final school board report w website

7/31/2019 Final School Board Report w Website

1/54

Should Chicago Have an Elected Representative School Board?

A Look at the Evidence

Pauline Lipman

Eric (Rico) Gutstein

University of Illinois at Chicago

Collaborative for Equity and Justice in Education

1040 W. Harrison St., M/C 147

Chicago IL 60607

[email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.uic.edu/educ/ceje/

FEBRUARY 2011


2/54

SHOULD CHICAGO HAVE AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL BOARD i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the following people who contributed to this report:

Phillip Cantor, Lynette Danley, Aisha El-Amin, Sandra Gutstein, Rhoda Rae

Gutierrez, Sarah Hainds, Stephanie Hicks, Pavlyn Jankov, Chris Sabino,Rachel Serra, Danielle Akua Smith, and Kelly Vaughn. We would also like to

thank Christine Olson for help with the production of this report.


3/54

SHOULD CHICAGO HAVE AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL BOARD ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary................................................................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................................................ 5

Methodology ............................................................................................ 6

Brief History of School Boards ................................................................. 7

Mayoral Control of Schools ...................................................................... 9

Justifications for Mayoral Control................................................... 9

Effectiveness of Mayoral Control and Mayor-Appointed Boards:

What Do We Know?...................................................................10

Chicago: Assessment of the Mayor-Appointed School Board ...................... 11

High-Stakes Top-down Accountability ............................................ 11

Academic Achievement as Measured by the NAEP .......................... 13

Graduation and Dropout Rates....................................................... 18

Renaissance 2010 .......................................................................... 19

Teacher Turnover and Loss of Teaching Staff ................................. 22

Expansion of Charter Schools......................................................... 24

Chicago High School Redesign Initiative ......................................... 26

Public Accountability and Community Participation................................. 27

Elected School Boards ............................................................................. 28

Steps to Strengthen Democratic Participation and

Public Accountability ................................................................ 29

Can an Elected School Board Make a Difference? ........................... 30

Milwaukee Public Schools .............................................................. 30

Tucson Unified School District ....................................................... 31

San Francisco Unified School District............................................. 32

San Diego Unified School District ................................................... 33

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 35

Recommendations ................................................................................... 37

References .............................................................................................. 38

Appendix A: A Sample of Elected School Boards in Large U.S. Cities ........ 45

Appendix B: Biographies of CPS Board of Education Members................. 47

Endnotes................................................................................................. 48


4/54

SHOULD CHICAGO HAVE AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL BOARD 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In December 2010, the Chicago Teachers Union-Community Boardproposed a shift from a mayor-appointed school board to an elected boardrepresentative of and directly accountable to Chicago Public Schools

constituencies. This report, authored independently of the Community Board,summarizes research on the effectiveness of mayor-appointed school boardsand the record of Chicagos mayor-appointed board. The report was written toprovide information to elected officials, educators, parents, and members of thegeneral public concerned about improvement of education in Chicago and theproposal to shift to an elected representative school board.

This report addresses the question: Should Chicago Have an Elected,Representative School Board? To address this question we explored severalsub-questions:

What does research say about the track record of mayor-controlledschool systems?

Has mayoral control improved education for Chicago public schoolstudents?

Have the appointed boards policies increased educational equity? Are there examples where elected boards have been responsive and

accountable to educators and communities?

To answer these questions, we reviewed research on school governancenationally. To review the record of Chicagos mayor-appointed board weexamined CPS and Illinois State Board of Education data, reports of researchpertinent to the Chicago experience, Chicagos performance on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and qualitative studies of theeffects of CPS policies on teaching, students, and communities. We alsogathered information on elected school boards in four major cities drawing onmedia reports, published research, school district websites, and conversationswith local actors.

Key findings are:

1. There is no conclusive evidence that mayoral control and mayor-appointed boards are more effective at governing schools or raising

student achievement.

2. The Boards policies of top-down accountability based onstandardized tests, and its simultaneous expansion of selective-

enrollment schools, expanded a two-tier education system in

Chicago. Based on their scores on a single test, thousands of primarily


5/54


African American and Latino students were subjected to probation,retention, scripted instruction, test drills, and basic-skills education.This was not supported by education research, did not result in realimprovement, and reinforced a lower tier of educational opportunities forthese students. At the same time, the Board also expanded a top tier of

world-class, selective-enrollment schools that serve just 10 percent ofhigh school students and are roughly three times more white and moreaffluent than CPS high schools overall.

3. Under the mayor-appointed Board, CPS has made little progress inacademic achievement and other measures of educational

improvement, and on nearly every measure there are persistent, and

in some cases, widening gaps between white students and African

American and Latino students. Chicagos scores on the NAEP haveincreased very modestly in ways that cannot be distinguished fromincreases in other urban districts, and Chicago continues to significantlylag behind other large cities. There are persistent and significant racialdisparities at the At-Or-Above-Proficient and Advanced levels in mathand reading on the NAEP, and scores for African American students atthese levels are abysmal. Graduation and dropout rates have improvedslightly but graduation rates are still very low and dropout rates still veryhigh, and the gap between the rates for whites and for African Americansand Latinos has widened.

4. The Boards policy of closing neighborhood schools and openingcharter schools (Renaissance 2010) has generally not improved

education for the students affected. In some cases, it has madethings worse. Most displaced elementary school students transferredfrom one low-performing school to another with virtually no effect onstudent achievement. Eight of ten students displaced by school closingstransferred to schools that ranked in the bottom half of the system onstandardized tests. In the affected communities, the policy has increasedstudent mobility and travel distances, led to spikes in violence, andincreased neighborhood instability. School closings are also associatedwith patterns of gentrification, raising troubling questions about therelationship of Board policies and real estate interests and about theprioritization of affluent students who make up a small percentage ofCPS families.

5. Although data on charter schools, nationally and locally, are mixed,there is no evidence that, overall, CPS charter schools are

significantly better than its traditional public schools. The largeststudy conducted to date in the U.S. found that students in charterschools are not doing as well as students in regular public schools:17%of charter schools perform significantly better, 37% significantly worse,


6/54


and 46% show no significant difference. Chicago charter school outcomesare mixed, overall showing roughly comparable performance toneighborhood schools. On average, Chicago charter high schools servedfewer English language learners and low-income and special educationstudents, and on average, Chicago charter schools replaced more than

half of their staff between 2008 and 2010.

6. Chicagos mayor-appointed board is comprised of elite decisionmakers who are neither representative of the student population of

CPS nor directly accountable to the public. Board structures and

processes severely limit public input in decisions. The Board iscomposed primarily of corporate executives, while the district is 92percent students of color and 86 percent low-income students whosecommunities have no role in school district decisions. This is problematicbecause perspectives and knowledge of parents, educators, and studentsare essential to good educational decision-making. It is evident thatcommunity members feel that the Board is unresponsive to their inputand concerns. Parents have felt it necessary to take extreme measures tobe heard, including candlelight vigils, marches, campouts in front ofBoard headquarters, a hunger strike, and a recent 43-day occupation ofa school field house to get a long-needed school library. Case studies inthis report illustrate that elected school boards can create conditions fordemocratic public participation.

The evidence we collected for this report does not support the Chicagomiracle. There is compelling evidence that, for over 15 years, the Boards

policies have failed to improve the education of the majority of Chicago publicschool students, especially African American and Latino and low-incomestudents. Some students entire K-12 education has been dominated by high-stakes testing, the fear of retention, a basic-level education, and schoolclosings and their resulting instability. There is an urgent need to shift course.Although responsive and directly accountable governance structures are notsufficient by themselves to improve schools, they are an important condition.


7/54


Recommendations:

Chicago should transition to an elected representative school board(ERSB).

The ERSBs operations should be transparent and publiclyaccountable.

The ERSB should establish structures and practices that strengthendemocratic public participation in district initiatives and decisions.

The ERSB should draw on sound educational research and educator,student, and community knowledge to develop and evaluate policy.

Achieving equity in educational opportunities and outcomes shouldbe integral to all ERSB decisions


8/54


INTRODUCTION

In 1995, the Illinois StateLegislature used its power to put themayor in charge of Chicago Public

Schools.1 The 1995 Amendatory Act(an amendment to the 1988 SchoolReform Act) gave the mayorauthority to appoint a five-memberBoard of Trustees and a CEO to leadthe school district. The legislaturesrationale was that school reformwas moving too slowly; centralizingauthority in the mayors office woulddrive reform and improve efficiency

in CPS. In 1999, the AmendatoryAct expanded the Board to sevenand restored the name Board ofEducation of the City of Chicago.After 15 years of the appointedBoard in power, there are calls for ashift to an elected representativeschool board.

This report addresses the question:Should Chicago have an elected

representative school board? Theimpetus for the report was theDecember 2010 call by the ChicagoTeachers Union-Community Board(CB)a coalition of a number ofwell-known communityorganizations in Chicago and theChicago Teachers Union for anelected representative school boardin Chicago.

The CB asked researchers at theCollaborative for Equity and Justice

in Education(CEJE), at theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, toinvestigate the case for an electedboard and make recommendations.This report was written to provide

information to elected officials,educators, parents, and members ofthe general public concerned aboutimproving education in Chicago andto recommend policy changes. (The

study was not funded by the CB nordo the conclusions imply itsendorsement.)

A concern voiced by the CB is thatunder mayoral control, the Boardhas been composed primarily ofcorporate and banking leaders whoare not directly accountable to thepublic. None is an educator. In asystem in which 92% are studentsof color and 86% qualify for free orreduced lunch (a measure of low-income),2 the mismatch between thecomposition of the Board and thestudents in CPS raises concernsabout how representative the Boardis of the communities it is chargedto serve. Thus, our assessment ofChicagos mayor-appointed schoolBoard over its 15-year history

highlights the effect of its policies onlearning opportunities andeducational outcomes for thesestudents.


9/54


This report addresses the

question: Should Chicago have an

elected representative school

board? To address this question

we explore several sub-questions:

What does research say aboutthe track record of mayor-

controlled school systems?

Has mayoral controlimproved education for

Chicago public school

students?

Have the appointed Boardspolicies increased equitable

opportunities to learn andequitable outcomes?

Are there examples whereelected boards have been

responsive and accountable

to educators and

communities?

The report begins with a briefhistory of school boards and the

move to mayoral control and mayor-appointed boards in some big cities.The next section summarizesresearch on the effectiveness ofmayoral-controlled school systems.The third section reviews outcomesof policies of Chicagos mayor-appointed Board and implicationsfor low-income African Americanand Latino students from the

standpoint of equitableopportunities to learn. The fourthsection discusses publicaccountability and communityparticipation. Finally, we presentshort case studies of four urbanschool boards that illustrate theircapacity to be responsive and

accountable to educational concernsof their communities. We concludewith recommendations.

METHODOLOGY

Although governance is important,there is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship with schoolimprovement. Many factors, inaddition to school districtgovernance, contribute to successfuleducation systems.3 However,school boards are responsible forthe policies and outcomes of theirschool districts. Therefore, we

evaluate Chicagos appointed Boardon the results of its decisions.

For this report, we reviewedresearch on school governancenationally. To look specifically at therecord of Chicagos mayor-appointedboard, we used publicly availableCPS data, Illinois State Board ofEducation (ISBE) data, and researchand reports compiled by the

Consortium on Chicago SchoolResearch (CCSR), National ResearchCouncil, and other researcherspertinent to the Chicago experience.To examine test scores, we turned tothe National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP),commonly known as the nationsreport card. According to the U.S.Department of Education, which

administers it, NAEPis the onlynationally representative andcontinuing assessment of whatAmerica's students know and cando in various subject areas.4 Wealso reviewed qualitative studies ofthe effects of CPS policies onteaching, students, and


10/54


communities. For the school boardcase studies, we drew oninformation from media reports,published research, school districtwebsites, and conversations with

local actors.

Although we examine test scores asone measure of studentachievement, many educationexperts agree that standardizedtests do not comprehensively oreven accurately assess studentlearning for several reasons.5 First,test scores may simply reflect afocus on a narrow set of skillsmeasured by high-stakes tests,rather than real learning.6 As thebar for Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP) set by No Child Left Behind(NCLB) increases annually, schools,districts, teachers, administrators,and students have been underincreasing pressure to focus onpreparing for standardized tests.Second, test scores should not be

used by themselves to assess themany aspects of learning.7 Third,instructional practices designed toraise test scores are not necessarilyaligned with what is best forstudents. For example, researchershave documented that many schoolsaround the country, including inChicago, have focused instructionon those scoring closest to the

meets expectations level who aremost likely to raise the schoolsscores, while neglecting students farbelow or above.8

Thus, although we looked at testscores, we examined a broader set ofindicators of academic achievement,

opportunity to learn, and effects onschools and communities. Theseinclude graduation and dropoutrates, effects of school closings onstudents and communities, teacher

turn over and loss of teaching staff,and opportunities for publicparticipation in education decisions.Researchers use opportunity to learnas a measure of the extent to whichstudents have access to necessaryschool resources, high-qualityschool facilities, highly qualifiedteachers, rigorous and relevantcurricula, higher-order thinking

activities, safe school environments,and so on.9

BRIEF HISTORY OF SCHOOL

BOARDS

Schools are part of the foundation ofa democratic society. They arecharged with educating andpreparing the next generation ofdemocratic participants in society.

The role of school boards in thisprocess is to provide leadership,policy direction, and oversight todrive school improvement.10 Infulfilling this role, it is theresponsibility of school boards toensure that schools work to advancethe public interestthe education,health, and welfare of all membersof the community.

Historically, elected school boardshave been a central feature of localdemocracy in the U.S. Underlyingtheir election is the belief that thedemocratic process is a means forcommunity members to express andimplement a vision of the commongood. Local school boards are the


11/54


political institutions that are closestto voters. As Allen and Planksummarize, Public educationremains the policy domain in whichcitizens [residents] have the greatest

opportunity for democraticparticipation and democraticcontrol.11

Elections of school officials, publicschool board meetings, and LocalSchool Councils (LCSs) (e.g., inChicago) are opportunities for allcommunity members, not onlyparents and students, to have avoice in policies that affect them andthe well being of the community.This is why the vast majority ofschool boards in the U.S. have been,and continue to be, elected by anddirectly accountable to theirconstituencies.

However, in the past two decades,elected school boards have been thetarget of criticism by business

leaders, think tanks, and variouspolicy makers who charge that theyare ineffective in leading schoolreform, particularly in urbandistricts. These critics also contendthat elected school boards allowinterest groups to influence policy

(specifically singling out unions), arenot accountable to the communityat-large, and lack fiscal discipline.12Especially in urban districts, theyhave pushed for mayoral control

and mayor-appointed boards.Mayoral control is commonly linkedto an agenda of high-stakes, top-down accountability, charter schoolsand vouchers, teacher pay based onstudent performance, and the beliefthat public participation ineducation should occur primarilythrough private consumer choice.

Over the past decade, mayoralcontrol has spread to several largeurban districts with the promise ofimproved student learning, higherschool-completion rates, fewerdropouts, and better test scores.Mayoral control with mayor-appointed school boards is a centralplank of Secretary of EducationArne Duncans initiatives, especiallythe competitive Race to the Top

federal funds for education.13

Still, in the U.S. today, most schoolboards are elected by municipalvoters. In 2008, 96% of U.S. schooldistricts had elected boards,including more than two-thirds ofthe 25 largest districts.14 Accordingto the National School BoardsAssociation, as of June 2009, 31states have only elected boards.15

Public education remains

the policy domain in whichcitizens [residents] have thegreatest opportunity for

democratic participation and

democratic control.

In 2008, 96% of U.S. schooldistricts had elected boards,

including more than two-

thirds of the 25 largestdistricts


12/54


MAYORAL CONTROL OF SCHOOLS

Under mayoral control, mayorsappoint some or all of the membersof the school board andsuperintendent/CEO. In 1991,Boston became the first U.S. city toshift school governance to mayoralcontrol. In 1995, Chicago followedsuit. As of 2009, roughly a dozenbig-city mayors controlled theirschool districts.16 Across the U.S.,appointed boards are mostly in largeurban or municipal districts. InCalifornia, only Los Angeles has anappointed board. Of the almost 900school districts in Illinois, Chicago isthe only one with a mayor-appointedboard.17

Justifications for Mayoral Control

There are four main justificationsgiven for centralizing power in themayors office:18

1. Efficiency: Mayors are bestequipped to efficientlycoordinate municipal andeducational services and workas ambassadors to businessinterests who are expected toplay a key role in shapingschool policies.

2. Accountability for results:Because mayors are high-profile elected officials

subjected to media scrutiny,they are more responsive topopular demands and moreaccountable to the public.When schools are not makingprogress, the public knowswhom to blame.

3. Alignment of schools withbusiness goals: Because thecitys business climate andcorporate economicdevelopment are tied to the

quality of its school system,mayors are in the bestposition to align educationalgoals with business interests.

4. Streamlining educationsystems: Mayoral controlstreamlines educationalsystems by aligningorganizational goals,curriculum, rewards andsanctions, professionaldevelopment of teachers andprincipals, and classroominstruction with academicachievement.

In cities that have moved to mayoralcontrol, the business communityhas usually enthusiasticallysupported the shift. Business

leaders favor a management modelthat puts a single executive incharge and accountable for efficientcoordination of resources anddelivery of services.19 Corporateleaders have assumed the unrivaledauthority to define the purposes andmethods of public schooling inresponse to the new technology-driven global economy.20 Chicago isa well-known example of thedominance of business ideas andpractices in education.


13/54


Effectiveness of Mayoral Control

and Mayor-Appointed Boards

What Do We Know?

Research on the relationship of

mayor-controlled school districtsand school improvement is limitedand inconclusive. Hesss 2007research survey found that therewere few rigorous, systematicstudies of the effect of appointedboards on aspects of schoolimprovement.21 Researchers at theInstitute on Education Law andPolicy at Rutgers University

Newark found that while mayoralcontrol does have some benefits(public attention to publiceducation, increased funding, andstability), there is no conclusiveevidence that governance changesincrease achievement.22 Asdocumented by Hess, who drewupon a survey of more than 25years of research on the

effectiveness of school boards andfrom research conducted by theCenter for the Study of SocialPolicy,23 there exists remarkablylittle evidence that mayors orappointed boards are more effectiveat governing schools than elected

boards.24 Larry Cuban, nationallyrespected education expert, sayssimply, there is no connection at all[of mayoral control] with academicachievement.25

Some cities with mayoral controlhave posted increases in scores onstate standardized tests.26 Howeverstate tests are problematic becausestates have progressively loweredthe bar to make AYP under No ChildLeft Behind. Even Secretary ofEducation Duncan admitted in a2009 speech before the Departmentof Educations Institute of Education

Sciences,When states lower [academic]standards, they are lying tochildren and they are lying toparents. Those standardsdon't prepare our students forthe world of college or theworld of work. When wematch NAEP scores and statetests, we see the difference.

Some states, likeMassachusetts compare verywell. Unfortunately, thedisparities between most statetests and NAEP results arestaggeringly large.27

On the NAEP, some cities with

Corporate leaders haveassumed the unrivaled

authority to define the

purposes and methods of

public schooling in responseto the new technology-driven

global economy.There is remarkably little

evidence that mayors orappointed boards are more

effective at governing schools

than elected boards.


14/54


mayoral control score above andothers below those with traditionalgovernance.28 In short, there is noclear evidence that studentachievement improves under

mayoral control and appointedboards. And Kenneth Wong, aleading proponent of mayoralcontrol, contended that it does notreduce the racial achievementgap.29

Even case studies that suggest somepositive impact of appointed boardson test scores emphasize the tradeoff in loss of broader involvement indemocratic processes, particularlythe participation of AfricanAmericans and Latinos.30 This lossis particularly serious for a districtlike Chicago with a high percentageof African American and Latinostudents. There is an emerging bodyof research on the important role ofcommunity participation in schoolreform.31 Including the perspectives,

knowledge, and political power ofthese communities can ensure thatthe district adopts policies thatimprove educational opportunities

for their children.

CHICAGO: ASSESSMENT OF THE

MAYOR-APPOINTED SCHOOL BOARD

Should a mayor-appointed schoolboard be retained in Chicago? Inthis section we assess the Boardsrecord over the past 15 years. Inparticular, we examine its record ofimproving equitable opportunities tolearn and equitable outcomes for thevast majority of studentslow-income African American and Latinostudents. We look at results of theBoards two major initiatives: a) asystem of top-down accountabilityusing high-stakes tests whilesimultaneously expanding selectiveenrollment schools; b) Renaissance2010,a policy to close neighborhoodschools and replace them withcharter, contract, or CPSperformance schools.32

High-Stakes Top-Down

Accountability

The hallmark of the early years of

mayoral control in Chicago washigh-stakes testing, which was usedto enforce a system of top-downaccountability with penalties forlow-scoring students and schools.The Board added more stakes withthe expansion of selective-enrollment schools in the late1990s.

Beginning in 1996, the Board

mandated strict accountability forfailing schools and students. Itplaced low-scoring schools onprobation and retained students atgrades 3, 6, and 8 based on theirscores on standardized tests. Eighthgraders who failed the test were not

In short, there is no clear

evidence that student

achievement improves under

mayoral control and appointedboards.


15/54


allowed to graduate with theirclassmates, and eighth graders, 15or older, who failed the test insummer school, were assigned toremedial Academic Preparation

Centers. These basic skills highschool programs were geared topassing the standardized test, andtheir students were segregated fromother students and academicallystigmatized.

The consequences of failing the testspushed low-scoring schools to focuson intensive test drill and practice.33Robert Hauser, Chair of theCommittee on Appropriate Test Useof the Board of Testing andAssessment at the NationalResearch Council wrote, The NRCCommittee concluded that Chicagosregular year and summer schoolcurricula were so closely geared tothe ITBS [Iowa Test of Basic Skills]that it was impossible to distinguishreal subject mastery from mastery of

skills and knowledge useful forpassing this particular test.34 Someschools were mandated to adoptscripted instruction for all students(a model designed for specialeducation students). There was alsoevidence that to raise their scores,some schools triaged instruction tofocus on students on the cusp ofpassing the standardized tests

(bubble kids).35These Board policies contradict aconsensus among assessmentexperts that using standardizedtests to make high-stakes decisionsabout individual students isinappropriate and inequitable,36

particularly because all students donot have an equal opportunity tolearn.37 Yet, based on their scoreson a single test, tens of thousandsof Chicago students were sent to

summer school, retained in gradefor as long as three years, barredfrom their 8th grade graduation,and assigned to remedial highschools.

These policies did not result in realimprovement. While citywide testscores went up, students retained in1997 were doing no better in 1999than previously promoted students,and in many cases were doingworse.38 Nearly one-third of retainedeighth graders in 1997 dropped outby fall 1999.39 By 2001, Chicagostest scores leveled off as the effectsof intensive test prep reached theirlimits.40

The consequences of these policiesfell heavily on African American,

Latino, and low-income students.41

In 1996 CPS placed 109 schools onprobation. They wereoverwhelmingly African American,and the average poverty level of the71 elementary probation schoolswas about 94%.42 And, in 2000,Parents United for Responsible

Educationwon a civil rightscomplaint against CPS for adversediscriminatory impact of theretention policy on AfricanAmericans and Latinos. Thestudents and schools subjected toscripted instruction, drilling forstandardized tests, and basic skillseducation were also overwhelminglyand disproportionately African


16/54


American and Latino. As a whole,top-down high-stakes accountabilityconsolidated a lower tier of learningopportunities in CPS.

In the late 1990s, the boardexpanded a top tier of world-classschools with six new selective-enrollment high schools. The newschools in affluent or gentrifyingareas were in lavish new orremodeled buildings with state-of-the-art resources.43 There was alsoevidence that these schools drainedresources from neighborhoodschools.44

Current data on the eight selective-enrollment high schools45 show thatonly 10.1% of CPS high schoolstudents attend them; furthermore,they are disproportionately whiteand non low-income. As of the2010-11 school year, CPS as awhole was 9% white and 14% nonlow-income, but the selective-

enrollment high schools were 25.3%white and 43.5% non low-income.46Thus, the selective-enrollment highschools student bodies are roughlythree times more white and more

well off than the district as a whole.

In sum, the Boards high-stakesaccountability policies were not

backed up by research, and itsexpansion of world-class selective-enrollment schools benefited a verysmall percentage of CPS students.The Boards policy decisions led to

improvements for a disproportionatepercentage of more well-off whitestudents and test-driven, remedialeducation and penalties for low-income students of color. Thesepolicy decisions created a two-tiereducational system along lines ofrace and income.

Academic Achievement as

Measured by the NAEP

Chicagos academic improvementhas been widely accepted andreported in the media as theChicago miracle.47 The mayor, theCEO of CPS, and the Board contendthat student achievement hasimproved under mayoral control. Infact, the Board of Education sectionof the district website states,

Chicago Public Schools is regardedas a leading innovative model forpublic education around thenation.48 These claims have largelybeen made based on state test data.However, in 2010, the ChicagoTribune reported that Illinois hadlowered the cut score for passing theIllinois Standard Achievement Test(ISAT)making it easier to pass thetestwhile claiming students weremaking gains.49

Noting this, the Civic Committee ofthe Commercial Club of Chicagowrote:

As recently as January 2009,CPS distributed brochures

CPS policies created a two-

tiered educational system

along lines of race andincome.


17/54


showing that 8th gradereading scores improved from55% of studentsmeeting/exceeding standardsin 2004 to 76% in 2008. And

8th grade math scoresimproved from 33% in 2004 to70% in 2008. But these hugeincreases reflect changes inthe [state] tests and testingprocedures not real studentimprovement. The reality isthat most of Chicagosstudents are still left farbehind. Real student

performance appears to havegone up a little in Chicagoelementary schools during thepast few years and eventhose gains then dissipate inhigh school.50

Therefore, we evaluate Chicagosacademic achievement based onNAEP scores rather than use

problematic state test data. NAEPscores are recorded by district formath and reading in grades 4 and8.51

Since 2002, CPS NAEP scores haveincreased very modestly in waysthat cannot be distinguished fromincreases in other urban centersaround the country.52 Chicagotrailed other urban districts (NAEP

refers to these as Large Cities[LCs] of over 250,000 residents) as awhole in 2002 (and 200353). Anddespite small increases, CPS did notmake up any ground as of 2009, thelast time NAEP scores were recorded

(in math and reading). In short, CPSlagged then and still lags now.

Average Scores: The Department ofEducation (DoE) records averageNAEP scores of each district. It alsogroups together Large Cities anduses their average combined scores

as a basis of comparison withindividual urban districts. From2003 to 2009, Chicagos averagescores in math (grade 4 and 8) and4th-grade reading slightly increased,while its 8th-grade reading scoresstalled. Chicagos increases werecomparable to the gains of the LargeCities. However, in both 2003 and2009, CPS significantly trailed theLarge Cities average scores in math

(4 and 8) and reading (4), whileslightly trailing in 8th-grade reading.The gap between Chicago and theLC average scores that existed in2003 remained the same in 2009(see Tables 1 & 2 below).

,

scores have increased verymodestly in ways that cannot

be distinguished from

increases in other urbancenters around the country

The only place Chicago

significantly leads the Large

Cities is in the percent ofstudents Below-Basic in math

(grades 4 and 8) and reading

grade 4.


18/54


Table 1: Math Grades 4 & 8, CPS vs. Large Cities Average Scores2003 & 2009

Subject-

GradeYear

CPS

Avg

LCs

Avg

CPS-LCs

DifferenceYear

CPS

Avg

LCs

Avg

CPS-LCs

Difference

Math-4 2003 214 224 -10 2009 222 231 -9

Math-8 2003 254 262 -8 2009 264 271 -7

Table 2: Reading Grades 4 & 8, CPS vs. Large Cities Average Scores 2003 & 2009

Subject-

GradeYear

CPS

Avg

LCs

Avg

CPS-LCs

DifferenceYear

CPS

Avg

LCs

Avg

CPS-LCs

Difference

Reading-4 2003 198 204 -6 2009 202 210 -8

Reading-8 2003 248 249 -1 2009 249 252 -3

Percent meeting or exceeding NAEP

benchmarks: The DoE also recordsthe percentage of students meetingor exceeding various NAEPbenchmarks.Chicago significantlylags behind urban districts acrossthe U.S. The NAEP defines fourlevels: Below-Basic, At-Or Above-Basic, At-Or-Above-Proficient, and

Advanced. CPS 2009 scoressignificantly trailed the Large Citiesaverage in At-Or Above-Basic, At-Or-Above-Proficient, and Advancedin math (grades 4 and 8) andreading (grade 4).

In 8th-grade reading, Chicago iscomparable to the Large Citiesaverage only At-Or-Above-Basic andis significantly behind in At-Or-Above-Proficient, and Advanced (seeTables 3 & 4). In other words, theonly place Chicago significantlyleads the Large Cities is in thepercent of students Below-Basic in

math (grades 4 and 8) and readinggrade 4.


19/54


Table 3: Math Grades 4 & 8, CPS vs. Large CitiesAt-Or-Above Basic, At-Or-Above

Proficient, Advanced2003 & 2009

Subject &

Grade Year

CPS: At-

Or-AboveBasic

LCs: At-

Or-

AboveBasic

CPS: At-Or-

AboveProficient

LCs: At-Or-

AboveProficient

CPS:

Advanced

LCs:

Advanced

Math-4 2003 50% NA 10% NA 1% NA

Math-4 2009 62% 72% 18% 29% 2% 5%

Math-8 2003 42% NA 9% NA 1% NA

Math-8 2009 51% 60% 15% 23% 2% 5%

Table 4: Reading Grades 4 & 8, CPS vs. Large CitiesAt-Or-Above Basic, At-Or-Above

Proficient, Advanced2003 & 2009

Subject &

GradeYear

CPS: At-

Or-Above

Basic

LCs: At-

Or-

Above

Basic

CPS: At-Or-

Above

Proficient

LCs: At-Or-

Above

Proficient

CPS:

Advanced

LCs:

Advanced

Reading-4 2003 40% NA 14% NA 3% NA

Reading-4 2009 45% 54% 16% 23% 3% 5%

Reading-8 2003 59% NA 15% NA 1% NA

Reading-8 2009 60% 63% 17% 22% 1% 2%

Racial and income disparities:Average scores of CPS AfricanAmerican and Latino studentssignificantly trailed white studentsin math and reading at grades 4 and8, in 2003 and in 2009. Similarly,low-income students significantlytrailed non low-income students in2003 and 2009. African American

and Latino students made up noground on white peers; low-incomestudents made up no ground onwealthier peers.

Furthermore, the racial disparity forstudents meeting or exceeding

various benchmarks was large in2009. In math (grade 4), 44% ofwhite students were At-Or-Above-Proficient, but only 9% of AfricanAmerican students; 7% of whitestudents were Advanced, but 0% ofAfrican Americans. The disparitiesfor 8th-grade math and for 4th- and8th-grade reading are similar. In

particular, African Americanstudents, in 2009, had 0% advancedin 4th-grade math, 8th-grade math,and 8th-grade reading, and 1%advanced in 4th-grade reading (seeTable 5 below). This is alarming.


20/54


Table 5: 2009 CPS NAEP Scores: White-Black Racial Disparities, At-Or-Above-Proficient

and Advanced Levels

2009 CPS NAEP

SCORES

Math

Grade-4

Math

Grade-8

Reading

Grade-4

Reading

Grade-8

WhiteAt-Or-Above-Proficient

44% 39% 41% 40%

African American

At-Or-Above-Proficient9% 7% 10% 11%

White

Advanced7% 10% 12% 3%

African American

Advanced0% 0% 1% 0%

These results raise significant issuesabout equal opportunity to learn.The data reinforce the concernabout mathematics learning for low-income students and students ofcolor raised long ago by educationexpert Walter Secada.54 Secadapointed out that most of the gains

for these students were in lower-level computation skills, rather thanconceptual understanding, higher-order thinking, and problem-solvingskills that would have shown up ingains at the Advanced level. Thatis, to the extent there are gains, low-

income students of color are likelyacquiring very basic skills.

In summary: Chicago studentsmade only very modest progress onthe NAEP test from 2003 -2009under mayoral control and themayor-appointed board. Moreover,those modest gains were statisticallyindistinguishable from the gainsmade by students in other largecentral cities around the country.

CPS students trailed students inLarge Cities in 2003 and made upno ground by 2009. Racialdisparities were statisticallysignificant in 2003 and remained soin 2009. The percent of African

To the extent there are gains,

low-income students of colorare likely acquiring very basic

skills.

The percent of CPS African

American students atAdvanced in the 2009 NAEP

were:

Reading grade 4: 1%Reading grade 8: 0%

Math grade 4: 0%

Math grade 8: 0%


21/54


American students at the Advancedlevel in 2009 is abysmal.


22/54


Graduation and Dropout Rates

Chicago high school graduation anddropout rates under mayoral controlhave barely improved. The gapbetween the rates for AfricanAmericans and whites, and betweenLatinos and whites, has widened.Dropout rates at schools onprobationessentially all low-income students of colorhaveincreased.

In his report for the Education

Research Center on the 50 largesturban areas in the U.S., Swansonreported a 2003-4 school yeargraduation rate of 51.5% for CPS.(Chicago ranked 31st of the 50.)55 A2005 CCSR study found that [o]nly54 percent of the CPS students whowere 13 years old in 1998 graduatedfrom CPS by age 19 in 2004.56

More recent data show little or no

increase since 2004. Catalyst, usingCCSR data, reported that thegraduation rate had inched up to56% in 2006.57 However, after 2006,the graduation rate slipped back. InSummer 2010, Catalyst reported aCPS graduation rate of 54%, no

higher than what the CCSR reportedfor the 1998-2004 time period.58

Under the appointed Board,graduation rates at very low-performing CPS schools, whichoverwhelming serve low-incomestudents of color, are especiallytroubling. In 2006, Catalyst reportedthat graduation and dropout ratesbarely budged in the 18 highschools that were on probation from2002 to 2006, although they hadextra instructional support.59 TheCatalyst, using CCSR data, alsoreported in 2007 that the gap ingraduation rates between AfricanAmerican and white students grewfrom 15.4 percent in 2002 to 18.5percent in 2006.60 District datacorroborate the racial gap.According to CPS, the differential ingraduation rates between Latinosand whites, and between AfricanAmericans and whites, increasedfrom 1999 to 2010.61

The district made progress overall inlowering dropout rates since 1999,although they stopped decreasingafter 2007. CPS refers to a 5-yearcohort dropout rate, which is thepercent of students who drop outwithin five years of entering highschool. This dropout rate declinedfrom 50.1% in 1999 to 41.1% in2010.62 However, racial disparitiesincreased. The difference betweenthe dropout rate for AfricanAmerican and white students was6.4 percent in 1999. This grew to10.8 percent in 2010. Latinostudents 1999 dropout rate was 0.7percent higher than the white

Chicago high school graduation

and dropout rates under

mayoral control have barelyimproved. The gap between the

rates for African Americans

and whites, and betweenLatinos and whites, has

widened.


23/54


dropout rate; this grew to 3.4percent by 2010.63

Under the mayor-appointed Board,graduation rates barely improvedand then trended downward, whiledropout rates decreased slightly.Racial disparities increased for bothgraduation and dropout rates.African Americans and Latinosgraduate at lower rates than whites,and the gap is growing. Both AfricanAmericans and Latinos drop out athigher rates than whites, and thegap is growing.

Renaissance 2010In 2004, the Board approvedRenaissance 2010, a policy to close60-70 failing schools (later under-enrolled schools were added) andopen 100 new schools, two-thirds ascharter or contract schools (similarto charter schools). CPS states thatRenaissance 2010 is an initiative toexpand quality education options

to children in the most underservedareas. 64 Yet overall, Renaissance2010 has not improved educationfor these students who are low-income students of color. Six yearsafter the policy began, almost 75%of Chicago school children stillattended low-performing schools.65And only 16 of the 92 new schoolscreated under the policy have

reached the state average on testscores.66

School closings

After the first two years of schoolclosings, most displaced studentswere reassigned to schoolsacademically and demographically

similar to those they left, with 84%attending schools with below-average district test scores and 44%in schools on probation.67 Thispattern continued.

A CCSR study of Renaissance 2010in 2009 found that most displacedelementary school studentstransferred from one low-performingschool to another with virtually no

effect on student achievement. Eightof ten students displaced by schoolclosings transferred to schools thatranked in the bottom half of thesystem on standardized tests.68 Atthe same time, teachers andcommunity members claimed thatschools closed for low performancehad not been given the resources tosucceed. Parents and educators in

an area of the Midsouth,69

whereRenaissance 2010 was first focused,said that they were set up forfailure.70

Renaissance 2010 has beendestabilizing for communitiesalready under stress.71 The evidence

Renaissance 2010 has not

improved education forstudents it was designed to

affect primarily low-income

students of color in lowperforming schools.


24/54


indicates that for students andschools directly affected byRenaissance 2010, mobility wentup,72 travel distances increased, andschool violence spiked.73 The Board

closed some schools for lowachievement, although they showeda record of improvement, and insome cases, documented that theylacked necessary resources.74 Goodneighborhood schools, particularlyin Latino communities, were closedfor low enrollment despite evidencethat they were utilizing theirfacilities in educationally

appropriate ways and that some ofthe best schools in the system hadeven lower enrollments.75 CPStransferred some students in theMidsouth to as many as fourschools in three years as the districtclosed one school after another.Receiving schools were alsodestabilized by the influx of

dislocated students.76

As CPS closes neighborhoodschools, more students are forced totravel outside their neighborhoods.In 2008, the Catalystreported,Among charters opened since 2004,when Renaissance 2010 was

launched, the percentage ofstudents who commute to schoolfrom 6 miles away or more hasincreased to 13 percent forelementary school students, up from

9 percent; and 15 percent for highschool students, up from 10percent77

School closings also led to spikes inviolence in high schools and someelementary schools. CPS transferredstudents to schools out of theirneighborhood and placed them inphysical jeopardy. For example,there were violent confrontationswhen Austin High School studentswere transferred to Clemente, andEnglewood students weretransferred to Robeson, Dyett,Hirsch, and Hyde Park HighSchools.78 After the Board turnedCarver Area High School into aselective-enrollment militaryacademy and transferredneighborhood students to Fenger

High School five miles away,violence spiked at Fenger,culminating in a highly publicizedstudent death in September 2009.

Local School Councils(LSCs)

Under Renaissance 2010, the Boardcloses neighborhood schools withelected LSCs and opens charter andcontract schools without them. Yet

LSCs are an important componentof building school-communityrelationships and a means forparent input in local schooldecisions. (LSCs hire principals andapprove school improvement plansand discretionary budgets.) TheBoard seems to be ignoring

For students and schoolsdirectly affected by

Renaissance 2010, mobility

went up, travel distancesincreased, and school violence

spiked.


25/54


substantial research on theimportant role of school-communitypartnerships and the value of LSCsin school improvement.

Two large-scale studies of successfulCPS neighborhood schools identifyrelationships with parents andcommunities as essential tosubstantially improve academicachievement.79 Designs for Changeresearchers studied 144 high-achieving inner-city elementaryschools that had been lowperforming but had significantlyimproved academic achievement inreading and mathematics over 15years. They found that the mostconsistent feature of these schools isthat all adults work as a team toimprove education, including theteachers, parents, Local SchoolCouncil, principal, and communityagencies [emphasis in theoriginal].80

The CCSRs extensive research onsuccessful school reform in CPS81identified parent, school, andcommunity ties82 as one of the fiveessential supports83 for schoolimprovement. Effective LSCsinstitutionalize this relationship inCPS, yet by reducing the number ofLCSs, Board policies diminish thecapacity of parent-communityinvolvement to improve schools.

The Relationships of School Closings

and Gentrification

Maps produced by the Data andDemocracy Project84 show thatunder Renaissance 2010, schoolclosings have been concentrated in

African American and Latino areasexperiencing gentrification thedisplacement of low-income andworking-class residents by upper-income residents. In 2008 and

2009, proposed school closings weremostly in, or adjacent to, areaswhere housing prices had gone uprapidly and significantly.85 Largechanges in housing prices are oneindicator of gentrification.

Closing a school is a very seriousdecision under any circumstances,but it can have particularconsequences for already-destabilized, low-incomecommunities. A school closing canbe the last straw pushing low-income residents out of theneighborhood and facilitating theprocess of turning it over to middle-class residents. Closing a schoolmeans the loss of communityprograms, trusted educators, andincreased student mobility. It means

disruption of established parent-school connections.86 Schools areanchors in neighbourhoods alreadydestabilized by high housing prices,foreclosures, unemployment, andthe loss of community institutionsdue to disinvestment. At several CPShearings about school closings,community members testified thattheir school was the heart of the

community.The Boards decisions, in 2008 and2009, to phase out severalneighborhood schools serving low-income African American and Latinostudents are examples. The Boardsrationale was that the schools were


26/54


underenrolled.87 However, teachersand parents presented substantialevidence of the educationallyappropriate utilization of theschools space and the schools

academic success and enrichmentprograms. They argued that theirschools fit the criteria for smallschools, an innovation that theBoard supported at the time.

Despite broad support from theschool communities, the Boardvoted to phase them out even whenother schools in the district weremore significantly underenrolled.88Two of the planned phase-outschools were in gentrifying areaswith high concentrations of newmillion and half-million dollarhomes.89 In 2008, the Board votedto phase out Andersen elementaryschool and replace it with LaSalleLanguage Academy II, a prestigiousselective-enrollment magnet schoolthat few Andersen students were

able to attend. In 2009, the Boardvoted to phase out Carpenterelementary school, which had one ofthe premier hearing-impairedprograms in the city and a variety ofenrichment programs forneighborhood children. The schoolwas phased out so the facility couldbe turned over to OgdenInternational School, a grade 6-12

magnet school that parents in theaffluent Gold Coast area, across theexpressway, had lobbied for as anextension of their elementary school.The Board assigned Carpenterchildren to other schools.90

The apparent association of school

closings with gentrification raisesthe question: Are the Boardsdecisions to close neighborhood

schools and open new schools madeon educational grounds or are theyto benefit real estate anddevelopment interests and affluentfamilies? In the context of the focusof this report, this highlights theproblem of a mayor-appointed boardin which the business community ishighly over represented and which isnot directly accountable to the

public.Teacher Turnover and Loss of

Teaching Staff

Under mayoral control, CPS has ahigh rate of teacher turnover,particularly affecting schools servinglow-income African American andLatino students. In 2009, the CCSRreported within five years, thetypical CPS school loses over half ofits teachers. Many schools turn overhalf of their teaching staff everythree years.91 Most alarming, about100 mostly low-income AfricanAmerican and Latino schools lose aquarter or more of their teachingstaffs every year. Further, the study

Are the Boards decisions to

close neighborhood schools and

open new schools made oneducational grounds or are they

to benefit real estate and

development interests andaffluent families?


27/54


found that teachers are less likely tostay in schools that arepredominantly African Americanthan schools with otherracial/ethnic compositions.

While some teacher mobility is to beexpected, high rates of teacherturnover disrupt sustainedprofessional development andprogram continuity. This is criticalbecause the majority of theseschools struggle with low studentachievement, and teacher instabilitymakes it more difficult to strengthen

teaching and learning.

Over the past 10 years, there was adisproportionate loss of AfricanAmerican teachers. From 2000 to2010, CPS African Americanteaching force declined by 11%(from 40.6% to 29.6% of theteaching force) while the percentageof white teachers increased by 5.2%.

(See Figure 1.) ISBE state reportcards show that the district lost2759 African American teachers.92

Because most schools closed underRenaissance 2010 were in AfricanAmerican communities with theheaviest concentrations of AfricanAmerican educators, these teachers

have been particularly affected byschool closings.

Education research shows thatsuccessful teachers of AfricanAmerican and Latino studentsunderstand and relate to theirstudents communities,backgrounds, and cultures.93Increasing the percentage ofteachers from these communities isone important way to address thiscomponent of effective teaching.Thus, the loss of 11% of AfricanAmerican teachers in a districtwhose population is nearly 50%African American is a step backwardfor educational equity.

The loss of 11% of AfricanAmerican teachers in a

district whose student

population is nearly 50%African American is a step

backward for educational

equity.


28/54


Figure 1: Percent Change in CPS Student and Teacher Demographics, 2000-2010

Expansion of Charter Schools

The Board has significantlyexpanded charter schools inChicago since 1996 when the IllinoisState legislature authorized charter

schools to operate in the state.Under the Boards authority, charterschools increased from six in 1996to 77 charter school campuses in2011.94 Arguably, closingneighborhood schools and openingcharter schools, primarily servingstudents of color, is the districtsmost dramatic education initiative.

Yet, in an era of evidence-basedreform there is little evidence thatcharter schools overall improvestudents educational experiencesand outcomes. When charterschools began in the 1990s, theywere seen as incubators forinnovative educational practices

that could revitalize publiceducation in general. Instead, overthe last decade, charter schoolexpansion exploded nationally as asilver bullet for lagging urban

schools, without adequate data towarrant this move.

The data on charter schooloutcomes are mixed. The mostauthoritative national study to datewas published by the StanfordCREDO Institute in 2009 andencompassed data from 70% of thestudents in U.S. charter schools.

(Researchers reviewed over 1.7

million records from more than2400 schools.)95 CREDO researcherscompared charter school students tothose in what they calledtraditional [neighborhood] publicschools (TPS).


29/54


The CREDO study found that,overall, charter school students arenot performing as well as TPSstudents: 17% of charter schoolsperform significantly better than

TPS, 37% significantly worse, and46% show no significant difference.Elementary charter schools, overall,do better than TPS, while charterhigh schools do worse. Additionally,charter schools nationally are moresegregated by race and poverty thanpublic schools.96

Chicago charter school outcomesare also mixed. CREDO concludedthat charter school students inChicago are doing significantlybetter, however, the study onlyexamined Chicago data fromstudents in grades 3-8. Since theirstudy found that charter high schoolstudents are doing significantlyworse nationally, it is likely that

CREDO results for Chicago wouldhave been different if high schoolstudents had been included in theChicago data. The study found thatChicago elementary charterstudents are performing no better inreading than their peers in TPS butsignificantly better in mathematics.

However, racial disparities surfaced.African Americans in Chicagoelementary charter schools did nobetter in mathematics butsignificantly worse in reading, and

Latino students did significantlyworse in both mathematics andreading than their peers inelementary TPS. Another study ofChicago charter schools, conductedby the RAND Corporation in 2008,examined achievement in grades 3-8in 32 charter schools and foundonly small differences in averageachievement gains between

[elementary] charter schools andCPS schools, and these differencesdo not point in consistentdirections.97

The RAND study also foundevidence that Chicago's charter HSs[high schools] may produce positiveeffects on ACT scores [of 0.5 points],the probability of graduating, andthe probability of enrolling in

collegebut these positive effectsare solidly evident only in thecharter HSs that also includedmiddle school grades. It isimportant to note that these dataare estimates based on probabilities.

A 2009 study by Brown andGutstein, found that Chicagoscharter high schools produced nosignificantly better academicachievement on the ACT thanneighborhood high schools, whileserving fewer English languagelearners and low-income students,and significantly fewer special-needsstudents. The study alsodocumented that CPS charter high

Although data on charterschools, nationally and

locally, are mixed, there is no

evidence that, overall, CPScharter schools are

significantly better than

traditional public schools.


30/54


school teachers have less experienceand less education on average thanthose in neighborhood high schools.There is also a higher rate of teacherturnover in charter schools than

other CPS schools. On average,Chicago charter schools replacedmore than half of their staffmembers between 2008 and 2010. 98The Catalyst notes that this isusually symptomatic of a school inturmoil.99

Chicago High School Redesign

Initiative

One Board policy that showedpromise was the Chicago HighSchool Redesign Initiative (CHSRI).However, when external startupfunding ended, the Board chose toend CHSRI and pursue Renaissance2010. Before CPS embarked on abroad policy of closing neighborhoodschools, the district embraced smallhigh schools through CHSRI. Under

the initiative, CPS created 23 small,neighborhood high schools between2002 and 2007. In August 2008, theBoard ended the program with 17 ofthe original schools still inexistence. Yet, a comprehensive2010 report on CHSRI outcomes bythe CCSR found that CHSRI schoolsoffered a promising alternative toimproving educational outcomes forlow-performing students in areas ofthe city not served by high-qualityhigh schools.100

The CHSRI small schools wereintended to provide educationalopportunities for students in under-served neighborhoodsneighborhoods marked by

significant educational need.101 Thereport found that CHSRI schools didthis. They served students who didnot have privileged backgroundsor strong academic records102 (so-

called at-risk students, in CCSRslanguage), and who would havelikely attended traditional under-performing neighborhood highschools.

Students in CHSRI schools, incomparison to their peers in regularneighborhood schools, as a wholetended to have lower elementaryschool achievement and greatermobility and were more likely tohave changed schools right beforehigh school. They were also morelikely to have received specialeducation services. Across the years,they were about 98% students ofcolor. Yet the CHSRI studentsperformed as well or better thansimilar students in other similarCPS schools on a number of

important outcomes.103 Theseoutcomes included attendance,grades in core subjects, percentagesof students on-track to graduate,and graduation rates.

Although the report found thatCHSRI graduates as a whole werenot yet college-ready (based ontheir ACT scores), CCSR researchersconcluded:

this initiative didaccomplish much, but not all,of what it was intended todo.Many other schooldistricts are facing the sameproblem: how to bring under-performing students to college


31/54


readiness in the span of fouryears. Countless researchersand practitioners aresearching for a replicable,scaleable method to

accomplish this formidabletask. The CHSRI schools havegotten at least part of theequation: their studentspersist in school and theygraduate. This foundationshould be recognized andbuilt uponand notforgottenas schoolscontinue to find ways to

accelerate academicachievement for theirstudents.104

CHSRI was a relatively successfulinitiative to accelerate academicachievement in neighborhood publicschools. But the Board dropped theprogram and directed resources toclosing neighborhood schools,expanding charters, and opening

turnaround schools.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Chicago Boards structures andpractices significantly limit theinvolvement of parents, teachers,students, and community membersto have input in Board policy anddecisions. Years of announcing

school closings on short noticewithout consultation with thoseaffected have left many communitiescynical about the responsivenessand accountability of the mayor-appointed Board.

Board members generally do notattend hearings related to schoolclosings. Instead, the Board hireshearing officers to take two-minutetestimonies from community

members, teachers, parents, andstudents. At the February 2009meeting, Board members admittedthat none of them had read thetranscripts of these communityhearings even though they were tovote on school closings that day.105Some hearings take place at CPSheadquarters downtown, making itdifficult for community members to

attend.The structure of Board meetingsminimizes public participation.Meetings are held on Wednesdaymornings when most people work.To speak at a meeting, one must getin line as early as 6:00 AM to signup for an opportunity to speak.Those who actually get to speak arelimited to two minutes. Seating in

board chambers is extremelylimited, with nearly one-third ofseats reserved for CPS staffers, whorarely participate in the meetings. Attimes, hundreds of communitymembers who wish to attend themeeting of a public body makingcritical decisions about theirchildrens education are excludedfrom the chambers. After a public

comment period, the boarddiscusses behind closed doors.

It is evident that communitymembers feel that the Board isunresponsive to their input andconcerns. The Board used to haveseveral committees that met


32/54


monthly and allowed multipleopportunities for the public to speakon key issues. These weredisbanded under mayoral control.

Parents, students, communitymembers, and teachers have felt itnecessary to picket, hold candlelightvigils, and even sleep out twice infront of CPS headquarters, once inthe dead of winter, to have theirviews heard. In 2010, parents ofWhittier elementary school becameso frustrated by years of the Boardsunresponsiveness to their requestfor a school library that theyoccupied the school field house for43 days. This recalled the 19-day,2001 hunger strike by parents andcommunity members in LittleVillage. The hunger strike was a lastresort after years of petitioning theBoard for a new high school andafter $30 million earmarked for theschool was diverted to build two newselective-enrollment high schools in

gentrifying neighborhoods.106

At Board meetings and communityhearings, teachers, parents, andstudents warned about the dangersof district proposals to close specificschools and transfer studentsacross neighborhood boundaries.The Board made the decisions toclose the schools anyway, andviolence to students followed.Teachers and administrators inschools slated to be closed (orphased out) for low enrollmentprovided the Board withdocumentation that the buildingswere being used appropriately, thateducational programs were of high

quality, and that the school spacewas being used to the benefit of thecommunity.107 In the vast majorityof cases, the Board closed (orphased out) the schools

nevertheless. This record raises afundamental question: How well canthe Board make informed policydecisions when it does not involvethe public it serves?

The current Board composition issharply distinguished from CPSfamilies who are nearly 90% lowincome. The Board members are: apartner in one of the 10 largest lawfirms in the world, a chair of afinancial consulting company, apresident of a managementconsulting firm, a corporate vicepresident, a vice president of aninvestment company, a president ofa financial consulting firm, and aphysician. None is an educator.

This Board is an appointed body of

elite decision-makers, not directlyaccountable to the public. This isdisturbing because there issubstantial research demonstratingthat the knowledge and experienceof proven educators and engagedparents is essential to goodeducational decision-making.108

ELECTED SCHOOL BOARDS

Ninety-six percent of school districts

in the nation have elected schoolboards, with a variety of structuresand methods of electing members.Election by subdistricts or regions ismore frequently found in largeurban areas. Boards elected bysubdistricts increase broad


33/54


representation. They are moreheterogeneous, bringing a moreracially and economically diversegroup of people into school policymaking.

In contrast, boards elected citywidetend to be homogeneous anddisproportionately white, and middleand upper class109 and tend todisadvantage working-classcandidates and people of color.110Boards elected citywide tend to passmore unanimous resolutions andmay appear to operate moresmoothly. Yet, evidence suggeststhat they are often more connectedto (and possibly influenced by)special interests. Individuals needmore money to run citywidecampaigns and are therefore morelikely to be associated with powerfulbusiness interests111 and thus lessrepresentative of all the students inthe school district.

Steps to Strengthen Democratic

Participation and Public

Accountability

A number of problems have beenidentified with elected schoolboards: representatives can

narrowly represent theirconstituencies and fail to look outfor the interests of students as awhole; board meetings can becomepartisan and adversarial with

localized interests predominating;election are a weak form ofdemocracy if there is littleinteraction with constituencies andif voters with less power have lessaccess to elected representatives;voter turnout tend to be small; andthose with less power in the city aredisadvantaged in runningcandidates.112

While these problems exist, researchsuggests structural and proceduralsteps can strengthen democraticparticipation and publicaccountability:113

1. School board elections heldat the same time asmunicipal elections resultin higher voter turnout.

2. Election by district orregion of the city increasesracial and economicdiversity.

3. Processes of open,deliberative democracy andengagement promote publicparticipationwe ratherthan I thinking.

4.

School boards elected as aslate committed to workingtogether toward a commoneducation program offervoters clear policy choicesand decrease local selfinterest in decision-making.

Boards elected by subdistrictsare more heterogeneous,

bringing a more racially and

economically diverse group ofpeople into school policy

making.


34/54


Can an Elected School Board

Make a Difference?

We searched for examplesdemonstrating that having anelected school board can make adifference in the kinds of policydecisions the board makes. Weespecially looked for cases of electedboards being responsive andaccountable to concerns ofcommunities and teachersissuesaddressed in this report. We wantedto see if democratic processes ofelected boards helped to advanceequity policies. The following casesillustrate processes of deliberativedemocracy. In these cases, havingan elected school board seemed tocreate conditions for communitymembers and teachers to contributeto educational decisions.

Milwaukee Public Schools

Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS)hasa nine-member elected Board ofSchool Directors with eightmembers elected by subdistrict andone at large. Currently the Boardconsists of two former teachers,three professors, an accountant, acity administrator, a retiredcommunity and union activist, anda firefighter. Committee meetingsand regular Board meetings

generally begin at 6:30 p.m.

Board processes. The MPS Boardhas structures and processes thatenable community members andeducators to raise issues and affectdecisions. Members of the publiccan bring issues to individual Board

members or to the Boards Office ofGovernance, or they can request apublic hearing before the BoardsParent and Community EngagementCommittee. Each of the Boards five

committees has monthly publicmeetings where anyone can speakon each agenda item. Thecommittees meet until everyone whowishes to speak has done so.

Proposed school closings go througha community-based process thatincludes the Superintendentmeeting with the school communityand school personnel, a period ofdiscussion, and then a public Boardmeeting to consider the closing.After lengthy deliberations, theBoard has cancelled some schoolclosings while approving others.

Textbook adoption issue. A recenttextbook adoption illustrates aBoard process that facilitatescommunity involvement. In 2008,

teachers and community memberslearned that MPS was about toadopt a K-8 social studies textbookseries that they believed wouldmiseducate students and fail toteach social responsibility. (TheNational Council for the SocialStudies recommends thatcurriculum should provide accuratecontent and diverse and globalperspectives to allow students tounderstand the realities of our worldand their responsibilities as caringand effective citizens/communitymembers.114) The 5th-grade text didnot mention racism or anti-Semitism, hardly mentioneddiscrimination, and did not


35/54


acknowledge that some U.S.presidents had owned slaves. At thesame time, social movements thathave historically addressedinjustices (e.g., labor, womens,

peace, and environmentalmovements) were omitted from thebooks.115

The educators and communitymembers voiced their concernspublicly and lobbied their electedschool board members. In response,the Board postponed adoption of theseries and gave concerned partiestime to review the texts and thedistricts approach to teaching socialstudies. In June, communitymembers and educators formed aSocial Studies Task Force, a broadcoalition of educators andcommunity organizations, co-chaired by a representative of theNAACP and an award-winningelementary teacher.

Ultimately, the Task Force anddistrict decided to: a) reject the K3textbooks in favor of securingalternate high-quality resources andpromoting best instructionalpractices; b) adopt the WisconsinState Historical Society's 4th gradetextbook and provide a supplementto address race and labor issues;and c) adopt the publisher's 5th-grade textbook if the publishersupplied a district-approvedsupplement to address itsweaknesses.116 The district alsoagreed to provide supplementaryprofessional development onantiracist, multicultural

understandings and teachingstrategies.117

The social studies textbookadoption, involving $4 million, was aserious decision for the district.Because there was a process ofpublic discussion and a responsiveschool board, the final decision wasmore aligned with MPSsCharacteristics of High PerformingUrban Classrooms. The processalso began a public conversationamong community members,teachers, and administrators aboutappropriate textbooks andcurriculum.

Tucson Unified School District

The Tucson Unified School District(TUSD) has a five-person GoverningBoard elected citywide. The Board iscomposed of a lawyer, a citytransportation department manager,a director of a County teen court, aprofessor, and a university student.The Board holds its monthly publicmeetings at 6:30 PM.

School Closings. In January 2008,the district superintendent proposedthat the Board close four schools forbudgetary reasons, including OchoaElementary, an 85-year old schoolthat is 95% Latino and Native

American and has relatively low testscores. At the February 2008 Boardmeeting, many in the largegathering expressed anger that thesuperintendent made the proposalwithout consulting the affectedschools. Board members decided toconsider the proposal, but also


36/54


planned to hold evening communityhearings at each school, which theyand the superintendent wouldattend. In March, the 600 peopleattending the Board hearing at

Ochoa school overwhelminglysupported keeping the school open.

At the April Board meeting, three ofthe five Board members spokeagainst any school closures, partlyin response to concerns about thedistricts federal desegregation orderand partly in response to theoutpouring of support for the fourschools. Thus, the district closed noschools.

When the superintendent retiredsoon afterward, the Board selected areplacement who agreed to consultwith school communities beforeproposing closings. The newly hiredsuperintendent offered the idea,adopted by the Board, that schoolcommunities facing possible

closings due to poor performance orlow enrollments develop their ownproposals about consolidating withother schools, closing, remainingopen, or exploring other options.

Mexican American Studies Program.Tucson has had a MexicanAmerican studies program since1997. Its goals include that schoolsuse students culture and language

to support learning, culturalawareness, and civic engagement.High school seniors in the MexicanAmerican Studies program havehigher achievement and graduationrates than students not in theprogram.118 Starting in 2007, then-State Superintendent of Schools,

Tom Horne, began to criticize theprogram for teaching MexicanAmerican history, saying that it hada radical separatist agenda.119

Throughout the multi-year conflictover the program, teachers,students, parents, and universityfaculty supporting Mexican-American studies in Tucsonmaintained a consistent presence atBoard meetings. In January 2011, alaw passed by the state legislaturewent into effect essentially requiringTUSD to disband the program orforfeit 10% of state education funds.On December 30, 2010, underthreat of losing millions of dollars,the Board resolved to implementethnic studies in TUSD, while alsobeing in accordance with allapplicable laws.120 The Boardsattempt to preserve a program thatbenefits all students was inresponse to strong support in theMexican American community.

San Francisco Unified School

District

The seven-person San FranciscoUnified School District (SFUSD)Board of Education is electedcitywide. The Board is composed ofa writer, an education policy expert,a director of a parent organization, a

former teacher, a director of awomens health program, a publicadministrator, and a fundraiser. TheBoard holds its regular monthlymeetings at 6:00 PM.

Racial Equity Report Card. The SanFrancisco case illustrates that a


37/54


community can hold an electedboard accountable for transparencyand for addressing equity issues. In2005, community members andeducators concerned with

inequitable educational experiencesof African American studentspressed the Board to publishstudent outcomes by race and toproduce a Racial Equity ReportCard. The Report Card reportedacademic achievement and truancy,drop out, suspension, and expulsionrates by race. It also reported kindsof discipline infractions and severity

of punishments by race. The resultsrevealed broad racial inequities anddisparities.

The Report Card demonstrated tothe public where the district neededto concentrate resources andprovided a basis in evidence to lobbyfor change. The discipline data werethe basis for community membersand educators to press for a

restorative justice policy (enacted in2009) that has brought down therate of expulsions and suspensions.The Racial Equity Report Card isnow published annually as a way togauge progress, press for necessaryinitiatives, and hold the districtaccountable.

School closings. In 2004, the districtsuperintendent proposed closingschools to address low academicachievement. However, manyparents, teachers, and communitymembers believed soundalternatives existed. They organizedto elect Board members who pledgedto find educationally effective

alternatives to school closings. Thenew Board selected a newsuperintendent more aligned withthe communitys goals andeducational philosophy, who has

since closed no schools. Instead, thesuperintendent has opened thedoors of his office to meet withstakeholders and has worked closelywith the Board of Education to passand implement policies that aremore inclusive of students of colorand to address disparities in racialachievement.

The San Francisco case alsoillustrates a mechanism for anelected board to coordinateeffectively with other branches ofcity government. In San Francisco, ajoint committee of the city counciland Board of Education coordinatesschools policy. In 2007 the citycouncil set aside surplus city fundsin a rainy day fund for schools. Inthe last two years, despite revenue

losses, similar to other cities, theSFUSD has not had to lay off anyteachers because of this fund.Because both the city council andBoard are elected, constituents canhold them collectively accountable.

San Diego Unified School District

The San Diego Unified School

District (SDUSD) has a five-memberBoard of Education. Members arenominated by geographic area andelected by San Diego countyresidents. The current Board,elected after a series of communityforums, is composed of a teacher, a


38/54


psychologist, a president of ataxpayer organization, aunion/community organizer, and anex-teacher. The Board holdsmonthly meetings at 5:00 PM.

College-Ready Graduation

Requirements. Community-basedand other civic organizations in SanDiego have proposed severalinitiatives to which the Board hasagreed. One proposal was to changethe district graduation requirementsso that all graduating seniors wouldbe fully qualified for the highlycompetitive University of California(UC) system. This proposal wasinitiated by the EducationConsortium (EC), a broad-based,non-partisan collaboration oforganizations and individualsworking to increase educationalopportunities and achievements ofeconomically and educationallydisadvantaged students in SanDiego County. The EC includes

diverse organizations such as theACLU and NAACP.

In June 2009, the SDUSD voted toadopt an EC-drafted resolutiondirecting the district superintendentto ensure that all graduating seniorsmeet UC entrance requirements,starting with students in the 2010-11 school year. The resolution hasmajor implications for SDUSDbecause in 2009, only 42% ofgraduating seniors took theappropriate coursesand an evensmaller percentage of students ofcolor, low-income students, English-language learners, and special-needs students. The College-Ready

Graduation Requirements representa commitment to equitableopportunity to learn for thesestudents.

Education Not Arms. The Board alsoresponded to two initiatives of acoalitionof communityorganizations and high schoolstudents. One was a decision inFebruary 2009 to ban weaponstraining and JROTC gun ranges inSan Diego schools. Students wereintegral to convincing Boardmembers. One member, John LeeEvans, said, I am extremelyimpressed by this fine group ofyoung people. I have an immenseamount of respect. [for] a group ofyoung people who are committed toeducation, committed to non-violence and who are alsocommitted to the democraticprocess in terms of organizingthemselves in the community andspeaking out.

He was responding, in part, to ahigh school students testimony atthe meeting: A school that teachesstudents to shoot weapons seemsclearly ironic. Our books are theultimate weapons to succeed, notguns. I also expect the board touphold the idea that no guns inschool means no guns in school!121

The second initiative was also aresponse to public pressure,particularly from organized studentswho said they were besieged byunwanted solicitations from militaryrecruiters in their schools. TheBoard voted in November 2010 tolimit military recruiters to no more


39/54


than two visits per school year forany given school. Under new Boardrules, students have to initiatecontact with recruiters, andstudents personal information is no

longer available to the militarywithout permission. Prior to theboard decision to restrict militaryaccess to students, militaryrecruiters had been able to set updaily recruitment stations withinschools and could approachstudents to recruit them.

CONCLUSION

This report addresses the question:Should Chicago have an electedrepresentative school board? Therationale for mayoral control ofChicago Public Schools was that anappointed Board of Education,answerable only to the mayor, wouldmore effectively and efficientlyimprove schools. After 15 years, wecan take stock of Chicagos mayor-

appointed Board and how well it hasmeasured up. Several themesemerge from a review of theresearch.

First, despite the press for mayoralcontrol nationally, there is noconclusive evidence that appointedboards are more effective atgoverning schools, nor is theredefinitive evidence that mayoral

control improves achievement.Second, contrary to the story of theChicago miracle, there has beenminimal improvement in academicachievement, graduation rates, anddropout rates in Chicago PublicSchools. Chicago continues to

significantly lag behind other l

final school board report w website

Documents