stretches of time in forced home-schooling with my children during this strike is the price that I'm willing to pay for (possibly) real education reform. Because Ms. Lewis's "real schools" comment had nothing to do with $7,500/year private school. To borrow a tired sports analogy, I'm willing to take one for the team on this.

Because I recognize that we, on the NWside of Chicago, live in a bubble. Our children, in large part, attend schools that are CPS's education superstars. Our teachers willingly gave up extra pay to give their students extra classroom time. Our teachers work evenings and weekends, and they are pleasant to us when we run into them in our daily lives when school is not in session. Our teachers have our support as parents every hour of every day. But it's not like this for every teacher or at every school. I think it's like this for very few teachers at very few schools within the system. Some of them are schools that I never want to enter to confirm that what they report is true. 

Like many parents, I'm frustrated by the necessary lack of transparency in what the hold-up is between CPS and CTU at the contract negotiating table. Why can't they compromise? Karen Lewis and Mayor Rahm Emanuel seem locked in a battle of wills that's holding the rest of Chicago in a captive standstill. It's anyone's guess who'll prove him or herself to be the biggest donkey in the end. 

But I'm also frustrated by what is reported in and opined by the media. Like balanced government, balanced reporting also seems to be a thing of the past. I've long known that the Chicago Tribune is a screamingly conservative paper, so maybe it's not surprising to anyone else that the only source in Jon Kass's opinion piece from today is from a man who formerly led a group called Americans for Limited Government before he came to lead the neutrally named Illinois Policy Institute. The IL Policy Institute's directors also include an equity firm partner, a portfolio manager, a lawyer and political appointee in the Reagan administration, and a former CEO who now works to "reduce government involvement in commercial enterprise." To quote The Girl: seriously?

Mr. Tillman, will your "nonpartisan" group consider reducing the involvement of commercial enterprise in (setting policy for) government? The only thing that introducing corporate practices to the public education system has done for it is to make it as unstable as corporate America. I'm neither a Republican nor rich, and I was fortunately raised in an educational era where learning to think--and speak/write--critically was more highly valued than not seeming to fall behind my peers, so I'll be lucky if five people read this. But I must say it: Of course executives like Mr. Tillman are anti-union. They're not offshoring their jobs to India or Bangladesh; they're just offshoring their money.

Union labor got its start in the Gilded Age, as a response to the rich-get-richer and the poor-get-poorer political climate of the late 19th century. Some Many argue that the need for unions is over, and that many protections advocated by union labor have been codified in our society. But I look around at the rapidly disappearing middle class and think we're headed back to the Gilded Age, if we aren't there already.  "Soon the government was protecting the rights of wealthy Americans instead of all Americans." (italics mine)

Mr. Tillman's statement is disingenuous. People like Mr. Tillman are trying to break the union because they think that teachers are like widgets--entirely interchangeable. I'm quite sure there are teachers within CPS who phone it in--just as there are employees everywhere in America who phone it in. But what a huge disservice it would be to Chicago's children to get rid of teachers with 20 years of experience because they've gotten too expensive for the district's books. Too bad we can't offshore teachers, eh? 

But even if CPS can separate the wheat from the chaff, can the best teachers overcome poverty in the absence of adequate resources and supports (and the funding for these)? This Tribune editorial conveniently omits some critical points in its assessment of the importance of great teaching: 

First, the metro areas mentioned in the editorial--Boston, NYC, Houston--put their money where their mouths are. All of these cities spend more per student than Chicago does. Houston ISD ties teachers' pay to student test scores, although what that actually means will be anyone's guess in the next few years as most of the country moves to the Common Core State Standards while Texas remains with its state-developed STAAR. 

Second, Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust mentioned the importance of great teachers in her statement. But she didn't just say strong teachers. She said strong, well-supported teachers. And this is what teachers on the line are asking for: more/better resources. It's not just about pay. But because of SB7, pay becomes the focal issue.

The Tribune bills Education Trust as an advocacy group. It doesn't specify for what or whom the Education Trust does its work. Not surprisingly, the group's senior leadership has strong ties to the Children's Defense Fund, which in turn has strong ties to Stand for Children and charter schools. It's not that difficult to understand why Ms. Lewis isn't going to urge her teachers back to work without a contract while they work the details out. This infamous video is partially why. That and they've been negotiating for over 10 months already.

The Trib wrote, "Parents and principals need to know which teachers excel and which take up space." I agree with this because I already know which teachers excel and which take up space. As do most parents who are nominally involved in their children's education. I consider this part of my job as a parent. Good principals know this too. 

Two Steps Forward, One Back

As Sonia Kwon of the Raise Your Hand coalition recently pointed out, a visit to the Chicago Board of Education is a logistical nightmare for many who wish to make their opinions known about their children's schools, or about the system in general. The process appears to be set up to frustrate those who are nearly most affected by the Board's decisions/actions. It downright excludes those who are arguably most affected by its decisions/actions. And the Board's practice of listening mutely (for the most part) by those who address it is enraging to anyone who has spent any amount of time preparing to address the Board.  

In the face of such apparent indifference--if not callousness--it's not surprising that many are calling for an elected school board to restore equity and accountability to the stewards of the third largest school district in the country.

But I am not sure that's really the answer either. WBEZ reported that 359 schools had parent candidate openings and 402 had community candidate openings on March 20th, just three days before the extended filing deadline. That's a lot of schools--more than 2/3 of the district total--without advocates.

Kenneth K. Wong, a political science professor at Brown University, reported in 2007 that "a typical mayoral election receives a 45 percent to 55 percent voter turnout, which is several times more than a typical nonpartisan school board election." In fact, he reported that in Chicago, "Between the first LSC election in 1989 and 1993, the last one before mayoral takeover of the district, there was a 68 percent drop in parent turnout."

In 1993, I was a college freshman in Virginia, and Chicago public school politics did not enter into my consciousness. I've no idea what the political and cultural atmosphere of the early 1990s was like in Chicago, let alone how it compares with the current political atmosphere in Chicago.  

As anyone who has ever been "in charge" of anything will tell you, it's a lot easier to lampoon "leaders" than it is to lead the work yourself. I do not doubt that there is a group of committed people who are willing to do the work themselves, but I'm not sure that that is true for the majority of CPS parents. After all, how many people actually show up to vote for their LSC elections?


I've lived in the city for nearly a decade and I have never voted in an LSC election myself. In fact, until recently, I didn't even know that I could. Given the current interest level in CPS politics and frustrations with the Chicago BoE, it's entirely possible that individual Chicago citizens care enough about school issues to vote in elections that are little advertised, off-cycle, and decentralized. Are you planning to vote in LSC elections this April 18-19? Will you vote at your neighborhood school(s) or simply the one(s) your child attends?