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.

 

Community Forum

Last night, I attended CPS's N/NWside Collaborative's community feedback forum. I have several things to say about the experience, but before I do, I'll share the recurring thought that I thunk during the meeting. And that is: I'm not cynical enough for these things.

It's why I am glad for people like Wendy Katten and Jill Wohl of Raise Your Hand, because they are cynical about these meetings. I believe they know more about the processes and politics at play within CPS than I do. And I've said before, my math aptitude doesn't cover statistical analysis. 

That said, I (mostly) enjoyed the forum, and I took its format, content, and tone as an attempt for CPS to show us that it actually is listening to us--parents, community members, school-level governance--as we ask for real engagement and feedback opportunities in the process. 

Unlike the Blue Ribbon Commission hearings and other CPS forums of the past, this wasn't a panel of mute people in suits sitting on a stage at an audience while another suit ran through a slide deck and then tried to mask all emotion or response while dozens of Chicagoans made statements or asked questions in front of a microphone. Last night's forum was a continuation of the intent behind October 15th's School Actions Tele-Town Hall, wherein Adam Anderson and Mike Cardena* presented the guidelines, asked for directed or closed feedback, and responded to selected questions and suggestions from the audience.

I do think that CPS is really trying to engage leaders, community members, and parents in the process of change and feedback. I also think that they are cautious or guarded about the process because they are tired of being the public's whipping post. If Brizard was the fall guy for the teachers' strike, the various network directors, chiefs, and anyone from CPS management who attends a public meeting must be the fall guys for the public's wrath. Teachers are saints for putting up with 38 high-needs children in a classroom and/or their low-response parents, but I also have real empathy for the the front-lines CPS officers who deal with (an often-enraged) public every day. If you've ever worked in a restaurant, on a call center, or with sales people, you probably would too.

Not that there weren't problems with last night's forum. First--and perhaps the biggest problem--of all, they issued invitations to the forum via email to LSC Chairs, giving ours a scant 27 hours notice of the event, if the timestamps on the emails are correct. That left our Chair little time to rearrange her schedule or ask one of her fellow council members to attend in her stead. Fortunately for us, our LSC is stacked with policy nerds who have good childcare options and fond relationships with our iPhones, like myself, and two of us were able to make the meeting. That said, the lack of lead time may have been deliberate. After all, not giving people notice also means not giving people time to ruminate on how they can turn your civil little forum into a hotbed of ire.

I later heard that some LSCs never received notice of the meeting, and complaints that only some schools (Taft, Amundsen, Disney II, Schurz) really got notice. I take that as a sign that our network officers (MaRukh Mian in O'Hare, and Jane Norton in NW High School) are really on-task with their communications, although I'm sure some readers have drawn the conclusion that CPS wants to stack its deck with these darlings. The email communication I received belies this theory; it was also sent to 86 other email addresses by the FACE Deputy, Wendy Thompson. Some digging shows that those email addresses belonged not just to the Chairs of Schurz and Disney II LSCs, but also to LSC Chairs at Alcott, Skinner West, Whitney Young, Peterson, Inter-American, Haugan, Lincoln Park, Stockton, Field, Newberry, Farnsworth, Onahan, Northside Learning Center, Oscar Mayer, Thorp, Lincoln, Agassiz, Walt Disney Magnet, Von Steuben, Murphy, Smyser, Wildwood, Hamilton, Amundsen, Drummond, Bell, Stone, and Canty.

I understand that it's difficult to re-work your life mid-week on short notice (The Dad was not happy with solo bedtime parenting), and I'm not surprised that there were only about 30 parents/community members at the meeting. Which was seen as another problem. At my table, there was only one other non-FACE person sitting there when I arrived. Eventually, the table filled up. But most of the stakeholders at my table of 14 were non-parents. There were two FACE facilitators (Jane Norton and the guy from the Skyway Network), two CPS support/resource/vendors, one education fund angel investor, and two people affiliated with AUSL. The only other parent there was from New Field. She and I dominated the first two discussions, although I was the idealist and she was the pessimist. 

Finally, the forum ran late. What was supposed to be four presentations with three breakout discussion sessions for two hours took almost three hours. They frontloaded the most interesting--in my opinion--discussions, which meant that the hot mess that is CPS School Actions was left to a rapidly disappearing crowd. I confess I stopped paying attention once Adam Anderson explained the mathematical formula the district uses to determine whether a school is underutilized or overcrowded. I spent 40 minutes listening and tweeting to the School Actions TeleTown Hall last week, and the only experience I have with consolidation is when CPS moved the students from Irving Park Middle School to Thurgood Marshall Middle School in 2008.

I enjoyed the opportunity to offer feedback, and am reassured that CPS as an entity is actually really thinking, talking, and worrying about the problems it faces, and seems to want a dialogue. The format of the forum was that a speaker would give background information and data, and then present the dilemmas that 150 schools in the N/NWside Collaborative face, both individually and as a group. We'd break into our groups, discuss each dilemma or issue, and propose a number of solutions or concerns for each. CPS would take the top issue from each of the five groups, put it into a survey, and give us all an opportunity to "vote" for our own top issue from the aggregated list. For the first discussion, a spokesperson from each table also got to read aloud his or her top point for each of the four issues, further explaining the table's viewpoint. Then they showed us the results immediately after each vote.

For example, the first discussion was about (a) supports or resources within the school day/at school (b) supports or resources after the school day/for parents (c) facilities improvement priorities (d) anything else you think should be added or considered. My table came up with the following top priorities for each of these:

(a) class size ratio of 1:25
(b) individualize supports at the school level to support specific school/community needs
(c) infrastructure/facilities to support technology integration
(d) improve partnerships with other Chicago institutions, such as the park district

However, this is not what came up in the general discussion, as the votes came in as follows:

(a) 38 percent of respondents chose improved social/emotional/academic intervention supports and resources
(b) 35 percent of respondents chose making schools work for families
(c) 30 percent of respondents chose conducive learning environment
(d) 44 percent of respondents chose improving trust between Board of Education and parents, teachers, and individual schools 

The second discussion was around questions you'd ask about (a) the district's space utilization plans/policy, and (b) the School Actions guidelines.

The third discussion was one of two assigned topics, although as I said above, I was losing interest at that point and had stopped taking notes. I'm drowning under paper these days, so I left all the materials behind, which was probably not the best move. But the good news is, if you want to attend one of these forums to get some information and data, and to voice your thoughts, you can. 

This morning, I received an email from Carl Hurdlik, who runs the PTA Advisory Council on the CPS side. He was at the event last night, and sent out additional dates and times for the next planned Town Hall discussions: 

Saturday, 10/27 – 10am-12:30pm
Malcolm X College
1900 W. Van Buren
 
Monday, 10/29 – 6-8:30pm
Charles Hayes Center
4859 S. Wabash
 
Please confirm your attendance or direct inquiries to Anjanette Hosley, ahosley at cps dot edu.Breakfast/dinner provided.

* did not get the spelling of his name, and I was unable to reach a live person at FACE when I called to verify. 

Musing on Data

As any reader of this blog over the past two years will know, I've developed a deep interest in the field of public education, and its relatives, public/social policy and political discourse. Maybe I should take it as a sign that I'm (finally!) a grown-up. Maybe it's a re-awakening of my poli-sci major past.

I managed to graduate with a B.A. in said field from Illinois's premier public university...without ever having taken a math class. It took me 15 years to realize what a mistake that was (UIUC revised its policy for students who graduated high school in 1993 or later). A strong foundation in mathematics is important in life--not simply for calculating insurance risks, or making a pampered living for oneself on the stock market, but for making the connections (or recognizing their lack) between research and reality. As John Ewing reports, and as Diane Ravitch reported in her book about NCLB, there is a problem with mathematics in this country.

I stopped trying in math when the work got too hard for my "smart" brain--to my great detriment as an adult. I'm trying to change that by recognizing that numbers aren't always meaningful without context. It seems that my fellow LAS grads often create and perpetuate falsehoods in their reporting. Falsehoods that might be prevented by a better understanding of math, assessments, and standards. The more I read the words, "studies show" or "research proves" in any article, the more I wonder if that is really the case. It would seem that in the newsfeed-happy world in which we live, editors are so desperate to be the first to break the story that they fail to check the facts or the data accurately before publishing. Twitter feeds or Reddit headlines that compress the information into even fewer characters exacerbate the problem further.

The truth is, research is not a quick process and there really aren't any easy solutions to education reform. Last spring, I spent the better part of three weeks looking at data from a huge fundraising project in hopes of isolating trends and ideas that could inform future decision-making. You'll notice that I used the term data-inform, not data-driven. I have lately wondered if the interchangeability of these terms is a case of willful or accidental ignorance.

It seems to me that too much weight is placed on assessments and their relative value in elementary education. ISAT scores, which are routinely used by prospective parents to judge a school's merit, are really only one very small piece that should be used in evaluating a school. Neither, of course, should parents use the number or frequency of assessments as a sign that the school "teaches to the test. " The real use in data produced by standardized tests is not in judging teachers or schools, but in tailoring teaching methods and learning opportunities to the students themselves. As our principal recently said, "If we don't know how students are learning, how can we accurately teach them?" (emphasis mine).

Who needs breakfast? I got math to do.

Last week, WBEZ's Schools on the Line with Jean-Claude Brizard had an unusual twist: the CEO of Chicago Public Schools would answer questions only from the kids. The Boy, The Girl, and I tuned in to hear what their peers would say. There were the expected parent-fed questions and complaints about the proposed longer school day, some awesome questions about selective enrollment high schools from current SEHS students themselves, and a particularly hairy question about the turnaround process from a Dyet student. Unfortunately for The Boy, they never got to his question on the line. 

I was genuinely surprised when The Boy said he wanted to call in. My kids generally groan when I mention any one of my pet causes, including the schools, education in general, their school, and various initiatives to benefit their school. The Boy told me his question before dialing in. And its content surprised me even more: why does his class have to have breakfast in the classroom (BIC)? 

When the BIC program launched at Disney II in the fall of 2009 (yes, it's always been a pioneer), The Boy was nonplussed by an extra breakfast/morning snack. I was irritated with CPS's paternalistic attitude and the stripping of what I feel is one of my parental rights: deciding what to feed my children. Fast forward a year when CPS rolled out BIC districtwide and the debate began anew in fall 2010. Both The Boy and The Girl were unbothered by BIC. Sometimes they ate it, sometimes they didn't, they said. They also reported that it was just another part of their day. And I let it go. 

Now, as it turns out, The Boy is annoyed for  BIC for reasons that have everything to do with learning. He told the WBEZ operator that he doesn't like BIC because it cuts into his math class.

I find this admission amazing for a number of reasons -- some to do with The Boy's personality and some to do with my own perceptions of what his school day is like. What I find most amazing is that a kid who spends 7.5 hours each day at school is so excited about learning that he wants to eliminate the minutiae to get to the learning faster. I mean this is a kid that I had to cleave off my leg every morning for the first six weeks of his kindergarten year. 

Certainly, this story that The Boy can be somewhat fickle in his opinions. He's not the only one--history is rife with such "flip-flops" to use modern political parlance. And I'm not suggesting that we should base policy or practice on the opinion of one child. (This is also why, in my opinion, we should not use student feedback or classroom performance in teacher evaluations.) However, that The Boy changed his mind on BIC (as he did on a 7.5-hour day) is progress for his own little person, about whom few would use the word "flexible."

LSC Candidacy

It's unlikely to surprise anyone who follows this blog or knows me well to learn that I've thrown my hat into the Local School Council (LSC) election ring for Disney II this year.  I have no political aspirations (at the moment?), so my seemingly insatiable need to know how things really work is what fueled this decision.

This is a year of firsts for Disney II and for me. As a new school, Disney II has had an Interim Advisory Council (IAC) to serve as a steward of the school through its first four years. But on July 1, 2012, Disney II will have its first elected LSC. Also new is the fact that this is a "contested" election--meaning that there are more candidates than there are parent seats on the council. 

In observing nearly four years of nominations and elections related to Disney II, I can think of only two other times where there were more people interested than there were open positions. For this year's election on April 18, 2012, there are seven parents running for six available slots, and one community member running for one of two open slots. Like many of my peers, the LSC election cycle is completely new to me. Did you know that each parent or community voter can only vote for five total candidates?  

Naturally, I really want to serve on the LSC. I would not have self-nominated if I did not believe that I have the skills--and determination--to make a meaningful contribution to the group and to the school. But we are all great candidates. Two have previous LSC experience. Two have previous IAC experience. Two are architects. Three have previous non-profit experience. Five are men. Two are women. All are parents who are passionate about our children's school.

Yesterday, we had our LSC candidates' forum. Like a Board of Education meeting, candidates were given a grand total of 120 seconds to address "the crowd." In preparing for the forum, I came across some candidates' interviews on the Northcenter Journal; I liked the interview form, so I've mimicked it here. After four years of heavy volunteering, I feel like my name and my face are all over the place, but if you've just stumbled across this blog, there's a chance that you don't know who I am and what I mean to do on the LSC.

I believe the single biggest issue facing Disney II is the physical space of the school. Certainly, a small budget and limited financial resources will affect the quality of education at Disney II, but to me, that's less of an issue than where all these kids will sit once the school reaches full PK-8th capacity in just three years. How can Disney II continue to meet its educational challenges and rigors within the constraints of a small building? Meeting this challenge will be of critical importance to the first elected LSC at Disney II. However, I believe it can be addressed through:

• Thinking creatively to maximize resources
• Mapping out another five to ten-year plan to identify needs and resources to address those needs
• Building and leveraging relationships with CPS, state and local lawmakers, and community stakeholders

And with The Tot (Who's Not)'s K acceptance fresh in my mind, I am reminded once again how fortunate our family is to have three children at the same great magnet school. I want to serve on the LSC because I'm inspired to renew my commitment to this wonderful community. As I mention above, I am deeply interested in how things work, and serving on the LSC allows me to become involved with Disney II and CPS on a systemic level. Finally, like great teachers and great students everywhere, I love to learn. Serving on the LSC will allow me to pursue that goal. 

School Time

A reader of my PTA Advisory Council post suggested that I naively accept CPS' presentations on the extended day. This may be true. But I love learning new things, so I've spent the last four days reading education research papers and studies, websites, blogs, and articles. I have a list of at least 40 other studies I want to find and read. I daresay I want to take a statistics class so I can better understand raw data sets. But what I found so far in the studies surprised me. Study abstracts on extended school time dismiss its effectiveness summarily, as do those who quote them in the fury breeding throughout the Chicago education discussion. But a deeper dive into the research suggests to me that the issue is (unfairly?) cast as enemy #1 of CPS parents.

I'm pretty sure that Rahm Emmanuel pulled the 7.5-hour day out of a rabbit hole and blamed it on Houston. (Although maybe he got the number from a 1996 case study about a Boston middle school or was just trying to one-up Daley, who suggested year-round schools in 2005?) But the optimist (and it's chronic) in me believes that Jean-Claude Brizard and the powers-that-be at CPS must have read Erika Patall's 2010 synthesis of extended school time research studies. While Arne Duncan may have simply been repeating his boss's concern, I think President Obama likely did some policy work on the matter.

This concern over school time is also nothing new. As Marcotte and Hansen point out in their study, the American concern for time spent in school pre-dates even the 20th century, when school calendars began to shed days like a post-partum mother loses hair. In 1990, The Atlantic Monthly published a lengthy essay written by Michael Barrett, a state legislator in Massachusetts. In it, he made a case for additional school time. Paul Vallas (remember him?) proposed extending the school year in Philadelphia, where he was schools' chief in 2006. 

The opposition to extending the school day or year is also decades old. In her 2007 study, Elena Silva reported that by 1889, American cities' schools had adopted summer holidays in July and August, reducing the nearly year-round school systems' calendars to 250ish days. The elite parents of the day advocated for their children's "need" to take a longer mental break. I wonder who was thinking about the minds of little mill workers?

Indeed, the studies' observations reflect many of today's comments about the full school day. Silva writes, "The strongest opposition to extending the school into the summer or throughout the year comes from middle-class and affluent parents who see no real benefit for their own children for giving up the vacation schedule they have come to expect." 6.5 to Thrive might find allies with Florida's Save Our Summers or Save Alabama Summers. In a 2006 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, 67 percent of poll respondents said that they'd favor a one-hour extension of the school day. I believe this is consistent with what the Raise Your Hand Coalition found in its survey last year.  

In this journey into education politics and reform, I've met many well-educated, resourceful, and dedicated parents and teachers. I'm often frustrated by the current discussion about school time. I believe it is a distraction from the way we, as parents, can best advocate for all children and influence change in the city and state. Namely: money. Although the longer day and paying for the longer day are intractably linked, I believe that the best way that we can advocate for everyone is to keep asking CPS, City Hall, and Gov. Quinn: who's paying? And how?

PTA Advisory Council: The Theory of Change

The theme among winners’ comments at the Alfred Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway is one of tolerance and keeping an open mind—especially when dealing with one’s enemies. The idea that we must embrace the differences of our foes is a difficult one for me to grasp.

And yet, it’s an important lesson—one that can ease the way for me (and others) in many situations. I’d urge my fellow parents to keep it in mind when reading or talking about the longest day debate played out in the papers, blogs, Facebook, message boards and on the playground.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the absence of balanced reporting. I think the Raise Your Hand Coalition is trying, but first, despite their numerous press mentions, they’re not the media. Second, they are only one voice—or more accurately, one set of voices—in the storm that is CPS education policy.

And so, when community meetings are held, there are a fair number of people who walk into the room with a closed mind, itching for a fight. I’ve seen it in West Garfield Park, and I saw it yesterday during the PTA Advisory Council’s monthly meeting. Moderated by Carl Hurdlik, a CPS employee, and Cassandra Eddings, a PTA member, parent, and volunteer, the PTA advisory council was the brain child of the late Betty Durbin, a longtime PTA champion with a significant legacy at Carl Schurz High School. As an aside, I’m often asked what PTA does. This is one of the things it does. Although it was set up for PTAs, the group is welcoming to representatives from PTOs, Friends-of groups, and LSCs from CPS schools throughout the city.

Carl and Cassandra had invited Monica Lee, Directory of New Initiatives at CPS, to speak about the changes coming to CPS next year. When she first started to speak, it hit me that the Longer Day could be a classic case of a politician reading a brief and misspeaking. Thus inadvertently creating a sound bite that doesn’t convey the whole picture, but ignites hysteria as it is reported by the media and picked up by concerned Chicago parents, to the detriment of the initiative. I know this is the optimist view, but read my review of Ms. Lee’s presentation before you snap to judge.

Ms. Lee, a former math teacher, tried to convey to the concerned group of parents in the room is that the longer day is just one piece in a three-pronged approach by CPS to improve student outcomes.

While most of us in the room had children in high-achieving schools—Skinner North, Farnsworth, Blaine, Burr, Alcott, Lenart, Inter-American, Northside Prep, and Disney II—the district-wide lack of achievement relayed by Ms. Lee was shocking:

• only 7.9 percent of 11th graders score at the minimum ACT level (or higher) to succeed in college. How many CPS high school students aspire to attend college? I’m pretty sure that it’s more than 7.9 percent
• only 17 percent of 3rd graders read at grade level. 3rd grade literacy is a marker of college-readiness down the line

Clearly, CPS is failing our kids academically. Sure, not everyone wants to go to college. Not everyone should go to college. But the second largest school system in the country should prepare more than 8 percent of its total population to attend college, no? 

And so it was, Ms. Lee said, that CPS decided to study the problems and come up with a reasonable solution for their amelioration. Ms. Lee told the group that the imitative seeks to do three things. It’s not enough to lengthen the school day, as so many parents have pointed out. (In fact, in her presentation, this was the last point that Ms. Lee made.) It’s not enough to change what is taught through implementation of the Common Core. And it’s not enough to change how teachers teach. The initiative is the confluence of these areas to create more college-ready students.

Ms. Lee told the group that the elements look something like this:

• Common Core is a change in what is taught from rote memorization (10 ÷2 = 5) to teaching students to understand conceptually what division is.


• Instructional Framework gives teachers models of what good teaching looks like and how they can measure their success against it, and gives them professional development tools to tweak their methods for success.

• Full School Day gives them time to understand, implement and tweak both the Common Core and the Instructional Framework. It gives time for students to catch up, but it also gives time for students to excel. The longer day also gives time for schools to offer “a richer array of academic, social and behavioral supports” and more time for “a broader set of subjects” –science and social studies as a mandate, and art, music, language if the school desires.

Then Ms. Lee went over how CPS plans to implement these changes. At this point, all the work is being done at the network and/or principal level, leaving parents mostly in the dark about what this is all going to look like. First, she said, the network chiefs had a lot of discussions about what’s best for every type of student. They conveyed this to principals, who then submitted a draft plan for next year. The draft plan’s goals reflect what parents, teachers and data say, and the schedule is to meet the parameters set by CPS. The draft plan also allows the network chiefs to flag facilities and other problems, Ms. Lee said.

The budget is still unknown because principals reported that incomplete data would be unhelpful. The district-wide budget will be presented at the March Board of Education meeting, following CPS’ typical schedule for these things, per Ms. Lee. The budgets will go to schools in March or early April, and final budgets will be due in May with the Continuous Improvement Work Plan, the replacement to the SIPAAA.

Someone in the room asked how CPS came up with a 7.5-hour day. Ms. Lee’s answer kind of surprised me. She said that CPS worked with Common Core experts, and focus principal groups, and from a content perspective to determine the ideal instructional time. For elementary school, that was 6.5 hours. The extra hour allows for lunch, recess, and bathroom breaks. As children and their parents know, there is a lot of waiting involved in group activities. For high school students, it wasn’t a huge increase over current instructional time: 6 hours and 8 minutes, adding 46 minutes to each high school day within CPS for lunch and passing time.

This is about the time than I began channeling Nobel Peace Center quotes. The Northside Prep parents were angry about the change: how were their kids going to continue their colloquium, their sports, and their extracurricular activities? I’m a non-athlete who grew up in a family full of intellectuals so this is a really difficult point for me to see. I also don’t have a teenager. Given that, I am going to bow out of any judgment on what high school should look like.

The Longest Day: A Rebuttal

I’m a huge fan of Mad Men. Although I’ve never had any real desire to work in an agency, and I pride myself on my contrarian nature as regards to marketing, I have to hand it to Matthew Weiner and his writers. I have a feeling that Rahm Emmanuel is a fan as well. After all, he’s done such a brilliant job of changing the conversation in Chicago education politics away from the inarguable (lack of funding) to the arguable (length of the day). If you don’t like what they are saying, change the conversation.

Bravo, Mr. Emmanuel!

My perspective is completely different. My children attend a school that is utterly unlike 99 percent of the elementary schools in the Chicago Public Schools’ portfolio. I’m not sure why that is – after all, parents at Disney II are no more involved and their children no smarter than the populations of many other schools, including those behind the 6.5 to Thrive movement: Burley, Blaine, Coonley, Bell, Mt. Greenwood, Drummond, Inter-American, and others. Disney II is a magnet school, so it’s got a wee funding advantage, but no more so than most of the schools listed above. Nor is it any better funded than my neighborhood school, John B. Murphy, whose 85 percent free and reduced lunch population (not to mention a fully populated school of PK-8), gives it a funding bump that is not replicated at Disney II.

As a parent of children who have attended a school that has had the longest school day within CPS since its inception in September 2008, I’d like to address some of the arguments I’ve heard and seen about the longer/full school day:

Advocate what is best for your child.

This seems like a no-brainer advice for a generation of parents on the heels of those who regularly call up their adult children’s bosses to advocate on their behalf. But at the same time, I question the wisdom of basing the second largest school system on the welfare of a few. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but should it in a system that serves not only the children of tax-paying and resourceful citizens, but also those children whose parents are too busy or too distracted to decipher the messages coming from both CPS and its critics? There’s a very good reason that businesspeople have historically not been in charge of public services.  

6.5-hour CPS schools outperform 7.5-hour charter schools.

Although CPS likes to tell the story that charter schools are part of a public school portfolio, charter schools are not, in fact, the same thing as public schools. Do these 6.5-hour schools have the same populations as 7.5-hour charters? And how did 6.5 to Thrive reach this conclusion?

6.5-hour schools outperform 5.75-hour schools.

Pick an argument here. The idea that 6.5-hour schools outperform 5.75-hour schools within the same portfolio begs the question: Is it because of the extra time or in spite of it? What accounts for the difference between the performances of children in these schools? More resources? More highly involved parents? Smarter kids?

As 6.5 to Thrive states, kids at these schools get recess and extracurricular activities, not simply more time to plug away at math and literacy. Maybe its poor reasoning skills, but I don’t understand this argument. First, neither a 6.5-hour day nor a 7.5-hour day has been proven (by anything but anecdotal evidence) within CPS. The vast majority of CPS schools provide just 5.75 hours of instruction (whether they are open campus with a recess or not). Second, if a 6.5-hour day is better, a 7.5-hour day must be an improvement, no? If some is good, more must make it better. If that is true, why isn't 6.5 pushing for a longer day?

There’s no scientific data about a 7.5-hour day.

That’s the thing about being a pioneer: no one comes before you and there’s no way to measure to your success. It’s kind of a leap of faith. It seems strange to me that a group of parents are willing to take the leap by putting their kids into the system in the first place, yet unwilling to trust that the educators who both administer and teach in the system have all of our children’s best interests at heart and top of mind.

I’m not discounting the possibility that the longer day could be yet another failed experiment in the failures of the district. But is it at all possible that the Chicago could be in the verge of greatness in moving to this model? Could a 7.5-hour day be used to address achievement gaps in those who lack early childhood education, a parent available for homework after school, an hour not spent on the street deflecting rocks?

Kids need a school-life balance and the AAP recommends unstructured play time.

As anyone following politics in the last century knows, cherry-picking data is nothing new. Apparently, it’s also not limited to CPS. What the AAP actually said is that unstructured playtime is more valuable for young children than screen time. The research was published in a November 2011 report about toddlers. The same report also recommended that “young children learn best from—and need—interaction with humans.” And in its 2006 study on children’s activities, the AAP suggested that it’s parents who over-schedule their children. I feel compelled to note that the AAP deals with children’s medicine, not children’s education.

A longer school day doesn’t mean a better quality school day.

Finally: a valid point. But this is where we should, as parents, focus our energies. Although it’s slow in coming, I think CPS is going to put real meaning around what, exactly, a longer, high-quality school day looks like. My feeling is that the longer day is coming, whether we like it or not, and we’d do better to focus our efforts on how we can shape that day and, most importantly, how CPS plans to fund it.

Schools That Work

I'm on a post-auction high. Successfully planning an event where everyone has a good time makes me happy. But what makes me a little misty-eyed was the successful teamwork among parents, teachers and administrators that made the event work. It's no small thing to have a CPS school that works. And I feel so fortunate and grateful that my kids are taught and cared for by these amazing people every weekday.

Much has been made of late about CPS's refusal to engage parents in the education policy-setting process. As Jill Wohl of Raise Your Hand has pointed out, one way to better force CPS as an institution to listen to us parents (both individually and as an institution) is to vote in the upcoming Local School Council elections on April 18-19, 2012. Or, even better, run for one of the 6 seats available for parent representatives at each school. Applications are due March 8, 2012 March 23, 2012. Even if you're on the fence, it's just a short personal statement and a bit of box-checking. (Seriously, job applications require more writing).

Another way that parents can be a part of the process, in my opinion, is to have--or work to create--a great partnership with your school's administration and teachers. This partnership (or more accurately, a trifecta among parents, teachers and students) is what makes some CPS schools stand out within the second largest school district in the United States. Indeed, the parents behind the 6.5 to Thrive movement (more on that in a bit) almost invariably come from schools with a very active parent population. I'd bet that Northside Prep is the #1 high school I the sate of Illinois not because the kids are the intellectual cream of Chicago's academic crop (although that certainly helps), but because their parents have taken an active and supportive role in their education and schools since Y2K.

It's not surprising to me that your average mother of a 3-year-old on the Northside can rattle off a list of great schools within the district, but cannot name even a single school on CPS's turnaround list. It ultimately comes down to resources: parents at these "name" schools are active, stay current and have the means and the know-how (aka resources) to the CPS powers that be. How does that happen? I'd like to think its not because we're well-spoken, tax-paying adults with an affinity for Northface puffer jackets and Starbucks nonfat lattes, but because we've formed strong ties to our school communities, and have developed a critical level of trust with our school-based cohorts. A strong parent-school community is good for the parents, but it's also good for the kids. As Ted Ganchiff pointed out in Nettelhorst's one-day symposium in June 2010, the days when you sent your kids off to school in K and didn't think about school again until the college boards ended when, well, they stopped calling them the college boards.

Not quite the 7th of July

But the transcripts from the Blue Ribbon Commission hearings are finally up on the OAE site.

BRC Redux

The Dad, the kids and I rolled back into town after our first ever family road trip on Monday night around 11 p.m. Less than 24 hours later, I was back in the auditorium of Lane Tech, listening to the same CPS administrator review this year's proposed changes to SE/magnet enrollment policy (see page 6). Unlike at last year's presentation, which was sketchily announced and scarcely attended, yet expertly presented, the crowd this year was huge. Public comment extended beyond the allotted 2-hour window. (CPS is learning that the best way to contact parents is not to stick a print ad next to the obits in the Trib.)

Like last year, I spoke to the Blue Ribbon Commission. Unlike last year, the moderator responded to comments and questions from the crowd. My comments were not news--either to the audience, which included the Raise Your Hand Coalition steering committee and a few teachers and fellow parents from the kids' school, or to the CPS powers-that-be: we need more high school options, we need to increase the size of the pie all-around. This sentiment was oft-repeated by those who gave testimony at the hearing.

Another common theme among commenters was how unfair CPS's 2009 SE enrollment policies are to their junior high children. The prevailing sentiment was that their ("our") northside children are more deserving of a spot at Northside Prep, Walter Payton, or Jones because they  scored 20 points (or 50 points or even 100 points) higher than a kid who has to bus in from the west or south sides. You'll soon be able to read the transcript online, so you'll be able to verify that a man said, "the smarter kids are going to become disenfranchised" by CPS' current SE enrollment policy/system. Really? I'd like to see some research on that. Because I know there is a whole lot on how black, Hispanic, Asian, and poor children become disenfranchised by a dearth of opportunity. More on this issue at another time.

And the other major theme at Tuesday's hearing was the issue of enrolling the children of school staff at magnet schools. I had read about the policy-change proposal drafted by the Friends of Mayer group several weeks ago on NPN, but it wasn’t until I attended the hearing that I realized the import of such a change. The proposal asks that CPS/Blue Ribbon Commission replace principal discretion at magnet schools with a new, transparent policy that would allow teachers, principals and staff to enroll their children at the school where their parent(s) work.

I was directly and positively affected by the Board of Education’s 2009 decision to keep families together by giving siblings priority in the magnet enrollment process. Keeping siblings together in their schooling minimizes family stress and maximizes educational outcomes for students. Likewise, keeping school employees’ children with them in the school communities they serve is critical for the continued success of great CPS elementary schools.

As I listened to parent after parent and teacher after teacher speak in support of keeping families together, it struck me that our school community and our children will bear an incredible loss if our extremely dedicated teachers, administrators or staff were forced to measure their time between their children and their students.  Can you imagine our school without the excellent teachers who have been with the school since its inception and, I believe, are an integral part of its success? I do not want to do so.

You can show your support for fabulous teachers, administrators and school staff everywhere within CPS by submitting public comment in favor of allowing teachers, administrators and staff to enroll their children in the magnet schools where their parent(s) work by submitting public comment here.

Progress Reports

Today marks the last Monday of attendance* in the Chicago Public Schools' 2010-2011 academic year. The Boy and The Girl will receive their final progress report during their one-hour of attendance on Friday. The Tot Who Isn't will receive his on Wednesday. And, apparently, individual Chicago Public Schools will receive a progress report before September as well.

At least that's what Jean-Claude Brizard, Chicago Public Schools' newest chief, said this afternoon when a group of parents and I met with him.

Haven't we done this before? Will Mr. Brizard reveal new data that wasn't previously available on the CPS website? Sure, navigating the CPS website is/was difficult, as Mr. Brizard pointed out in his remarks to us today. But while reporting the data is important, it's significantly less important (at least to our audience) than improving the number of high-quality educational seats available across the board. After all, nearly everyone in the room could share a story--whether personal, familial or anecdotal--of parental frustration in navigating the application process or gaining admission to a school of their choice.

I feel fortunate (OK, I feel like I won the lottery) that The Girl, The Boy and The Tot Who Isn't attend a school that is a school of choice for much of the northwest side. The Boy is going into 3rd grade, so now I'm looking at high schools. I'm pleased to see the Northside High School Initiative and the increased interest in and support of Lakeview High, but that doesn't do much for kids out here in the boondocks of the northwest side. They deserve a great high school option as well, I told Mr. Brizard. Another parent echoed this sentiment, sharing that the handful of well-known great high schools (Northside Prep, Jones, Whitney Young, Walter Payton) don't provide enough seats to enroll all of the kids like ours, who will likely come out of their current school well-prepared and excited for a vigorous, challenging high school education. Mr. Brizard pointed out that there are other great high schools outside of this list, but they are less known because of the lack of data on them.

Such things are possible. But as a research-oriented parent, I am a bit skeptical.

Mr. Brizard pointed out that within CPS, there are essentially two school systems. Some people, he noted, have choices. Some do not. Call me what you will, but it's important enough to me to burn time with the CEO of the CPS to advocate for increased high school opportunities (or choices) for our elementary school's current population. While I'd argue that our group, as parents of children in a highly sought-after magnet school, was not really in the "non-choice" group, I can get behind an initiative that brings more information (and more transparency, and more accountability, per Mr. Brizard) to a wider swath of the city's population. Provided that the information itself has real meaning. (What does it mean that School A's academic performance was above/below the citywide average for last year? Is the number of teachers who choose to stay at a school more important than the number of teachers who are retained?).

It's not surprising that Mr. Brizard didn't yet have concrete plans for how he'd accomplish an increase in educational choices. I mean, he's only been in the job for less than a month. While he did tout his 25 years of experience as a school administrator and high school teacher, he does have a monster of a job in front of him: improving educational opportunities for all, on a shoestring budget, and in the face of parental non-involvement, poverty and other obstacles to success. I'm curious to see how he'll implement plans to introduce "new school operators," to CPS and how those operators, such as Expeditionary Learning, will improve educational outcomes.

Only time will tell. I'll be watching.



* For regular schedule track schools

Da Mayor

Two weeks ago, I attended the Raise Your Hand Coalition/Better Government Association's Mayoral Forum on Education. Only four candidates were present: Gerry Chico, Miguel del Valle, Carol Moseley Braun and James Meeks. Danny Davis was voting in Washington, and it was said that Rahm Emmanuel didn't want to acknowledge the other candidates as competition by appearing in the panel.

At this stage of the game, I'm pretty much a one-issue voter. And that issue is education. So it was with a vested interest (although apparently not one that represents "the people of Chicago") that I attended the forum, listening closely to each candidate's answers to Andy Shaw's questions. It was a fairly calm event, put on in the style of a panel of pontification rather than a discussion or debate—heated or otherwise. We heard from each of the candidates in turn as they responded to both Shaw's and Walter Payton H.S. students' questions about the problems and proposed solutions—whether theirs or someone else's—on the table about lower education in the city of Chicago.

My impression of James Meeks hadn’t changed since I first encountered him on the PNC Bank-Tribune panel in September: he’s great for comic relief, but I wasn’t terribly impressed with his “we at the legislature want accountability” stance on public education. It doesn’t really matter: he nailed his political coffin shut with his prejudicial remarks on minorities and then dropped out of the race.

Gery Chico started speaking and I initially liked what he had to say, as the former president of the Board of Trustees of CPS. I’d like to examine his record—just because someone touts a positive action as his/her responsibility doesn’t make it true. (I can’t remember the last time someone took responsibility for a negative action/inaction or mistake.) The whole idea that there were six years of educational reform and progress in CPS seems amazing. Is it true? It probably depends on your point of view and/or an in-depth analysis of the politics of education in Chicago over the past 10 years. Can anyone point me to a policy/results comparison of 1996-2001 and 2002-2008? I can’t be sure, but the fact that Mayor Daley was critical of Chico recently is probably a positive indicator of his ability to run the city and the schools.

I was less impressed in general with Miguel del Valle, although I give him snaps for not taking campaign contributions from city vendors. I started tuning out on his plan after he suggested community learning centers as the answer for poor education/parenting.

Another candidate I liked at the forum was Carol Moseley Braun. Part of the reason that I don’t like Sarah Palin is that I think the person running the country/state/city should be smarter than me. Moseley Braun has the kind of C.V. and poise that leaves me in awe. This will probably mark me as an elitist, but the thought of her representing the city of big shoulders to the outside world makes me smile. That said, her comments were very high level; I found myself wanting more “meat.” If we’re going to hold “the schools accountable,” what does that mean? Her characterization of past Chicago events were spot-on, but so what? Knowing where you came from is important, but it’s not a solution. Give me the goods.

What about you? Did you attend the Mayoral Forum? Are you watching any mayoral candidates?

Extending the Day

Yesterday, I spent an hour explaining CPS kindergarten matriculation to a co-worker. He was surprised to learn many things about CPS, but none threw him more than the average length of the CPS school day: an abysmal 5 hours and 45 minutes. He was also shocked to learn that unlike the suburban district in which we both grew up, the start and end times of the CPS school day are inconsistent across the country’s 3rd largest school district.

Coincidentally, my friend Sonia sent me this Catalyst story yesterday about the average length of school days at CPS versus elsewhere. It was published nearly a year ago, in January 2010, but with the mayoral election and just about everything else in Chicago (politics) in flux, now is the time to rally the cry of a longer school day for Chicago students. On the whole, they probably need it more than their well-heeled suburban counterparts.

As the conversation builds, I cannot help but look to my children’s school as an example. It’s an example not only of how the extended day can improve educational outcomes, but also of the cost such initiatives bear. While other schools fundraise for a climbing wall, auditorium update or a red-tape-defying exercise room, we’re spending countless volunteer hours to bridge the gap between the CPS budget and requirements for our teachers’ (much-deserved, in my opinion) salaries and stipends. I’m told that that the fundraising push will have an end-date when the school reaches full capacity not long into the future. Thank goodness, because I am not sure that half the school's families can continue to bridge the budget gap without developing a sense of entitlement, frustration or both.

Admittedly, I have elementary-aged children who are in 2nd grade and kindergarten, respectively. Except for The Boy’s disastrous preschool year at a local parochial school, I have no parental experience with other schools, or educational or curriculum models. Only time will tell if it’s the right choice for The Boy, The Girl, The Tot (Who Isn’t) and their 309 school and classmates. To some extent, I have faith in the system, in the teachers who say that the longer school day allows them to get deeper into subject matter and give students the tools and time to follow their imaginations. Besides, it’s what suburban districts do, and what experts increasingly say is the right answer.

In my late teens, I lived with a family in France who had 3 young children who were in K-4th grade equivalents during my stay. They attended class every day from 8 until 4, and a ½ day on Wednesdays. I have no idea if the French are as well-prepared for a successful working life as the rest of the world -- (they also have a lot of roadblocks to the educational system, beginning with the prémier bac en français, which can keep students in high school until they are well into their 20s) -- but they certainly emphasize the importance of classroom learning (and a full hour to eat one’s lunch and run around).

Quality of instruction issues aside, the truncated school day is yet another example of a policy decision that ultimately punishes working Chicagoans. When I suggested to my co-worker that he check that the school hours worked for his family's needs, he sputtered, "You mean, they are not all the same??" How on Earth are you supposed to get to work on time when you have to drop your child off to school at 8:30, or pick him up at 1:45 p.m.? Although some Chicago firms allow workers to flex their schedules, many do not. In the Chicago Tribune's list of top-100 Chicago-area companies, almost half were located outside the bounds of the city. Positive cashflow may be good for the mayor, but does it create an ideal urban environment for the worker?

The Reform Movement Builds

While Ron Huberman may not have been the person to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools, the winds of change may be picking up speed with today's announcement. Michelle Rhee may have been no match for the D.C. public school teachers, but she has re-surfaced in California's capital city with a new reform project.  

I'm not entirely sure that the answer to the problems in the U.S. educational system lie with Waiting for Superman and the changes Rhee enacted in D.C., I do know that something has got to change. Because the system, as it stands now, just doesn't work. I feel like this is well-known at this point. But the idealist in me is heartened to see it go national.

I feel fortunate that my children's school is a school that works. My children have great teachers. I am continually in awe of their drive, passion and dedication. I'm a passionate writer, but I don't think I have half the skills required of good teachers.

Lincoln Park, the Suburbs and High School

On Sunday, I went to dinner for the first time at John's Place in Lincoln Park. I knew only that it was kid-friendly and had to have good food because Melissa has spoken about it. Our party of 9 adults and 3 kids was there for a little over 2 hours. The magician and balloon-blower who came to provide entertainment to The Boy, The Girl and The Tot (Who Isn't) was able to get in some real humor with our audience. He had just blown up balloons for the two kids, two dads and a pregnant mom at an adjacent table. In our time at the restaurant, that table turned over twice while the rest or the restaurant stayed fairly empty. Both times, the table was populated by babies and toddlers and their REI-clad parents.

I remarked upon this with a bit of surprise to my closest urban tablemate, The Dad's cousin's fiancée. She was not surprised, telling me that the neighborhood comprises her peers (mid-30s) with their young children. In fact, she said, one of her friends with two kids used to live in the area until she'd outgrown her condo and moved to the suburbs. 

Ah, the suburbs. I've been a Chicago resident since 2002. This Thanksgiving is the 9th I've spent in this house. I joke to my husband that he'll have to drag me kicking and screaming to the suburbs. And yet.

There it is. Always. Looming over me. Although it did surprise me to learn that the average demographic of Lincoln Park is now essentially a rolled back version of me, what follows doesn't particularly surprise me: Grown-up Trixies and Chads get married, buy condos, have babies and flee to the suburbs. Where the grass is always green and the schools are always good. Or so I'm led to believe. 

Sociologically, I find this phenomenon interesting. I was raised in the suburbs by two former urbanites (NYC). The Dad was raised in the suburbs by one suburbanite and one rural Hoosier. My father (Grandpa Texas) spent my son's first three years trying to convince me that I'd want to move the suburbs. That I should want to move to the suburbs. But, to quote my friend Sonia, I just don't want to.

And I do wonder: what's wrong with me that I don't? After all, it is what people with means do. Among the women of my moms' group, who are all like me: educated women with the means for mobility, whether upward or outward, there are more of us who have moved outside the city than who have retained residency. 

At the moment, I think my reluctance to leave the city has much to do with both luck and a deeply ingrained stubborn streak. In 2008, The Boy won the CPS lottery, gaining admission into what is turning out to be a great public elementary school. By luck again, CPS changed the policy for sibling admissions and The Girl also attends the same great school. Luckily for me, The Dad talked me into a single-family house in what is a really great neighborhood, so I have a garage, patch of grass and three floors upon which we can scatter our stuff. 

The big unknown, of course, is high school. We're still five to six years away from the high school decision, but if time flows at the same rate as it has since 2003, it will be here before we know it. My biggest concern is academics: Will The Boy get into one of the six current selective-enrollment schools in the city? And whether he does or doesn't, how can we hold our schools accountable to meet a high academic standard? What is the formula in the suburbs that makes suburban schools regarded as universally better than Chicago public schools? And can we replicate it? Is there a way to solve the fundamental barriers to success for some CPS students?

The Dad's biggest concern in the high school picture is the social influence: how to keep The Boy out of trouble? Will we hurt our child's overall chances for success if we keep him in an urban school environment? Can you make a "good" kid bad? And how far are we willing to take the social experiment of trying to even the playing field when it comes to our own children's future success or failure, happiness or misery? 

The statistics about high school students' success released by the Chicago Public Schools are grim. These statistics report that only 30 of 100 H.S. freshmen will go on to enter college; only 6 will go to highly selective schools. They consider the University of Illinois one such highly selective school. Yikes! Twenty percent of my suburban high school went to the University of Illinois -- and most of us considered it "slumming it" because we weren't headed for an Ivy. These stats were drawn in part from a 2006 University of Chicago study that suggests that, once again, luck will be on our side in the high school and college admissions process. This reassures me on an academic level, but does nothing to relieve The Dad's concerns about the potential for bad influence.

And it doesn't discount that staying in the city surely promises a lot of work in our future. I'm not sure I have it in me to dig into turning around the local high school.

What about you? Are you planning to stay in the city for the long haul? Do you plan to move to the suburbs? Have you already moved to the suburbs? Do you think there's a way for CPS to turn it around? Are you involved in the CPS process at any level?

Chicago Forward: Education

Last night, I met both Karen Lewis and Ron Huberman. They were two of five panelists at a discussion on education put on by the Chicago Tribune and PNC Bank. Admittedly, I can be easily impressed by power--or the perception of it.  I'm not sure whether Ms. Lewis and Mr. Huberman have real power or give people that perception. I suppose only time (like 10-15 years) will tell. The other panelists were Rev. James Meeks, Harriet Meyer and Sister Mary Paul McCaughey.

The event was the first in a series of four, designed to increase public awareness of and find possible solutions for issues in Chicago, according to the Trib's editor, Gerould Kern. It was an interesting discussion, but I didn't really learn anything new, unfortunately. There was a lot of sparring between Ms. Lewis and Mr. Huberman, and Ms. Meyer reported some interesting facts about early childhood education gaps. I'm permanently annoyed with Roman Catholic* education after The Boy's year at St. Bartholomew. The Rev. Meeks provided comic relief, but no real contribution to the conversation. 

And here's where the perception of power comes in.... I realized after a 90-minute discussion that the people in charge don't know the answers either. They have no solutions to the educational mess that is Chicago Public Schools, despite modest gains in the past 20 years (Mr. Huberman called them "substantial," even after admitting that 48 percent of district elementary schools received a district grade of D or below [based on 2008 test data]). I'm not quite ready to give up on CPS, but come on. I felt like I did after reading Sudir Venkatesh's Gangleader for a Day: that was an interesting read, but where's the solution to the problem you've spent 300 pages identifying? 

I went to the event with Amy, Wendy and Patricia from the Raise Your Hand coalition. Over 700 people filled the auditorium. It was a Trib Nation event, which Gerould Kern said was the Tribune's attempt to engage people in their city's issues and newspaper. Given the branding, I think it's an attempt to introduce 20somethings to the idea of a newspaper. I don't think it's working, given the age and consumer tastes of the audience last night.


That said, they had a lovely reception afterward, with wine and hors d'oeuvres. The reception is where I met Ms. Lewis (and her husband!) and Mr. Huberman, and a bunch of Burley parents. I don't know if things will be that fancy for every event or if it was for the benefit/pleasure of Gerry Rohr, the president of PNC Bank, and Gary Knell, CEO of Sesame Street Workshop, who were in attendance. But it was not a bad way to spend $10 of an evening. 

The next events are Economy in Recovery on November 17, Health Care on January 18 and Philanthropy/Giving Back on March 15.  

* I anticipate that this will not be a popular opinion. 

The Kids

Ask The Tot where his mama was on Saturday morning and he’ll proudly tell you, “Education.” He knows that has something to do with school, and that it’s important, but he probably can’t tell you what exactly Mama’s work for education means. I’m not sure I can either, but it feels good to at least learn what the heck is going on.

On Saturday morning, I was down on the south side, at Ariel Academy in Kenwood. Sonia Kwon, Jill Wohl and I bypassed the floods and the Cubs traffic and made it to the humid, slippery auditorium in time to hear Karen Lewis’ rousing speech about CPS, the state of Illinois and the state of education. Lewis reported that the powers that be at CPS are repeating the same, tired schpiel that all people in power repeat when their motives or actions are called into question: Won’t someone please think about the children? Oh, please. Like CPS teachers are in it for the money? Like involved parents’ primary motivation are not their children? Were we all giving up a couple of hours smack-dab in the middle of a summer Saturday for some other reason but the children? As Lewis said, it’s about money and power. Like everything else in Chicago, it seems. Same-old, same-old.

Lewis also said something that struck me as pretty powerful. In 2004, she said, 62% of the CPS budget went to personnel costs. In 2009, that number dropped to 49%. What changed? Why? I wish I could say that I checked her facts against existing data to substantiate her claim, but getting the city to share its “datapoints” is harder than getting a willful toddler to eat smashed peas.

But her ire was not directed only at CPS, but at the state as well. She suggested that we all call our state representatives and senators and tell them that they are late in their payments. “And we’re not even charging you interest.” Good point.