Cross-Town Kids There's an article in the Village Voice (New York's equivalent to the Reader) about [url=http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0746,demause,78341,12.html/full]parents sending their kids to schools outside their neighborhood zone[/url]. Four questions based on New York's experience: (a) does CPS have an actual form that parents can fill out to transfer their kid legally for health, safety, siblings, childcare, or "other"? (b) is there as much variation from one part of CPS to another in terms of what principals will allow (are there some principals known to allow pretty much any parent to enroll)? (c) are there actual carpools for parents who are making the same illicit trek across town day after day, and (d) what CPS schools are currently being "bypassed" by gentrifying parents in favor of other more desirable neighborhood schools?
Digg
Del.icio.us
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Cross-Town Kids
Re: A - I believe that option in CPS would be the magnet cluster program. About half of CPS’ elementary schools are magnet clusters, which enroll all neighborhood kids first and then are open to admission by lottery (or unofficially by the principal’s whim) for remaining spaces. No reason needs to be given.
Re: B - I think this really just depends on space available. At some magnet clusters that are underenrolled, there may be enough room for all applicants, whereas at others, there are only a handful of spots.
Re: making an illicit trek - The article discusses how NYC parents commonly misrepresent their address in order to gain access to a desireable school, and this goes on in Chicago as well, of course, but I don’t think to the extent described in NY. I think it’s reprehensible, if for no other reason than that a parent who does that teaches his child that it’s acceptable to lie in order to gain something. Also, I can’t imagine having to instruct my child to do things to keep the deception going, like memorizing the false address, rememberint to write it on anything school-related, etc.
As to your last question, I believe 90 percent of CPS schools are being bypassed by parents with the resources to make other arrangements, if necessary. The question really is which are the more desireable neighborhood schools (and magnets), and for that list you can just look at the latest ISAT results table, because the correlation between perceived (repeat, perceived) quality and test scores is direct and strong.
Re: B - I think this really just depends on space available. At some magnet clusters that are underenrolled, there may be enough room for all applicants, whereas at others, there are only a handful of spots.
Re: making an illicit trek - The article discusses how NYC parents commonly misrepresent their address in order to gain access to a desireable school, and this goes on in Chicago as well, of course, but I don’t think to the extent described in NY. I think it’s reprehensible, if for no other reason than that a parent who does that teaches his child that it’s acceptable to lie in order to gain something. Also, I can’t imagine having to instruct my child to do things to keep the deception going, like memorizing the false address, rememberint to write it on anything school-related, etc.
As to your last question, I believe 90 percent of CPS schools are being bypassed by parents with the resources to make other arrangements, if necessary. The question really is which are the more desireable neighborhood schools (and magnets), and for that list you can just look at the latest ISAT results table, because the correlation between perceived (repeat, perceived) quality and test scores is direct and strong.
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Cross-Town Kids
According to this research (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1017766), attending one of CPS' "schools of choice" may have little impact on a student's academic performance.
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Cross-Town Kids
There may be some type of transfer form. If so, it's widely ignored. Generally CPS principals have complete discretion over who to enroll. There was a time, maybe still now, when school officials were trying to enforce a set of enrollment rules in an attempt to prohibit the enrollment of non-area students if doing so would cause the racial make-up of the school to fall out of some acceptal range of racial diversity. For example, if a 75% White school with a magnet cluster program had more non-area applicants than spaces available, and if the racial breakdown of non-area applicants was half minority and half white, I think an argument was made that the school should ensure preference was given to the minority applicants, because not doing so might make the school more white and simultaneously make the minority applicants' home schools more racially isolated (assuming the non-area, non-accepted minority students then had no choice but to enroll in their potentially racially isolated home school).
Notwithstanding policies related to the consent decree (likely to be lifted soon), many neighborhood schools without the types of magnet cluster and gifted programs that tend to attract non-area students enroll lots of non-area students regardless. This goes on unnoticed for the most part. It only becomes an issue (as M points out) when a school is tight on space. In such cases principals are supposed to reduce or eliminate the enrollment of non-area students so as not to create or worsen an over-crowding problem. And I do think the principals are just supposed to know this. I don't think you'll find it any policy.
Any school principal knows that enrolling non-area students is a great way to fill in classrooms where there may only be 20-25 students. Of course, principals of schools where the neighborhood population is moving out or choosing other public schools in large numbers tend to enroll larger numbers of non-area students so they can avoid losing teacher positions. Look at any of the lower-performing north side schools and you'll find larger numbers of non-area students than highly attractive north side schools.
Enrollment of non-area students is much more common at neighborhood high schools, mainly because high school students are more willing/capable of travelling greater distances and, compared to elementary schools, generally less receptive to choosing their neighborhood high school.
Notwithstanding policies related to the consent decree (likely to be lifted soon), many neighborhood schools without the types of magnet cluster and gifted programs that tend to attract non-area students enroll lots of non-area students regardless. This goes on unnoticed for the most part. It only becomes an issue (as M points out) when a school is tight on space. In such cases principals are supposed to reduce or eliminate the enrollment of non-area students so as not to create or worsen an over-crowding problem. And I do think the principals are just supposed to know this. I don't think you'll find it any policy.
Any school principal knows that enrolling non-area students is a great way to fill in classrooms where there may only be 20-25 students. Of course, principals of schools where the neighborhood population is moving out or choosing other public schools in large numbers tend to enroll larger numbers of non-area students so they can avoid losing teacher positions. Look at any of the lower-performing north side schools and you'll find larger numbers of non-area students than highly attractive north side schools.
Enrollment of non-area students is much more common at neighborhood high schools, mainly because high school students are more willing/capable of travelling greater distances and, compared to elementary schools, generally less receptive to choosing their neighborhood high school.
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Cross-Town Kids
The white paper "Subterfuge" references above is not really on point. It's one thing for students to scramble for a seat in a selective enrollment, or gifted school program. It's another phenomenon altogether for students to enroll in neighborhood schools other than their own.
Some will say there's no difference, but there's a big difference. The admissions process for magnet and gifted schools is managed by central office, while the admissions process for neighborhood schools (particularly those with magnet cluster programs) is managed by the school principal.
Some will say there's no difference, but there's a big difference. The admissions process for magnet and gifted schools is managed by central office, while the admissions process for neighborhood schools (particularly those with magnet cluster programs) is managed by the school principal.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 4:12 AM
Cross-Town Kids
"...Some will say there's no difference, but there's a big difference. The admissions process for magnet and gifted schools is managed by central office, while the admissions process for neighborhood schools (particularly those with magnet cluster programs) is managed by the school principal...."
There are huge differences, but not because of who "manages" the "admissions process." There is an underlying issue of whether this kind of forced "choice" should be normative in the first place that need to be debated, even in this dismally dictatorial town.
Here are just two (actually, the same one, but updated now that there are so many charters). The December "admissions application" deadline for the magnet schools (elementary and high school) and the early 2008 deadlines for "admission" into the lotteries for the charter schools.
The question that needs to be asked as the numbers involved in each of these monstrosities grows is "Why are we doing this? Who has placed every child in competition with every other child in Chicago from age four and proclaimed that that's the best way to run a public school system in a democracy?"
What we are dealing with here is very nasty, forced choice and marketized realities for even the youngest and most powerless children. Not democracy, although the next time you hear Arne Duncan or some other corporate mouthpiece ooze the word "choice," you're supposed to conflate this type of marketization with democracy and shut up or go brain dead because the brainwash was so complete that while you're being told to 'THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX' you've been stuffed into a verbal box you can't think your way out of.
On December 21, every kid (except those with enormous clout, see "Jordan, Marcus") who wants to attend one of the main magnet elementary or high schools (and the Gifted schools are not really magnet schools because of the specialized testing) has to have an application in to CPS. In January, those kids will be "tested" (some as young as four and five years old) for the "top tier" magnet elementary schools, while the huge testing will be done for the top tier magnet high schools in huge numbers.
So if you are a four-year-old who is in to long-term planning, right now you are working on the application to get into, say, Decatur or Lenart or Edison. What? But no four-year-old can do that. Bingo! As a result, many four year olds have been excluded from lining up at the first gate in the great CPS ranking and sorting race. If your family is too busy (e.g., both Mom and Dad work extra jobs because the economy has long been so bad) or not functional enough (foster care; homeless anyone?) you are not "eligible" for Edison or Beasley because you didn't apply.
The same thing happens next month when the deadlines for the applications for all of the charters schools begin. Some of them will have held their "lotteries" by March, others later, but all will have selected next year's entering students (from kindergarten through 12th grade) long before Arne Duncan creates new ways to sabotage the community elementary schools and the general high schools (if he's still around) next September. Remember the "position closings" at Julian and a dozen other high schools a few weeks ago? If you child was at Whitney Young or Northside or Payton, that was not a danger. Only the "leftover" kids were shock doctrined into massive program changes by data driven management, Daley style.
The period between now and late February is one of the most important ones in establishing the separation of realities that is so important to all the forced choice bullshit that subsequently arrived when Chicago discusses these things later. If the child (or young adult) is not in a situation where the "application process" can or will be completed, a big door is shut. No blame on the child.
The alternative was (and still is) to make every school a high quality school, not a "school of choice" as the obscene talking points have tried to turn the debate away from reality and into the world of Milton Friedman and Arne's other nutsy Ayn Randist neighbors. Children whose families could afford to move to Evanston (where half of Jan Schakowsky's constituents) or dozens of other suburbs don't know what we're talking about in Chicago. The kids go to the local elementary schools and the general high school that's there for everyone.
Only in Chicago does this insanity persist. And now New York and other big cities that have followed the Chicago "model" (mayoral dictatorship; CEO or chancellor appointed by the dictatorial mayor; etc) are having this discussion. Elsewhere, such life determining realities are not being foisted on the citizens as normalcy. Since Arne and the denizens of the Commercial Club began proclaiming "choice" as the value for public education (as opposed to democratic decent public schools for all children) this ugliness has grown. And of late it's been exported to every city where the Business Roundtable and other corporate Stalinists can get away with it.
Evil is still the right word for the kinds of people who do these things to little children. It's still the best one as we approach these holy and holidays. As in, quoting the parents from October's Board meeting, "least of my brethren" stuff. This morning there are thousands of four year olds who aren't smart enough to try and "choose" the elementary magnet and gifted schools and whose families are too non-existent or busy to go through all the paperwork involved.
There are huge differences, but not because of who "manages" the "admissions process." There is an underlying issue of whether this kind of forced "choice" should be normative in the first place that need to be debated, even in this dismally dictatorial town.
Here are just two (actually, the same one, but updated now that there are so many charters). The December "admissions application" deadline for the magnet schools (elementary and high school) and the early 2008 deadlines for "admission" into the lotteries for the charter schools.
The question that needs to be asked as the numbers involved in each of these monstrosities grows is "Why are we doing this? Who has placed every child in competition with every other child in Chicago from age four and proclaimed that that's the best way to run a public school system in a democracy?"
What we are dealing with here is very nasty, forced choice and marketized realities for even the youngest and most powerless children. Not democracy, although the next time you hear Arne Duncan or some other corporate mouthpiece ooze the word "choice," you're supposed to conflate this type of marketization with democracy and shut up or go brain dead because the brainwash was so complete that while you're being told to 'THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX' you've been stuffed into a verbal box you can't think your way out of.
On December 21, every kid (except those with enormous clout, see "Jordan, Marcus") who wants to attend one of the main magnet elementary or high schools (and the Gifted schools are not really magnet schools because of the specialized testing) has to have an application in to CPS. In January, those kids will be "tested" (some as young as four and five years old) for the "top tier" magnet elementary schools, while the huge testing will be done for the top tier magnet high schools in huge numbers.
So if you are a four-year-old who is in to long-term planning, right now you are working on the application to get into, say, Decatur or Lenart or Edison. What? But no four-year-old can do that. Bingo! As a result, many four year olds have been excluded from lining up at the first gate in the great CPS ranking and sorting race. If your family is too busy (e.g., both Mom and Dad work extra jobs because the economy has long been so bad) or not functional enough (foster care; homeless anyone?) you are not "eligible" for Edison or Beasley because you didn't apply.
The same thing happens next month when the deadlines for the applications for all of the charters schools begin. Some of them will have held their "lotteries" by March, others later, but all will have selected next year's entering students (from kindergarten through 12th grade) long before Arne Duncan creates new ways to sabotage the community elementary schools and the general high schools (if he's still around) next September. Remember the "position closings" at Julian and a dozen other high schools a few weeks ago? If you child was at Whitney Young or Northside or Payton, that was not a danger. Only the "leftover" kids were shock doctrined into massive program changes by data driven management, Daley style.
The period between now and late February is one of the most important ones in establishing the separation of realities that is so important to all the forced choice bullshit that subsequently arrived when Chicago discusses these things later. If the child (or young adult) is not in a situation where the "application process" can or will be completed, a big door is shut. No blame on the child.
The alternative was (and still is) to make every school a high quality school, not a "school of choice" as the obscene talking points have tried to turn the debate away from reality and into the world of Milton Friedman and Arne's other nutsy Ayn Randist neighbors. Children whose families could afford to move to Evanston (where half of Jan Schakowsky's constituents) or dozens of other suburbs don't know what we're talking about in Chicago. The kids go to the local elementary schools and the general high school that's there for everyone.
Only in Chicago does this insanity persist. And now New York and other big cities that have followed the Chicago "model" (mayoral dictatorship; CEO or chancellor appointed by the dictatorial mayor; etc) are having this discussion. Elsewhere, such life determining realities are not being foisted on the citizens as normalcy. Since Arne and the denizens of the Commercial Club began proclaiming "choice" as the value for public education (as opposed to democratic decent public schools for all children) this ugliness has grown. And of late it's been exported to every city where the Business Roundtable and other corporate Stalinists can get away with it.
Evil is still the right word for the kinds of people who do these things to little children. It's still the best one as we approach these holy and holidays. As in, quoting the parents from October's Board meeting, "least of my brethren" stuff. This morning there are thousands of four year olds who aren't smart enough to try and "choose" the elementary magnet and gifted schools and whose families are too non-existent or busy to go through all the paperwork involved.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Cross-Town Kids
Many scholars have written about the specific role that public school choice plays in the creation of social capital, specifically addressing the question of how effective school communities can create social capital. By far, parents with children in neighborhood schools are less likely to be involved in the associational life of their children's schools than parents who exercise school choice. Active public school choosers have more extensive interactions with other parents than non-choosers. Active choosers are more likely to express trust in their children's teachers. While Evanston and other high quality suburban school districts may only have their local schools to attend, the point that George entirely misses is that many of these parents CHOOSE to live in, or move to, Evanston precisely because of the high quality schools there. It's still school choice.
The irony is that public school choice in Chicago originated as a solution to the problem of public school racial isolation, the result of Chicago's historical residential neighborhood racial stratification. Never forget that one of those schools (Whitney Young) is so good, Mr. Schmidt chose to send his child there. Back then, (magnet) school choice was seen as a panacea. New magnet schools were created, staffed and operated entirely by union employees. Now that the objectives of school choice nationally have shifted from racial diversity to school improvement, and new choice schools are staffed predominantly by non-union charter operators, Mr. Schmidt would have us believe that its all one big privatization conspiracy.
There is certainly nothing wrong with neighborhood schools. In Chicago, far more parents choose their neighborhood school than "choice" schools, and the number of highly-engaged neighborhood school student parents is probably greater than the highly-engaged parents of choice school students. But, again, the former group CHOOSES to enroll their children in the neighborhood school. It may be the default school, but they choose it nonetheless.
The irony is that public school choice in Chicago originated as a solution to the problem of public school racial isolation, the result of Chicago's historical residential neighborhood racial stratification. Never forget that one of those schools (Whitney Young) is so good, Mr. Schmidt chose to send his child there. Back then, (magnet) school choice was seen as a panacea. New magnet schools were created, staffed and operated entirely by union employees. Now that the objectives of school choice nationally have shifted from racial diversity to school improvement, and new choice schools are staffed predominantly by non-union charter operators, Mr. Schmidt would have us believe that its all one big privatization conspiracy.
There is certainly nothing wrong with neighborhood schools. In Chicago, far more parents choose their neighborhood school than "choice" schools, and the number of highly-engaged neighborhood school student parents is probably greater than the highly-engaged parents of choice school students. But, again, the former group CHOOSES to enroll their children in the neighborhood school. It may be the default school, but they choose it nonetheless.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Cross-Town Kids
I agree with George that it's a shame that those who lose out under the current system are the children whose parents don't take the initiative (or face significant barriers) to apply for various options. I do know of at least one gifted school that has actively sought out promising children in other schools based on third- and fourth-grade ISATs and solicited them to consider applying for the gifted program. This benefits kids whose high academic achievements stand for themselves, and circumvents the parental inertia issue, to an extent. However, the number of children reached through this means is a drop in the bucket. Ideally, the CPS system would have many more spots and a structured program to identify bright students who are underchallenged in their current school and give them a chance to try another one.
Yes, I know that brings up the issue of whether it is a positive thing to remove the best students from their neighborhood school to corral them into a special program, and whether that is an injustice to the students left behind, but that's another topic altogether.
Yes, I know that brings up the issue of whether it is a positive thing to remove the best students from their neighborhood school to corral them into a special program, and whether that is an injustice to the students left behind, but that's another topic altogether.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM
regarding M's comment
Yes, M is correct one of my own children had very strong ITBS scores in the early and middle grades and we began to get letters from the regional gifted office asking that we consider applying to several different 7th and 8th grade gifted programs in the region. Our understanding was that the high scoring students were flaged by that office which has access to all the ITBS elementary school scores in the region.
She stayed at her elementary school through grade 8 and still scored high enough to be accepted at Payton. She did not want to leave her friends that went all the way back to kindergarten.
She stayed at her elementary school through grade 8 and still scored high enough to be accepted at Payton. She did not want to leave her friends that went all the way back to kindergarten.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Cross-Town Kids
The research I referenced above is relevant. The study finds that when parents make a choice, the choice provides little academic benefit.
"The coexistence of intense competition for entry and little academic benefit to students winning the lotteries could indicate that parents are not well-informed about the education production function, and mistake higher school outputs for higher school value-added."
It is not an unreasonable to wonder if parents enrolling in magnet cluster schools and neighborhood schools outside their area are any different from the parents included in the study (applicants to lottery schools). Why would we assume that parents selecting neighborhood schools are making better informed decisions than those selecting lottery schools?
It's painful for many on this blog to hear (both those favoring and those opposing CPS' selective enrollment policies), but most of the variance in achievement is explained, not by the "quality" of the school, but by other factors.
From the study:
"First, for elementary school students in CPS, we demonstrate that the gap in achievement across advantaged and disadvantaged students is two-thirds as great within schools as across schools. The great inequities that we observed in school quality across these groups, then, cannot explain the bulk of the differences in outcomes. Further, this surely overstates the role for schools. Part of the convergence in outcomes within schools as compared to across schools is due to the fact that minority and poor students who attend the same schools are similar in family background and other characteristics that are difficult to measure. These students would have more similar outcomes regardless of their shared schooling experience."
"The coexistence of intense competition for entry and little academic benefit to students winning the lotteries could indicate that parents are not well-informed about the education production function, and mistake higher school outputs for higher school value-added."
It is not an unreasonable to wonder if parents enrolling in magnet cluster schools and neighborhood schools outside their area are any different from the parents included in the study (applicants to lottery schools). Why would we assume that parents selecting neighborhood schools are making better informed decisions than those selecting lottery schools?
It's painful for many on this blog to hear (both those favoring and those opposing CPS' selective enrollment policies), but most of the variance in achievement is explained, not by the "quality" of the school, but by other factors.
From the study:
"First, for elementary school students in CPS, we demonstrate that the gap in achievement across advantaged and disadvantaged students is two-thirds as great within schools as across schools. The great inequities that we observed in school quality across these groups, then, cannot explain the bulk of the differences in outcomes. Further, this surely overstates the role for schools. Part of the convergence in outcomes within schools as compared to across schools is due to the fact that minority and poor students who attend the same schools are similar in family background and other characteristics that are difficult to measure. These students would have more similar outcomes regardless of their shared schooling experience."
Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 3:04 AM
Cross-Town Kids
Sub... Two things.
First, I don't for the life of me know what that last paragraph you quote above means. Without the whole study, it's impossible to interpret that conclusion. For example, are the "outcomes" narrowly defined as standardized test scores (the "data" that drives management evey time I photograph a meeting of the Board of Education, where every Board member hops to their test score briefing books like porn junkies with a new fix), or more broadly on a range of possibilities, including the child's (and family's) satisfcation with the school experience and some "longitudinal" tracking of what happened to the child (adjusting for SES) over five, ten, and more years.
Second, as to the whole study you cite: Below is what I got when I went to the URL you offered. Will keep trying, but want to know every data set and underlying assumption before citing any "research." But thanks for offering the citation. As of now you get:
"SSRN will be unavailable from 6PM EST Wednesday, November 28 to Thursday morning, November 29 because we are upgrading our database servers. If you have any questions, please call 877-SSRNHELP (877.777.6435) or email support@ssrn.com"
I'll try again tomorrow.
First, I don't for the life of me know what that last paragraph you quote above means. Without the whole study, it's impossible to interpret that conclusion. For example, are the "outcomes" narrowly defined as standardized test scores (the "data" that drives management evey time I photograph a meeting of the Board of Education, where every Board member hops to their test score briefing books like porn junkies with a new fix), or more broadly on a range of possibilities, including the child's (and family's) satisfcation with the school experience and some "longitudinal" tracking of what happened to the child (adjusting for SES) over five, ten, and more years.
Second, as to the whole study you cite: Below is what I got when I went to the URL you offered. Will keep trying, but want to know every data set and underlying assumption before citing any "research." But thanks for offering the citation. As of now you get:
"SSRN will be unavailable from 6PM EST Wednesday, November 28 to Thursday morning, November 29 because we are upgrading our database servers. If you have any questions, please call 877-SSRNHELP (877.777.6435) or email support@ssrn.com"
I'll try again tomorrow.
Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 3:07 AM
Cross-Town Kids
Yes. I did mean "porn."
The members of the Chicago Board of Education, for all their pieties, are as addicted to those grotesque oversmplifications as the aforementioned porn junkies. As the lady said in "The Big Lebowski" (spelling?): "The plot was ludicrous."
The members of the Chicago Board of Education, for all their pieties, are as addicted to those grotesque oversmplifications as the aforementioned porn junkies. As the lady said in "The Big Lebowski" (spelling?): "The plot was ludicrous."
Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Cross-Town Kids
8yMnM9 <a href="http://ljfutnedvsxg.com/">ljfutnedvsxg</a>, rljfbkusgpsc, ivoztbzvwxzb, http://zxqlqpbbbmgp.com/
