Show Me the Money

I'm not going to get into what is the magic amount of formal learning/instructional time for Chicago Public Schools' elementary students. I believe that both a 6h45m and a 7h30m day have worked well for my children at their elementary school, just as a 7-hour day will work well for them next year. 

However, I'll willingly join the chorus of parental, teacher, and (occasionally) aldermanic voices asking, where is the money? How does CPS/the city plan to fund the full school day? 

Monica Lee told me in March that principals didn't want to know the full school day budget amount in the absence of other information. CEO Brizard told me last Tuesday that all schools will receive a block grant to spend as they see fit in support of the additional 75 minutes of time, and that the district hopes to move to a per-pupil funding formula in the next 18-24 months. 

But given the district's history of questionable actions and/or decision-making, I;m not sure that the district's assurances that they are working on it are all that reassuring. In the city of big shoulders, the windy city, the city of corruption, graft, and lies, even fairly recent residents such as myself know that unless a bunch of people continually demand the truth from large public agencies like CPS,  they have little incentive to reveal their inefficiency and inadequacy through transparency. I'd love to feel comfortable simply trusting that the existing system will work out a viable solution, but I think that's a false choice, to quote the Mayor. And I think that would be a false choice even if I lived in Lake Forest or Winnetka (or Schaumburg or Evanston).

The clock is ticking. Will CPS deliver on its plan to deliver budgets to principals by May 15th?

A Question of Trust

This morning, I stood for an hour in high heels in support of Disney II Principal Bogdana Chkoumbova and 3rd grade teacher Adrienne Garrison, Fiske grandparent Shirley Calhoun, and CPS CEO Jean-Claude Brizard while they and Mayor Rahm Emmanuel spoke at a press conference held in the Disney II gymatorium. The event was to announce a revision to the longer school day. I did this because I believe in Disney II's principal and teachers, just as I believe in the positive impact that a 7.5-hour elementary school day and 2h50m preschool-for-all day has had on my three children.

Will a one-size-fits all mandate work for every student, teacher, aide, and principal? No way. But it seems to me that what is lacking in this discussion is micro-level trust. That is, trust on the individual school level. Disney II works because it's a group effort: a principal with a clear vision, teachers who believe in the vision and put it into action, students who come to school ready and eager to learn, and parents who are committed to setting their kids up for success--academically and through the rest of their lives. This is a great base. We also probably couldn't do it if the school did not have per-pupil funding (instead of a quota-based funding formula) and a Local School Council (currently the Interim Advisory Council) that is willing to spend a lot of time on the budget to make it happen. 

When Principal Chkoumbova told me of the 7.5-hour day plan in September 2011, I quickly realized that I had no reason not to trust that the teachers and administration at Disney II were doing the right thing for our kids. Even if the impetus to lengthen the school day by another 45 minutes came from the top. If you don't trust your principal and teachers, you probably shouldn't send your kids to that school. And fortunately for the 13 percent of CPS's student population that belong to middle-class families, their parents do often have the option to change schools or move out of the city to a suburb whose education system better fits their philosophy.

As a child, I grew up in a household where education was important. Education was paramount. It came in many forms in addition to the six hours and 45 minutes I spent in school every day: travel, after-school activities and classes, a trip to the Woolworth's lunch counter on State Street in the mid-1980s. But none of these additional educational opportunities were as important as school itself. In my family of origin, my job was to do well in school. 

I'm fortunate that I can afford to take the same attitude with The Boy, The Girl, and The Tot (Who's Not). I'm moderately certain that if a greater percentage of CPS parents were able to take the same stance, our students wouldn't need a 7-hour day and/or no CPS parent would complain about the proposal for increased time. 

Part of me--the part who has an incoming kindergarten male next fall--is a bit relieved by the revision. But the balance of me is bummed out. At Disney II, our students were doing great things with all that time, and the plan for next year looked even better. But, although no one in the room dared to utter the word, I think it's a good compromise between the Mayor's vision and the vocal opposition.

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."

The Choices We (Don't Get to) Make

Yesterday morning, The Dad and I made our annual pilgrimage to Park Ridge, to have our taxes done. While The Boy, The Girl, and The Tot (Who's Not) kept themselves busy with a 3DS, iPod. and iPhone, respectively, The Dad and I learned that this year, we would again receive a rather decent refund from the Feds.

By again, I mean that we have received refunds in the past, but owed the government in 2010 after I worked full-time for the year. I know I should be thankful that we'll get what feels like a an unexpected windfall in a bad economy. But I'm not.

I'm angry. I feel betrayed by our culture and our government. I naively believed for years that the decision to work--or not--was mine. Do societal norms set public policy or vice-versa? It's a cornerstone of economics that governments determine and pursue a course of public action to encourage (or discourage) certain behaviors. Clearly, if one looks at the tax code, the ease in finding child care, and the average respect accorded school teachers, this country doesn't want both parents in a two-parent, heterosexual family to work. 

I know it's possible that the U.S. government doesn't mean that men must work in a two-parent, heterosexual families. But given how respected and well-paid the average day care or parks & recreation worker or K-12 teacher is, it's clear that the business of taking care of children and/or households--the same duties performed on an hourly basis by SAHPs--is not valued in this country. 

No one questions if The Dad loves his children while he puts in a 10-hour day writing code, so I am not going to even go there. But if what I want out of life goes beyond being paid in hugs and temper tantrums, what course of action can I reasonably pursue? If I work for pay, our family takes a giant hit in what I can reasonably bring home, as child care for my three children costs more than I made in my first three jobs out of college, and the government gives us a measly $5,000 tax credit for it? When I was working, achieving work-life balance was my number one concern. Now that my executive functioning is spent on meal-planning, lunchbox-filling, carpooling, and keeping the bathroom stocked with TP, I'm wondering if I will ever be able to pursue the work part of work-life balance without losing my shirt in the process?

This war on women has got to stop. I don't want The Girl, The Boy, and The Tot (Who's Not) growing up to think that daddies work and mommies (or female nannies) make lunch and drive them around because that is all that they see around them.

Two Steps Forward, One Back

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

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

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

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

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

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


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