A few weeks ago, I attended the PTA Advisory Council's February meeting at CPS headquarters. Our speakers were Diantha James of Title I compliance and FACE parent resource center, and Ben Felton, of what is now Office of Innovation & Incubation.
Although CPS is holding community engagement meetings about the utilization of the District, as everyone who has attended them knows, they are not supposed to be a dialogue. Community members talk; CPS representatives listen. I know that it's frustrating not to have a dialogue, but as the parent of three very clever and perceptive children, I can tell you that it's often harder not to respond to someone asking questions or lobbing criticisms at your head.
I almost felt sorry for Ben, who walked into a small conference room of mothers and grandmothers who had taken the news of the expected utilization announcement as a primer for a fight. Although I was anxious for him to get down to the answers I wanted to know, he was initially reluctant to make eye contact with anyone in the room. He explained that his team used to be part of the now dissolved Office of Portfolio and that he worked on what he described as a cross-functional team devoted to school actions, working between Incubation and Todd Babbitz's Office of Strategy and Management.
Ben told us that he understands that students and schools are not just cells on an Excel spreadsheet, but that CPS needs a lot of information about schools to make informed decisions about school actions. That, he said, was the purpose behind the first round breakout sessions with moderators asking what makes individual schools great.
He clarified that BBB has committed to not put any new school into a school that's closed in school actions this year. Replications or expansions like the Disney II, Rickover, and Marine Military expansions, are not considered new schools.
He also said that his office wants to treat schools more equitably and align processes across types of schools (charter, magnet, neighborhood) within the District. New schools and replications are launched through the RFQ process with Carly Bolger of the Office of New Schools. As a former teacher, like many line-worker central office employees, Ben noted that his preference is on improving student outcomes. After all, he said, he's never seen a boiler teach a kid. However, new boilers are necessary and expensive capital improvements for many buildings within the District.
He said that while the current focus is on utilization, his primary responsibility is to work on the 10-year plan for the District. This plan has been referred to by every CPS C.O. person I've encountered in the last 3 months. I'm somewhat cynical of the idea that CPS can stick to and execute a 10-year plan, but we'll see what comes out in May.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Self-Promotion
Last week, I chaperoned a K field trip to a well-known Chicago restaurant. Its owner, a generous and visionary individual, is in the midst of launching several new projects. The field trip comprised lunch, a lecture, a tour, and lots of filming. There were tweets, Foursquare check-ins, and Facebook uploads by every geeked-out, Smartphone-wielding adult in the room.
I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
It seems like it's not enough to have a point of view or something to say, we must also constantly promote ourselves to make the Google algorithm, combining content and keywords in the right way so as to optimize the search engine.
I'm terrifically awful at self-promotion. Indeed, I've kept this blog for over 6 years and probably have about that many readers (whom I appreciate very much). Over the years, the blog has evolved from an online journal of sorts to a collection of essays.
But maybe it's time to change things? Using some feedback her art teacher had given me as a jumping off point, The Girl and I talked today about her "work" as a painter. The Girl, it seems, rushes through her work as if she's punching some kind of internal time clock. As we talked, she acknowledged that she's going for quantity over quality, which I do think is an astute observation for a 7-y/o to make, if I do say so myself. But, she said, she feels like all the good paintings have been done already and there are no ideas left for her to interpret.
She's wrong. No one else in the whole world has had her exact experiences and thoughts. Her story is worth telling, her perspective is worth painting.
And so is mine.
I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
It seems like it's not enough to have a point of view or something to say, we must also constantly promote ourselves to make the Google algorithm, combining content and keywords in the right way so as to optimize the search engine.
I'm terrifically awful at self-promotion. Indeed, I've kept this blog for over 6 years and probably have about that many readers (whom I appreciate very much). Over the years, the blog has evolved from an online journal of sorts to a collection of essays.
But maybe it's time to change things? Using some feedback her art teacher had given me as a jumping off point, The Girl and I talked today about her "work" as a painter. The Girl, it seems, rushes through her work as if she's punching some kind of internal time clock. As we talked, she acknowledged that she's going for quantity over quality, which I do think is an astute observation for a 7-y/o to make, if I do say so myself. But, she said, she feels like all the good paintings have been done already and there are no ideas left for her to interpret.
She's wrong. No one else in the whole world has had her exact experiences and thoughts. Her story is worth telling, her perspective is worth painting.
And so is mine.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Utilization Meeting
On Tuesday, I attended the O'Hare network's community engagement meeting on school utilization. It was quite a bit calmer than the Ravenswood-Ridge network meeting the previous evening, or at the commission's Midway network meeting at Daley College on the same evening. That's not to say that O'Hare network parents aren't upset, but overcrowding is less of a story within the framework of CPS utilization and closures.
Of the 44 elementary and middle schools in the O'Hare network, 21 are overcrowded, 21 are "efficient" and only two--both middle schools--are underutilized according to the District's formula. The crisis of seats is new in some cases; in others, it's only manufactured.
In 2007, when I applied to K for The Boy, who is now in 4th grade, CPS was a whole different beast. At the time, the real estate market had only just begun its free fall, so the "move to the suburbs when your kids reach school age so you don't have to deal with CPS" mindset was still very much in play. Indeed, a fair number of The Boy's contemporaries moved to the 'burbs as their parents opted out of the CPS game.
In 2007, the system was also less transparent and less straightforward than it is now. I'm not kidding.
In a January Cure-inspired clean out of old files, I recently unearthed the self-addressed, stamped postcards that had been marked "received" and returned to me from The Boy's application process. I had to send these postcards along with paper applications individually to the 29 schools on my list.Among the paperwork, I also found the 20+ letters I received in response to my applications. Some denied admission outright. Some told me that The Boy had been placed on the waitlist. Some told me that The Boy had been placed on the waitlist and included a number.
Of them, 13 were within what is now the O'Hare network. Of those 13, the District considers nine of them to be overcrowded, given its "ideal capacity" for each school based on utilization formula drafted by the District's consultants last fall. Some argue that this formula sets the efficiency standards too high. Using the alternate formula, the number of overcrowded schools in the O'Hare network increases to 25.
But I'm not sure these school's population problems were always thus. In 2007, as now, our neighborhood school is Murphy Elementary. In 2007, according to CPS data, Murphy enrolled 514 students in grades K-6th. Five years later, Murphy enrollment has jumped to 602 students in grades K-8th. The District's ideal for the building is 540 students. In 2007, I knew zero school-aged neighborhood children who attended Murphy. Most of my neighbors sent their children to Hawthorne, Walt Disney Magnet School, Bell RGC, Blaine, Burley, or parochial school. A woman on my block sent her two children to Murphy for five years before pulling them out after they--and she--were bullied. Fortunately, a change in leadership brought about a change in school culture and Murphy's LSC head, a woman sitting to my left on Tuesday, told the facilitators that the things that make her kids; school great are the same things that make the schools CPS would want to replicate great: parent involvement, social-emotional supports, good teachers, great leader, and community partnerships.
Belding, the only elementary school to accept The Boy from its waitlist in April 2007, was also teetering on the cusp of overcrowding even as we applied in 2007. At that time, the school drew part of its K class from its not-necessarily-in-boundary PK students, comprising 35-72 students. An interesting tactic for a school so close to "capacity" from its in-boundary attendance area. For 2007-2008, Belding enrollment was 463 in grades K-8th. In 2012, CPS's ideal capacity for the school is 480. Today, Belding enrolls 665 K-8th students, which the District classifies as overcrowded.
However, Belding's capacity has nothing on Scammon, the neighborhood option for 1/3 of Old Irving Park and most of ""South Old Irving" and the Villa. In 2007-2008, Scammon enrolled a whopping 1,026 students in grades K-8th. In 2012, the District's ideal for the school is 780. The District deems Scammon enrollment to be efficient, with its 893 K-8th students. The alternate formula sorts Scammon as overcrowded, which it clearly must be to have three mobile units keeping its students in some semblance of classroom space.
That perception often creates reality is the case with Scammon; I know no one in its boundaries that would consider it as a viable option for their children. Why? The reasons do include overcrowding, but I think it's more likely that Scammon's student population is overwhelmingly ESL/ Hispanic and poor. And yet, despite this perception and the online chatter that the immediate neighborhood is unsafe, the District ranks it as a Level 1 school.
At Tuesday's meeting, a teacher from the network's only underutilized District (non-charter) school--Thurgood Marshall Middle School--was in attendance. TMMS is a half block from my house, so it's always been of interest to me. The teacher spoke about what was present at his school (lots of kids, dedicated teachers) and what was lacking (working 4th floor toilets, a repaired stage).He said that he had also taught at IPMS--before it was shuttered in 2008 for under-enrollment and turned into Disney II Magnet, a point of information that seems to have pissed ff virtually everyone who was--or wants to be--tangentially involved in its existence. IPMS--he claimed--was shuttered for under-enrollment although it held as many students in 2007-2008 as Disney II does now. CPS data could be totally wrong. But is number for enrollment at IPMS in 2007 were 340--not the 415 (in K-6th) at Disney II now. In 2012, TMMS combined enrollment is 431 students in 7-8th grades. The District thinks 810 is ideal for TMMS. But even using the alternate formula, TMMS remains underutilized.
The LSC chair from Murphy posited that the District is "starving" TMMS to force its closure. IMO, this is a valid concern. And yet: the District seems to be returning to a strategy of upper and lower schools. There remain only three middle schools in the O'Hare network--TMMS, Albany Park, and a charter, Aspira-Haugan. A quick Google search revealed only seven other freestanding middle schools within CPS. TMMS and Aspira-Haugan are both Level 3, as are three of the freestanding middle schools. To me, this suggests that middle school is too much transition for students to do well.
Of the 44 elementary and middle schools in the O'Hare network, 21 are overcrowded, 21 are "efficient" and only two--both middle schools--are underutilized according to the District's formula. The crisis of seats is new in some cases; in others, it's only manufactured.
In 2007, when I applied to K for The Boy, who is now in 4th grade, CPS was a whole different beast. At the time, the real estate market had only just begun its free fall, so the "move to the suburbs when your kids reach school age so you don't have to deal with CPS" mindset was still very much in play. Indeed, a fair number of The Boy's contemporaries moved to the 'burbs as their parents opted out of the CPS game.
In 2007, the system was also less transparent and less straightforward than it is now. I'm not kidding.
In a January Cure-inspired clean out of old files, I recently unearthed the self-addressed, stamped postcards that had been marked "received" and returned to me from The Boy's application process. I had to send these postcards along with paper applications individually to the 29 schools on my list.Among the paperwork, I also found the 20+ letters I received in response to my applications. Some denied admission outright. Some told me that The Boy had been placed on the waitlist. Some told me that The Boy had been placed on the waitlist and included a number.
Of them, 13 were within what is now the O'Hare network. Of those 13, the District considers nine of them to be overcrowded, given its "ideal capacity" for each school based on utilization formula drafted by the District's consultants last fall. Some argue that this formula sets the efficiency standards too high. Using the alternate formula, the number of overcrowded schools in the O'Hare network increases to 25.
But I'm not sure these school's population problems were always thus. In 2007, as now, our neighborhood school is Murphy Elementary. In 2007, according to CPS data, Murphy enrolled 514 students in grades K-6th. Five years later, Murphy enrollment has jumped to 602 students in grades K-8th. The District's ideal for the building is 540 students. In 2007, I knew zero school-aged neighborhood children who attended Murphy. Most of my neighbors sent their children to Hawthorne, Walt Disney Magnet School, Bell RGC, Blaine, Burley, or parochial school. A woman on my block sent her two children to Murphy for five years before pulling them out after they--and she--were bullied. Fortunately, a change in leadership brought about a change in school culture and Murphy's LSC head, a woman sitting to my left on Tuesday, told the facilitators that the things that make her kids; school great are the same things that make the schools CPS would want to replicate great: parent involvement, social-emotional supports, good teachers, great leader, and community partnerships.
Belding, the only elementary school to accept The Boy from its waitlist in April 2007, was also teetering on the cusp of overcrowding even as we applied in 2007. At that time, the school drew part of its K class from its not-necessarily-in-boundary PK students, comprising 35-72 students. An interesting tactic for a school so close to "capacity" from its in-boundary attendance area. For 2007-2008, Belding enrollment was 463 in grades K-8th. In 2012, CPS's ideal capacity for the school is 480. Today, Belding enrolls 665 K-8th students, which the District classifies as overcrowded.
However, Belding's capacity has nothing on Scammon, the neighborhood option for 1/3 of Old Irving Park and most of ""South Old Irving" and the Villa. In 2007-2008, Scammon enrolled a whopping 1,026 students in grades K-8th. In 2012, the District's ideal for the school is 780. The District deems Scammon enrollment to be efficient, with its 893 K-8th students. The alternate formula sorts Scammon as overcrowded, which it clearly must be to have three mobile units keeping its students in some semblance of classroom space.
That perception often creates reality is the case with Scammon; I know no one in its boundaries that would consider it as a viable option for their children. Why? The reasons do include overcrowding, but I think it's more likely that Scammon's student population is overwhelmingly ESL/ Hispanic and poor. And yet, despite this perception and the online chatter that the immediate neighborhood is unsafe, the District ranks it as a Level 1 school.
At Tuesday's meeting, a teacher from the network's only underutilized District (non-charter) school--Thurgood Marshall Middle School--was in attendance. TMMS is a half block from my house, so it's always been of interest to me. The teacher spoke about what was present at his school (lots of kids, dedicated teachers) and what was lacking (working 4th floor toilets, a repaired stage).He said that he had also taught at IPMS--before it was shuttered in 2008 for under-enrollment and turned into Disney II Magnet, a point of information that seems to have pissed ff virtually everyone who was--or wants to be--tangentially involved in its existence. IPMS--he claimed--was shuttered for under-enrollment although it held as many students in 2007-2008 as Disney II does now. CPS data could be totally wrong. But is number for enrollment at IPMS in 2007 were 340--not the 415 (in K-6th) at Disney II now. In 2012, TMMS combined enrollment is 431 students in 7-8th grades. The District thinks 810 is ideal for TMMS. But even using the alternate formula, TMMS remains underutilized.
The LSC chair from Murphy posited that the District is "starving" TMMS to force its closure. IMO, this is a valid concern. And yet: the District seems to be returning to a strategy of upper and lower schools. There remain only three middle schools in the O'Hare network--TMMS, Albany Park, and a charter, Aspira-Haugan. A quick Google search revealed only seven other freestanding middle schools within CPS. TMMS and Aspira-Haugan are both Level 3, as are three of the freestanding middle schools. To me, this suggests that middle school is too much transition for students to do well.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
High School Redux
Before the break, CPS announced BoE approval of five new high/middle school projects. One of them is the expansion of an elementary magnet school to include high school grades as well.
It is interesting that CPS would approve additional high and middle school seats whilst bemoaning its (under)utilization across the district. But: at the same time, everyone I know seems to be anxious about the (lack of) high-quality high school seats within CPS. The Boy is, unfortunately, among them.
It is interesting because it is the only CPS high school to be approved from the 2012 RFP. The other two high schools are charters, and the other middle school expansions are military academies going down into 7th and 8th grades. But: I do not know how many other District operators made proposals.
It is interesting because (I think) only three other K-12 schools exist within the CPS portfolio: Ogden International, Alcott, and Chicago Academy. But: Alcott and Chicago Academy are neighborhood schools throughout, while Chicago Academy is an AUSL/contract school. Ogden is neighborhood in elementary, but turns into a magnet with enrollment requirements and a preference for students who live in Ogden Elementary's attendance boundary.
My kids' school, Disney II Magnet, was the school approved for the expansion into high school. Like Alcott and Ogden, it will give preference to elementary students to matriculate into the high school. And (presumably) like Ogden, it will offer most of its seats to students who come from outside the elementary school. In its first year of operation, Disney II 's expansion could provide an additional 300 high-quality middle- and high-quality seats to students throughout Chicago.
And finally, it is interesting how few magnet high schools there really are within the system. There are seven: Chicago Ag, Clark Academic Prep, Curie, DeVry, Goode STEM, Ogden International, and Von Steuben. In researching this blog post, I looked into magnet admissions policy across the District. Many magnet schools also have admissions requirements. There are four magnet high schools that require testing or requirements of some kind for admission into the school: Von Steuben, Chicago Ag, Ogden, and DeVry. DeVry only accepts juniors and seniors. Goode STEM just opened this year.
I've attended a fair number of CPS commission hearings, public hearings, public meetings, and other education- and CPS-focused events. A common concern running through them is the lack of high-quality options for (high school) students within the city. Or sometimes just for those populations represented at the event.
As CPSObsessed notes, the prevailing view is "SEHS or bust," among parents of middle- and high-school students. Concurrently--and somewhat contradictorily--there is an increased emphasis on the importance of high-quality neighborhood schools. However, there doesn't seem to be an increased emphasis on students attending their own neighborhood schools--at either the high school or elementary school level. Perhaps because I live in the boonies of the NWside and none of my neighborhood options (Murphy, Marshall Middle, Carl Schurz) are terribly appealing, I know very few people who actually send their children to their neighborhood school by choice. (If you do send your kids to your neighborhood school by choice, please leave it in the comments.)
In the past, when I've suggested that our local high school, Carl Schurz, is an option for my children, people look at me aghast. One fellow parent told me that I was selling my kids short to have them attend this school. One teacher told me that my kids would get in somewhere, anywhere, that would be a better environment for them than the one available at Schurz . And The Dad continues to worry about gangs-and-guns behavior that surrounds neighborhood high schools like Schurz (and Roosevelt, Senn, Lakeview, Taft, and Mather), and has remained steadfast in his view that suburban kids who shoot up are preferable peers for our children than CPS populations who shoot.
Frankly, I don't see a significant difference between creaming because students are redirected toward selective-enrollment high schools and creaming because students attend neighborhood or magnet high schools outside of their own neighborhoods. Perhaps the problem lies in the belief that we must have options in the first place? Because, invariably with options comes competition. Instead of attending the best school for their talents, interests, and location, our children must vie with 14,000+ other high school students for a seat, any seat, at a high school that is anything but their neighborhood school. And that mindset is really the true barrier to improving options, education, and resource allocation within CPS.
It is interesting that CPS would approve additional high and middle school seats whilst bemoaning its (under)utilization across the district. But: at the same time, everyone I know seems to be anxious about the (lack of) high-quality high school seats within CPS. The Boy is, unfortunately, among them.
It is interesting because it is the only CPS high school to be approved from the 2012 RFP. The other two high schools are charters, and the other middle school expansions are military academies going down into 7th and 8th grades. But: I do not know how many other District operators made proposals.
It is interesting because (I think) only three other K-12 schools exist within the CPS portfolio: Ogden International, Alcott, and Chicago Academy. But: Alcott and Chicago Academy are neighborhood schools throughout, while Chicago Academy is an AUSL/contract school. Ogden is neighborhood in elementary, but turns into a magnet with enrollment requirements and a preference for students who live in Ogden Elementary's attendance boundary.
My kids' school, Disney II Magnet, was the school approved for the expansion into high school. Like Alcott and Ogden, it will give preference to elementary students to matriculate into the high school. And (presumably) like Ogden, it will offer most of its seats to students who come from outside the elementary school. In its first year of operation, Disney II 's expansion could provide an additional 300 high-quality middle- and high-quality seats to students throughout Chicago.
And finally, it is interesting how few magnet high schools there really are within the system. There are seven: Chicago Ag, Clark Academic Prep, Curie, DeVry, Goode STEM, Ogden International, and Von Steuben. In researching this blog post, I looked into magnet admissions policy across the District. Many magnet schools also have admissions requirements. There are four magnet high schools that require testing or requirements of some kind for admission into the school: Von Steuben, Chicago Ag, Ogden, and DeVry. DeVry only accepts juniors and seniors. Goode STEM just opened this year.
I've attended a fair number of CPS commission hearings, public hearings, public meetings, and other education- and CPS-focused events. A common concern running through them is the lack of high-quality options for (high school) students within the city. Or sometimes just for those populations represented at the event.
As CPSObsessed notes, the prevailing view is "SEHS or bust," among parents of middle- and high-school students. Concurrently--and somewhat contradictorily--there is an increased emphasis on the importance of high-quality neighborhood schools. However, there doesn't seem to be an increased emphasis on students attending their own neighborhood schools--at either the high school or elementary school level. Perhaps because I live in the boonies of the NWside and none of my neighborhood options (Murphy, Marshall Middle, Carl Schurz) are terribly appealing, I know very few people who actually send their children to their neighborhood school by choice. (If you do send your kids to your neighborhood school by choice, please leave it in the comments.)
In the past, when I've suggested that our local high school, Carl Schurz, is an option for my children, people look at me aghast. One fellow parent told me that I was selling my kids short to have them attend this school. One teacher told me that my kids would get in somewhere, anywhere, that would be a better environment for them than the one available at Schurz . And The Dad continues to worry about gangs-and-guns behavior that surrounds neighborhood high schools like Schurz (and Roosevelt, Senn, Lakeview, Taft, and Mather), and has remained steadfast in his view that suburban kids who shoot up are preferable peers for our children than CPS populations who shoot.
Frankly, I don't see a significant difference between creaming because students are redirected toward selective-enrollment high schools and creaming because students attend neighborhood or magnet high schools outside of their own neighborhoods. Perhaps the problem lies in the belief that we must have options in the first place? Because, invariably with options comes competition. Instead of attending the best school for their talents, interests, and location, our children must vie with 14,000+ other high school students for a seat, any seat, at a high school that is anything but their neighborhood school. And that mindset is really the true barrier to improving options, education, and resource allocation within CPS.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
