March Board Meeting You can find an agenda for tomorrow's Board meeting here. Lots of business to conduct, it looks like. Some items that jumped out at me include something about a new policy for charter school capacity and facility budgets, openings of two new schools (Sir Miles Davis and LaSalle II), designation of Kershaw and Oscar Mayer as magnet schools, something about Burroughs II, Disney II. The final report from last week's Board meeting is here.
UPDATE: Here is news coverage of the meeting to go along with comments and descriptions below:
Board of Ed nixes charter expansion Chi-Town Daily News
Board of Ed Approves Controversial Schools Combination WBEZ
UIC Prep proposed for Gladstone building Chicago Journal
Digg
Del.icio.us
Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM
March Board Meeting
Because I was heavily focused on the school closing issue around the time of the February 2008 Board meeting I completely failed to notice two other interesting Board actions taken at that meeting. If Alexander had not posted a reference to the fact that the Board’s February actions were now on line I would not have read them, so my thanks to him.
The Board actions of interest are 08-0227-EX25 and 08-0227-EX26. Both of these actions relate to ASPIRA charter schools. Board action EX25 withdraws prior Board approval for two very ambitious high school projects that had been approved by the Board. One was for the Rosa Parks Communication and Technology Campus and the other was for the Trade Tech High School. Both of these projects based on the fact that they were to be located in former industrial facilities were very expensive. Access Living FOIAed the documents related to these projects as part of a larger review we are currently undertaking. The projected costs for the Trade Tech High rehab were estimated to be $11.9 million alone, the Rosa Parks school would have cost millions more, based on a statement in EX26 it appears that ASPIRA could not secure sufficient funding for the projects in a little over one year’s time.
Board action EX26 approves ASPIRA to continue as a CPS charter school operator until 2013, but CPS required ASPIRA to enter into a Charter School Agreement with CPS. While all charter must enter into such agreements the reference in EX26 is particularly curious in that it contains <additional terms and conditions which were communicated to the Charter School on approximately January 18, 2008.> Whether the specific focus of the terms and conditions related to fiscal issues, academic issues, or both is unknown.
One additional interesting piece of information is given for ASPIRA and that is CPS’s estimate of the cost of that charter to the school district for the 2008-2009 school year. CPS estimates that cost will be $9,134,200 to educate 1,048 students at all of its campuses. This cost comes to approximately $8,716 per ASPIRA student for the 2008-2009 school year. Since CPS has not yet released its budget for FY09 I do not know what the school district’s overall per student cost estimate will be for all students so I can not compare them.
However, we do know that CPS had a student membership this year of about 395,387 students and a total operating budget of $4,648.2 million. Based simply on these numbers one can see that ASPIRA’s cost per student for 2008-2009 are projected to be about three thousand dollars less than it cost CPS last year to educate its average student. Part of this cost savings may explained by the fact that CPS provides to ASPIRA the Haugan middle school facility and a CPS elementary school (Moos) which now houses the Ramirez high school, for a fixed operating cost per student which probably does not reflect the actual operating costs for the facilities and the amortized capital costs for the middle school’s construction just a few years ago which cost $17 million. Other aspects that may cause ASPIRA to cost CPS less per student are not known. But it does seem clear that without outside fund raising ASPIRA might not be able to operate at any level of effectiveness.
The fact that ASPIRA one of Chicago’s larger charter operators appears to have had problems raising capital for two very major high profile projects that had actual sites selected, there are even site reports in files I reviewed, but not yet financed indicates some type of problem. What the problem was or is I do not know. I do know that the Illinois Facilities Fund (IFF) has in the past provided capital for ASPIRA projects, but apparently the IFF could not or would not finance the project for these two ASPIRA projects. It appears reasonable to say ASPIRA over projected its own ability to grow based on its resources. The fact that the CPS Board included this withdrawal of two approved charter sites for ASPIRA at the February Board meeting effectively guaranteed it would not be covered by the media.
Rod Estvan
The Board actions of interest are 08-0227-EX25 and 08-0227-EX26. Both of these actions relate to ASPIRA charter schools. Board action EX25 withdraws prior Board approval for two very ambitious high school projects that had been approved by the Board. One was for the Rosa Parks Communication and Technology Campus and the other was for the Trade Tech High School. Both of these projects based on the fact that they were to be located in former industrial facilities were very expensive. Access Living FOIAed the documents related to these projects as part of a larger review we are currently undertaking. The projected costs for the Trade Tech High rehab were estimated to be $11.9 million alone, the Rosa Parks school would have cost millions more, based on a statement in EX26 it appears that ASPIRA could not secure sufficient funding for the projects in a little over one year’s time.
Board action EX26 approves ASPIRA to continue as a CPS charter school operator until 2013, but CPS required ASPIRA to enter into a Charter School Agreement with CPS. While all charter must enter into such agreements the reference in EX26 is particularly curious in that it contains <additional terms and conditions which were communicated to the Charter School on approximately January 18, 2008.> Whether the specific focus of the terms and conditions related to fiscal issues, academic issues, or both is unknown.
One additional interesting piece of information is given for ASPIRA and that is CPS’s estimate of the cost of that charter to the school district for the 2008-2009 school year. CPS estimates that cost will be $9,134,200 to educate 1,048 students at all of its campuses. This cost comes to approximately $8,716 per ASPIRA student for the 2008-2009 school year. Since CPS has not yet released its budget for FY09 I do not know what the school district’s overall per student cost estimate will be for all students so I can not compare them.
However, we do know that CPS had a student membership this year of about 395,387 students and a total operating budget of $4,648.2 million. Based simply on these numbers one can see that ASPIRA’s cost per student for 2008-2009 are projected to be about three thousand dollars less than it cost CPS last year to educate its average student. Part of this cost savings may explained by the fact that CPS provides to ASPIRA the Haugan middle school facility and a CPS elementary school (Moos) which now houses the Ramirez high school, for a fixed operating cost per student which probably does not reflect the actual operating costs for the facilities and the amortized capital costs for the middle school’s construction just a few years ago which cost $17 million. Other aspects that may cause ASPIRA to cost CPS less per student are not known. But it does seem clear that without outside fund raising ASPIRA might not be able to operate at any level of effectiveness.
The fact that ASPIRA one of Chicago’s larger charter operators appears to have had problems raising capital for two very major high profile projects that had actual sites selected, there are even site reports in files I reviewed, but not yet financed indicates some type of problem. What the problem was or is I do not know. I do know that the Illinois Facilities Fund (IFF) has in the past provided capital for ASPIRA projects, but apparently the IFF could not or would not finance the project for these two ASPIRA projects. It appears reasonable to say ASPIRA over projected its own ability to grow based on its resources. The fact that the CPS Board included this withdrawal of two approved charter sites for ASPIRA at the February Board meeting effectively guaranteed it would not be covered by the media.
Rod Estvan
Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 6:26 PM
March Board Meeting
Miles Davis was inducted into the Knights of Malta in November of 1988, three years before his death.
Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:38 PM
March Board Meeting
It is sooo interesting that the Board's solution for the much needed space at Southside Occupational Academy for which the LSC and school community fought is to simply cap enrollment. Another wrong move because it limits the opportunity for high school students with cognitive disabilities to enroll in a spec. ed. school that was designed with their unique needs in design. More plausible solutions were to be granted space at neighboring Randolph which shares the campus or to offer at least a 4 classroom modular. There is a need for this school to exist---parents want it, students need the continuum of services, it is a school with a proven record of helping students achieve. Too simple??? This Administration at C.O. and this Board would rather bully a small school for students with disabilities, rather than support a school that works. A small school, but this fight is not over.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 4:09 AM
March Board Meeting
On of the things that was clear about all of the Aspira deals was that people from CPS spent very little time looking at the locations of Aspira's work or at what Aspira was actually doing there. Had CPS bothered with any kind of due diligence prior to approving a Board Report, they would have noticed that the "Rosa Parks" site was monstrous. Only the rats could have loved it, and they were rumored to be larger than the cats sent in to try and dissuade them from running the place. That's why I took and published a photograph of that building after CPS voted to approve the "Rosa Parks campus."
CPS should spend a little more time with the financial reports (especially payrolls) of all of the charter outfits and less time attacking the regular public schools. If a school principal or AIO tried to get away with one-tenth of what Jose Rodriguez and his colleagues have been doing since they opened up the original Aspira charter (Mirta Ramirez, at 2435 N. Western) seven years ago he'd be in jail rights now. Instead of facing indictments, however, Rodriguez and his top aides continue siphoning off millions of dollars per year in a (no pun intended) orgy of BS and Duncan sanctioned deregulation.
At this point in history, though, there are hundreds of parents and young adults who were scammed by the Aspira charters. Like the victims of other kinds of abuse in Chicago, they don't all die or live forever in shame. The truths will be told.
CPS should spend a little more time with the financial reports (especially payrolls) of all of the charter outfits and less time attacking the regular public schools. If a school principal or AIO tried to get away with one-tenth of what Jose Rodriguez and his colleagues have been doing since they opened up the original Aspira charter (Mirta Ramirez, at 2435 N. Western) seven years ago he'd be in jail rights now. Instead of facing indictments, however, Rodriguez and his top aides continue siphoning off millions of dollars per year in a (no pun intended) orgy of BS and Duncan sanctioned deregulation.
At this point in history, though, there are hundreds of parents and young adults who were scammed by the Aspira charters. Like the victims of other kinds of abuse in Chicago, they don't all die or live forever in shame. The truths will be told.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 9:16 AM
March Board Meeting
chitown daily news has more about the new schools:
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/articles/show/14232
they are Miles Davis Magnet Academy, 6730 S. Paulina Ave. (new construction), Disney II Magnet School, (replacing Irving Park Middle School), LaSalle II Magnet School (at Anderson Elementary), Kershaw Magnet School (same location -- converted to magnet), Oscar Mayer Magnet School (existing school, will now have Montessori program)
check out the article for more details
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/articles/show/14232
they are Miles Davis Magnet Academy, 6730 S. Paulina Ave. (new construction), Disney II Magnet School, (replacing Irving Park Middle School), LaSalle II Magnet School (at Anderson Elementary), Kershaw Magnet School (same location -- converted to magnet), Oscar Mayer Magnet School (existing school, will now have Montessori program)
check out the article for more details
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM
March Board Meeting
George if you can, please publish the hearing officer's report for Abbott School in Substance.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 3:11 AM
March Board Meeting
For the first time since he was appointed CEO of the Chicago Public Schools by Mayor Richard M. Daley, Arne Duncan suffered a major defeat in a vote by the Chicago Board of Education late in the afternoon of March 26, 2008. But the discussion of several proposals by Duncan during both the public participation section of the Board meeting and following the Board's recess into executive session indicated that the Board will be subjecting Duncan's proposals to more scrutiny than he has ever received before.
Specifically, in a roll call vote the Board voted 4 - 2 to reject Duncan's proposal to expand the LEARN charter school by giving it part of the Gregory Elementary School. Both are in the North Lawndale community of Chicago's west side. Those voting against Duncan's proposal were Board members Norman Bobins, Rufus Williams, Alberto Carrero, and Clara Munana. Those voting for Duncan's proposal were Tariq Butt and Peggy Davis. The seventh member of the Board, Roxanne Ward, had left by the time the vote was taken.
Duncan was not available for comment following the meeting's adjournment just before 7:00 p.m.
The question before the Board was whether to approve a proposal, submitted by Duncan and supported during the meeting by Duncan, Chief Education Officer Barbara Eason Watkins, New Schools chief Josh Edelman, and Board Demographer Jimm Dispensa to turn over a portion of the Gregory Elementary School (3715 W. Polk St.) to the LEARN charter school for the first year of a planned expansion of LEARN into additional "campuses."
The proposal by Duncan was entitled "Amend Board Report 07-1024-EX3" (etc.) and was on the Agenda on March 26, 2008 at Board Report 08-0326-EX6. Had Duncan's motion been approved, the LEARN charter school, currently located at 1132 S. Homan Ave. would have been allowed to open a second "campus" at the Gregory Elementary School (3715 W. Polk St.). The Board Report submitted by Duncan, however, didn't even mention the fact that there was already a school occupying the building at 3715 W. Polk, and that school was the Gregory Elementary School.
For the first time in more than six years, the Chicago Board of Education meeting lasted for more than an hour following the Board's return from executive session on March 26, 2008. The most controversial issues before the Board were 14 proposals by Arne Duncan, the Chief Executive Officer of CPS, to change various elementary and high schools. Each was controversial in its own way, and none had been subjected to full public debate. But the quick action of parents and teachers at Gregory Elementary stopped Duncan in his tracks and put the expansion of the LEARN charter school on hold.
According to Duncan's Board Report, "In March 2008, LEARN submitted a material modification [to its charter proposal] to (a) identify a site for the new LEARN Charter School campus anticipated to open in 2008, (b) change the grades served at the 2008 Campus and (c) change the first yar capacity enrollment at the 2008 Campus. The campus will be located at 3715 W. Polk Street and will serve 198 students in grades K-3. In successive years, the 2008 Campus will grow to serve 600 students in grades K-8. A public hearing, as required by statute, was held on March 20, 2008 at 3715 W. Polk St. The hearing was recorded. A summary report of the hearing is available for review."
Parents and others from Gregory Elementary School, which is located at 3715 W. Polk, had signed up to speak during the public participation portion of the meeting. They pointed out that the Board's demographic claims about Gregory were inaccurate, and noted that the "public hearing" that the Board held had not even been announced to members of the Gregory school staff and community.
The expansion of charter schools inside existing public schools has been policy for the Duncan administration for five years. Despite controversies at every school in which the expansion has been done, what has happened prior to the March 26, 2008 vote was for Duncan to propose that a charter school move into "available space" in an existing building and co-occupy the school. At several schools where this has been done, the exiting public school has been told the occupation by the charter school would be "temporary" -- just as Gregory was being told on March 26, 2008. At Wadsworth and other elementary schools that have been occupied in this manner, however, the Duncan administration has subsequently approved the takeover of more and more space within the existing public school by the charter school, until the existing public school is effectively evicted from the building.
Members of the public also noted that the Board Report submitted by Duncan didn't even mention the fact that the expansion of the LEARN charter school was being done into an existing public school.
In the face of sharp questioning from Board President Rufus Williams and Board member Norman Bobins, Duncan, Eason-Watkins, Dispensa, and Edelman were unable to answer some of the most basic questions about the proposal. Duncan finally told the Board that LEARN would only be inside the Gregory building for one year, pending its construction of a new facility for its new "campus." But when questioned by Board members, Edelman, who had been chief of "New Schools" (now "New and Charter Schools") since his appointment by Duncan last summer admitted that the LEARN school has yet to locate a facility for its new campus.
Also controversial was the claim by Duncan and the Board's demographer, Jimm Dispensa, that there was more than enough space within the Gregory building. According to Dispensa's analysis, Gregory has what Dispensa terms a "design capacity" of 1,200 students. According to the people from Gregory, the actual capacity of Gregory is about half that. Neither Duncan nor Dispensa was able to explain the great difference between the two claims.
The discrepency regarding demographic claims by CPS officials has been growing in recent months. During hearings on Duncan's proposals to close, move, or reconstitute 19 schools in February 2008, several schools challenged Duncan's demographic data. These ranged from the Gladstone Elementary School (which is being evicted so the building can be used by a new "campus" of the Nobel Street Charter High School) to Andsersen, DeLa Cruz, and Roque DeDuprey elementary schools. In each case, the Board's demographic claims were contested and refuted by people in the schools.
The Board discussions on March 26 raised several additional questions. In announcing proposals to replicate the Disney Magnet School and the Burroughs Elementary School into "Disney II" (which is being placed inside the Irving Park Middle School in the city's Old Irving Park community) and "Burroughs II" (which is eventually supposed to occupy a new building, but which will be placed inside Pope Elementary School next year), Duncan told the Board repeatedly that the proposals by Burroughs and Disney had been approved after a rigorous screening process conducted by the "Renaissance 2010 Fund."
But Duncan failed to mentioned that the "Renaissance 2010 Fund" is a private organization, headed by people from the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club, which controls a great deal of money and which promotes charter schools and other privatization agendas in Chicago.
Board members did not ask Duncan where the Board had approved the delegation of such vast powers -- including the power to designate which Chicago public schools to "replicate" -- to a private entity over which the public has no control and which most members of the public don't even know exists.
Specifically, in a roll call vote the Board voted 4 - 2 to reject Duncan's proposal to expand the LEARN charter school by giving it part of the Gregory Elementary School. Both are in the North Lawndale community of Chicago's west side. Those voting against Duncan's proposal were Board members Norman Bobins, Rufus Williams, Alberto Carrero, and Clara Munana. Those voting for Duncan's proposal were Tariq Butt and Peggy Davis. The seventh member of the Board, Roxanne Ward, had left by the time the vote was taken.
Duncan was not available for comment following the meeting's adjournment just before 7:00 p.m.
The question before the Board was whether to approve a proposal, submitted by Duncan and supported during the meeting by Duncan, Chief Education Officer Barbara Eason Watkins, New Schools chief Josh Edelman, and Board Demographer Jimm Dispensa to turn over a portion of the Gregory Elementary School (3715 W. Polk St.) to the LEARN charter school for the first year of a planned expansion of LEARN into additional "campuses."
The proposal by Duncan was entitled "Amend Board Report 07-1024-EX3" (etc.) and was on the Agenda on March 26, 2008 at Board Report 08-0326-EX6. Had Duncan's motion been approved, the LEARN charter school, currently located at 1132 S. Homan Ave. would have been allowed to open a second "campus" at the Gregory Elementary School (3715 W. Polk St.). The Board Report submitted by Duncan, however, didn't even mention the fact that there was already a school occupying the building at 3715 W. Polk, and that school was the Gregory Elementary School.
For the first time in more than six years, the Chicago Board of Education meeting lasted for more than an hour following the Board's return from executive session on March 26, 2008. The most controversial issues before the Board were 14 proposals by Arne Duncan, the Chief Executive Officer of CPS, to change various elementary and high schools. Each was controversial in its own way, and none had been subjected to full public debate. But the quick action of parents and teachers at Gregory Elementary stopped Duncan in his tracks and put the expansion of the LEARN charter school on hold.
According to Duncan's Board Report, "In March 2008, LEARN submitted a material modification [to its charter proposal] to (a) identify a site for the new LEARN Charter School campus anticipated to open in 2008, (b) change the grades served at the 2008 Campus and (c) change the first yar capacity enrollment at the 2008 Campus. The campus will be located at 3715 W. Polk Street and will serve 198 students in grades K-3. In successive years, the 2008 Campus will grow to serve 600 students in grades K-8. A public hearing, as required by statute, was held on March 20, 2008 at 3715 W. Polk St. The hearing was recorded. A summary report of the hearing is available for review."
Parents and others from Gregory Elementary School, which is located at 3715 W. Polk, had signed up to speak during the public participation portion of the meeting. They pointed out that the Board's demographic claims about Gregory were inaccurate, and noted that the "public hearing" that the Board held had not even been announced to members of the Gregory school staff and community.
The expansion of charter schools inside existing public schools has been policy for the Duncan administration for five years. Despite controversies at every school in which the expansion has been done, what has happened prior to the March 26, 2008 vote was for Duncan to propose that a charter school move into "available space" in an existing building and co-occupy the school. At several schools where this has been done, the exiting public school has been told the occupation by the charter school would be "temporary" -- just as Gregory was being told on March 26, 2008. At Wadsworth and other elementary schools that have been occupied in this manner, however, the Duncan administration has subsequently approved the takeover of more and more space within the existing public school by the charter school, until the existing public school is effectively evicted from the building.
Members of the public also noted that the Board Report submitted by Duncan didn't even mention the fact that the expansion of the LEARN charter school was being done into an existing public school.
In the face of sharp questioning from Board President Rufus Williams and Board member Norman Bobins, Duncan, Eason-Watkins, Dispensa, and Edelman were unable to answer some of the most basic questions about the proposal. Duncan finally told the Board that LEARN would only be inside the Gregory building for one year, pending its construction of a new facility for its new "campus." But when questioned by Board members, Edelman, who had been chief of "New Schools" (now "New and Charter Schools") since his appointment by Duncan last summer admitted that the LEARN school has yet to locate a facility for its new campus.
Also controversial was the claim by Duncan and the Board's demographer, Jimm Dispensa, that there was more than enough space within the Gregory building. According to Dispensa's analysis, Gregory has what Dispensa terms a "design capacity" of 1,200 students. According to the people from Gregory, the actual capacity of Gregory is about half that. Neither Duncan nor Dispensa was able to explain the great difference between the two claims.
The discrepency regarding demographic claims by CPS officials has been growing in recent months. During hearings on Duncan's proposals to close, move, or reconstitute 19 schools in February 2008, several schools challenged Duncan's demographic data. These ranged from the Gladstone Elementary School (which is being evicted so the building can be used by a new "campus" of the Nobel Street Charter High School) to Andsersen, DeLa Cruz, and Roque DeDuprey elementary schools. In each case, the Board's demographic claims were contested and refuted by people in the schools.
The Board discussions on March 26 raised several additional questions. In announcing proposals to replicate the Disney Magnet School and the Burroughs Elementary School into "Disney II" (which is being placed inside the Irving Park Middle School in the city's Old Irving Park community) and "Burroughs II" (which is eventually supposed to occupy a new building, but which will be placed inside Pope Elementary School next year), Duncan told the Board repeatedly that the proposals by Burroughs and Disney had been approved after a rigorous screening process conducted by the "Renaissance 2010 Fund."
But Duncan failed to mentioned that the "Renaissance 2010 Fund" is a private organization, headed by people from the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club, which controls a great deal of money and which promotes charter schools and other privatization agendas in Chicago.
Board members did not ask Duncan where the Board had approved the delegation of such vast powers -- including the power to designate which Chicago public schools to "replicate" -- to a private entity over which the public has no control and which most members of the public don't even know exists.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 3:55 AM
March Board Meeting
"March Board Meeting
"George if you can, please publish the hearing officer's report for Abbott School in Substance..." (Retired Principal, yesterday).
Dear Retired Principal:
You'd think that was a simple request, but it's not.
I'm afraid that's a little more challenging than you might think.
The complete report on Abbott is more than 500 pages long.
The stenographic transcript of the hearing alone is 86 pages.
And believe me, you don't want to read the hearing officer's summary on any of these schools. Each of the 19 schools on Arne Duncan's hit list in February 2008 presented an enormous amount of information in defense of itself and the dignity of its history, its staff, and its students.
The "hearing officer's report" (if by that you mean the couple of pages the hearing officers wrote up to get paid their $10,000 or more) without the materials that were presented at the hearings is like trying to "get" a Tolstoy novel by reading a summary of the Cliffs Notes. (I really mistrust metaphors in certain contexts, like this one, but couldn't resist that).
Remember: in most of the cases, the schools that were on Duncan's hit list only found out on January 24 (the day after the January Board meeting) that they were being officially screwed. The handful that teased out some information beforehand (most dramatically, Edison) were lied to by Arne Duncan ("Who? Me? Close You? Why would you think that...?") and Rufus ("Respect the process" which was already over by the time he said those words on January 23) Williams.
Duncan, New Schools, Eason Watkins, and their highly paid elves had been hard at work on those target lists for months prior to the official publication of the hit lists (and the notification of the schools) the last week of January 2008.
I'm actually trying to figure out how to get the digital version of each of the transcripts on the web site (the total for those, including all 19 schools, is more than 2,000 pages in print). There were a total of 22 hearings -- 19 schools were slated for destruction, and for three of them there were two hearings, not just one (although the Orrs were cemented into just one "hearing").
The Board of Education should actually be putting the transcripts of these hearings on its web site (just as they should be putting the announcements of these privatization and reorganization hearings they're doing every night just about around the clock on the Web site), but I don't think CPS really wants to do that. There were almost no speakers in favor of Arne Duncan's proposals at any of the hearings, and even where there was an organized group turning out in favor (e.g., Irving Park Middle School; the millionaires in the Old Irving Park MacMansions love the idea of "Disney II" and getting rid of the rabble presently at Old Irving Park), the majority of speakers at the hearing were against.
In some cases, the hearing was being held against the background of a secret agenda. Although the Gladstone people knew that Arne was going to flip their school into the hands of someone (in this case, Noble Street Charter and UIC), that wasn't public at the time of the actual "hearing."
To get back to your question. We're meeting with our Web master (a recent Whitney Young graduate now majoring in computer science and physics) this week and exploring how we can upload more important public information.
But don't you think those reports and other public documents pertaining to the largest purge of public schools this side of New Orleans should have already been on line on the Website of the third largest public school district in the USA by now?
Remember: half the Board members I watch in action every month voted to fire me from my teaching job in August 2000 and have supported the blacklisting of me from teaching -- the DO NOT HIRE list -- since then. And remember, they fired me for "copyright infringement" -- not for anything negative about my teaching. But that's another story for another time. Let's just say that public documents in Chicago have a way of disappearing from the public information systems more readily than they get into official public records.
Just ask yourself how many people are told about those "public hearings" that "New and Charter Schools" cocks up every month when they get ready to flip a public school into the hands of another caffeine crazed group of "educational entrepreneurs" approved by Eden Martin and the "Renaissance Schools" fund.
"George if you can, please publish the hearing officer's report for Abbott School in Substance..." (Retired Principal, yesterday).
Dear Retired Principal:
You'd think that was a simple request, but it's not.
I'm afraid that's a little more challenging than you might think.
The complete report on Abbott is more than 500 pages long.
The stenographic transcript of the hearing alone is 86 pages.
And believe me, you don't want to read the hearing officer's summary on any of these schools. Each of the 19 schools on Arne Duncan's hit list in February 2008 presented an enormous amount of information in defense of itself and the dignity of its history, its staff, and its students.
The "hearing officer's report" (if by that you mean the couple of pages the hearing officers wrote up to get paid their $10,000 or more) without the materials that were presented at the hearings is like trying to "get" a Tolstoy novel by reading a summary of the Cliffs Notes. (I really mistrust metaphors in certain contexts, like this one, but couldn't resist that).
Remember: in most of the cases, the schools that were on Duncan's hit list only found out on January 24 (the day after the January Board meeting) that they were being officially screwed. The handful that teased out some information beforehand (most dramatically, Edison) were lied to by Arne Duncan ("Who? Me? Close You? Why would you think that...?") and Rufus ("Respect the process" which was already over by the time he said those words on January 23) Williams.
Duncan, New Schools, Eason Watkins, and their highly paid elves had been hard at work on those target lists for months prior to the official publication of the hit lists (and the notification of the schools) the last week of January 2008.
I'm actually trying to figure out how to get the digital version of each of the transcripts on the web site (the total for those, including all 19 schools, is more than 2,000 pages in print). There were a total of 22 hearings -- 19 schools were slated for destruction, and for three of them there were two hearings, not just one (although the Orrs were cemented into just one "hearing").
The Board of Education should actually be putting the transcripts of these hearings on its web site (just as they should be putting the announcements of these privatization and reorganization hearings they're doing every night just about around the clock on the Web site), but I don't think CPS really wants to do that. There were almost no speakers in favor of Arne Duncan's proposals at any of the hearings, and even where there was an organized group turning out in favor (e.g., Irving Park Middle School; the millionaires in the Old Irving Park MacMansions love the idea of "Disney II" and getting rid of the rabble presently at Old Irving Park), the majority of speakers at the hearing were against.
In some cases, the hearing was being held against the background of a secret agenda. Although the Gladstone people knew that Arne was going to flip their school into the hands of someone (in this case, Noble Street Charter and UIC), that wasn't public at the time of the actual "hearing."
To get back to your question. We're meeting with our Web master (a recent Whitney Young graduate now majoring in computer science and physics) this week and exploring how we can upload more important public information.
But don't you think those reports and other public documents pertaining to the largest purge of public schools this side of New Orleans should have already been on line on the Website of the third largest public school district in the USA by now?
Remember: half the Board members I watch in action every month voted to fire me from my teaching job in August 2000 and have supported the blacklisting of me from teaching -- the DO NOT HIRE list -- since then. And remember, they fired me for "copyright infringement" -- not for anything negative about my teaching. But that's another story for another time. Let's just say that public documents in Chicago have a way of disappearing from the public information systems more readily than they get into official public records.
Just ask yourself how many people are told about those "public hearings" that "New and Charter Schools" cocks up every month when they get ready to flip a public school into the hands of another caffeine crazed group of "educational entrepreneurs" approved by Eden Martin and the "Renaissance Schools" fund.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 5:50 AM
March Board Meeting
Physics lesson:
In Chicago, nothing's colder than dead clout.
I first heard that from a friend from the 11th Ward.
In Chicago, nothing's colder than dead clout.
I first heard that from a friend from the 11th Ward.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 8:17 AM
March Board Meeting
the events of yesterday's meeting got some helpful coverage --
Board of Ed nixes charter expansion Chi-Town Daily News
Board of Ed Approves Controversial Schools Combination WBEZ
UIC Prep proposed for Gladstone building Chicago Journal
i've updated the post at the top to include these stories, if the links don't work.
Board of Ed nixes charter expansion Chi-Town Daily News
Board of Ed Approves Controversial Schools Combination WBEZ
UIC Prep proposed for Gladstone building Chicago Journal
i've updated the post at the top to include these stories, if the links don't work.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 8:33 AM
March Board Meeting
"Also controversial was the claim by Duncan and the Board's demographer, Jimm Dispensa, that there was more than enough space within the Gregory building. According to Dispensa's analysis, Gregory has what Dispensa terms a "design capacity" of 1,200 students. According to the people from Gregory, the actual capacity of Gregory is about half that. Neither Duncan nor Dispensa was able to explain the great difference between the two claims."
Mr. Schmidt apparently decided to leave out the fact that Mr. Dispensa did, in fact, verify that the design capacity of Gregory is, in fact, 1,200 at the Board meeting.
The Gregory school facility contains 40 classrooms. A regular size classroom is assigned a student capacity of 30 given the fact that primary grades' classroom size are limited to 28 while mid-to-upper grades' classrooms size are limited to 31.
Mr. Dispensa also explained the difference between "design capacity" and "program capacity". Since elementary schools need to use approx. 20% of their classrooms for non-dedicated home room use (i.e., art, music, computer labs, etc), the program capacity of Gregory is 80% of 1,200, or 960. Since Gregory's enrollment is 440, there should be no question that approximately 500 empty seats exist at Gregory today.
There's no controversy there. Just a gross misunderstanding on behalf of the Gregory school representative who claimed the true capacity of Gregory was closer to 600 and a typical omission by Mr. Schmidt in an attempt to create "controversy".
Who's conning who?
Mr. Schmidt apparently decided to leave out the fact that Mr. Dispensa did, in fact, verify that the design capacity of Gregory is, in fact, 1,200 at the Board meeting.
The Gregory school facility contains 40 classrooms. A regular size classroom is assigned a student capacity of 30 given the fact that primary grades' classroom size are limited to 28 while mid-to-upper grades' classrooms size are limited to 31.
Mr. Dispensa also explained the difference between "design capacity" and "program capacity". Since elementary schools need to use approx. 20% of their classrooms for non-dedicated home room use (i.e., art, music, computer labs, etc), the program capacity of Gregory is 80% of 1,200, or 960. Since Gregory's enrollment is 440, there should be no question that approximately 500 empty seats exist at Gregory today.
There's no controversy there. Just a gross misunderstanding on behalf of the Gregory school representative who claimed the true capacity of Gregory was closer to 600 and a typical omission by Mr. Schmidt in an attempt to create "controversy".
Who's conning who?
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 9:02 AM
March Board Meeting
I'm so glad for Mr. Dispensa's clarifications of Mr. Dispensa's claims, and since they are becoming more and more controversial it's beyond high time that Mr. Dispensa clarify a great deal more. For example, claims about "capacity" (design or otherwise; these things wind up subject to some fuzzy math when the data are being spun like the Enron books were cooked) require at least a look at special education needs.
The Duncan administration applied the same claims to Andersen elementary (every "classroom" should have 30 children in it, no matter what the use). Therefore, the eight special education classrooms at Andersen were ignored, forcing phony numbers into the presentation of the official numbers. Just about every school, in fact, disputed the numbers served up by the Duncan people last month, and now this month. That's because the numbers are designed to prove a thesis that's already been decided (where and by whom is a more and more interesting question).
Thus the scenario went as follows:
1. Hyperventilating claims of "underutilization" back in December (dutifully served up as "news" by the Sun-Times and Tribune, without closer examination);
2. "Proof" of "underutilization" utilized to propose school shut downs following the January 23 Board meeting.
3. Massive shut downs and changes approved based on the "proof" at the February 27 meeting (following "hearings" which were never reported in full to the Board members -- not once to any one of them).
4. Continued challenges to the Duncan administration "data", but by now it's too late.
5. And, of course, the charter schools were completely left out of the "underutilization" hysteria that Arne & Co. fanned up from December until the schools were assassinated in February.
So...
6. Yesterday we also had a ridiculous (and racially segregative) decision to send the kids who should be attending a general high school at the Austin High School building (four floors, of which only one is currently being used by the "Entrepreneurial" charter thingy and the "Polytech" thingy), while...
7. People are being told that the only "space available" for the kids who should be (all) attneding Austin high school at Austin High School is as far away as Manley (Polk and Sacramento, south of the Eisenhower) or Marshall (Adams and Kedzie) -- both many miles (and many gang borders) east of Austin (at 241 N. Pine St.).
The books were cooked to give away the buildings to the charter schools, and now the charter facilities utilization data are kept off the books to "prove" that additional public schools should be shut down and privatized.
Those are the facts that the previous write (anonymous, naturally) has been leaving out, which Duncan's myrmidons continue to cook the books so that, for example, Gladstone gets evicted to turn the building over to Nobel Street Charter and UIC, or (already completed), Collins was evicted to turn the building over to North Lawndale "College Prep" and AUSL.
The Board members, if they are really interested in the facts and using them to make decisions, could demand that the Board's people develop a data base that includes maps showing every property the Board owns (after all, maybe that "Montessori/IB" school slated for Mayer should have been placed inside the vacant Mullian building less than a mile from Mayer), so that these blindsidings and obfuscations would end.
All someone needs to do is insist on a map and some real facts, and maybe the six years of lies that have been spewing forth will finally end, at least from the demographics side of things.
After all, isn't Midway school (which was ordered closed last month because of "underutilization") just as close to Brighton Park as Pope is? But how would be Board members know these facts, when the "data" given to them is being massaged?
The Duncan administration applied the same claims to Andersen elementary (every "classroom" should have 30 children in it, no matter what the use). Therefore, the eight special education classrooms at Andersen were ignored, forcing phony numbers into the presentation of the official numbers. Just about every school, in fact, disputed the numbers served up by the Duncan people last month, and now this month. That's because the numbers are designed to prove a thesis that's already been decided (where and by whom is a more and more interesting question).
Thus the scenario went as follows:
1. Hyperventilating claims of "underutilization" back in December (dutifully served up as "news" by the Sun-Times and Tribune, without closer examination);
2. "Proof" of "underutilization" utilized to propose school shut downs following the January 23 Board meeting.
3. Massive shut downs and changes approved based on the "proof" at the February 27 meeting (following "hearings" which were never reported in full to the Board members -- not once to any one of them).
4. Continued challenges to the Duncan administration "data", but by now it's too late.
5. And, of course, the charter schools were completely left out of the "underutilization" hysteria that Arne & Co. fanned up from December until the schools were assassinated in February.
So...
6. Yesterday we also had a ridiculous (and racially segregative) decision to send the kids who should be attending a general high school at the Austin High School building (four floors, of which only one is currently being used by the "Entrepreneurial" charter thingy and the "Polytech" thingy), while...
7. People are being told that the only "space available" for the kids who should be (all) attneding Austin high school at Austin High School is as far away as Manley (Polk and Sacramento, south of the Eisenhower) or Marshall (Adams and Kedzie) -- both many miles (and many gang borders) east of Austin (at 241 N. Pine St.).
The books were cooked to give away the buildings to the charter schools, and now the charter facilities utilization data are kept off the books to "prove" that additional public schools should be shut down and privatized.
Those are the facts that the previous write (anonymous, naturally) has been leaving out, which Duncan's myrmidons continue to cook the books so that, for example, Gladstone gets evicted to turn the building over to Nobel Street Charter and UIC, or (already completed), Collins was evicted to turn the building over to North Lawndale "College Prep" and AUSL.
The Board members, if they are really interested in the facts and using them to make decisions, could demand that the Board's people develop a data base that includes maps showing every property the Board owns (after all, maybe that "Montessori/IB" school slated for Mayer should have been placed inside the vacant Mullian building less than a mile from Mayer), so that these blindsidings and obfuscations would end.
All someone needs to do is insist on a map and some real facts, and maybe the six years of lies that have been spewing forth will finally end, at least from the demographics side of things.
After all, isn't Midway school (which was ordered closed last month because of "underutilization") just as close to Brighton Park as Pope is? But how would be Board members know these facts, when the "data" given to them is being massaged?
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 9:57 AM
March Board Meeting
The interesting part of the Demographics lying is why the terms "design capacity" and "total capacity" are even being used at all. Lets use the example of a feed lot for cattle as an example(because that is apparently how Demographics looks at our children), a feed pen is designed to hold a particular number of cattle but the capacities are quite different depending on how your housing them (under roof, outdoors on concrete, outdoors on earth). So lets say the design capacity is 20-25 square feet per head, included in this number is one foot of bunk length per head for feeding. You start to pack in more than the design capacity (ie. the "total capacity" which is how many animals can physically occupy every inch of space)and you risk the health of the cattle(some will not get to feed, the incidence of disease becomes greater, etc). I would argue that the "design capacity" is really equal to the "program capacity" and once you start overcrowding the "design capacity" your playing with the equilibrium and you don't know what will happen.
And Mr. D while your responding to this can you include the racial/ethnic comparison for the Oriole/Edison/Ebinger boundary changes as required under CPS policy 703.2 that you didn't present at the meeting at Ebinger?
And Mr. D while your responding to this can you include the racial/ethnic comparison for the Oriole/Edison/Ebinger boundary changes as required under CPS policy 703.2 that you didn't present at the meeting at Ebinger?
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM
March Board Meeting
Readers of this blog may recall that Alexander provided to us all Mr. Dispensa's actual calculations of design capacity. You also will recall that Mr. Dispensa actually posted a response to concerns that I raised on his method on this blog. We looked closely at the number of classrooms called A size that were measured at 30 students for Andersen which by state regulation could only contain no more than 10 students. This data was made avaiable to Mr. Dispensa by Andersen's principal, the Alderman of the Ward, and numerous special education teachers.
CPS did not change its calucation of Andersen being at 47% of design capacity based on that information. I personally submitted a 40 page document related to this issue at the Andersen hearing. The hearing officer refused to examine the method used to establish the 47% calculation, he simply accepted that method and agreed with CPS that the school was underutilized.
I see nothing in 8:33 AM's post that refute's George Schmidt's concerns relating to the method used by CPS. In fact this poster specifically stated that the CPS method of program capacity took into consideration only <art, music, computer labs, etc> The etc does not include self contained special education classrooms that by state regulation must have lower class sizes than 30. Neither art classes nor music class have any specific mandate for the significantly lower student to teacher ratios that self contained special education classes do. George is not only ethically correct in his analysis, he is empirically correct.
Lastly this is not the first time this issue has occured in CPS. In the late early 1990s when Tom Heir was CPS associate superintendent for Special Education this exact same issue occured. Tom had the same fight over how the CPS was calculating space allocation within schools. In fact he found numerous situations where students with disabilities whose IEPs indicated that they required self contained classes being taught in hallways and on auditorum stages. When these issues were raised with CPS facilities department they said the schools had room based on their data, Tom's answer was please come look. By the way the current head of CPS Specialized Services was a graduate student of Tom Heir's at Harvard, he is an outstanding indivdual who had real concern for these students. Some bad things just never change.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
CPS did not change its calucation of Andersen being at 47% of design capacity based on that information. I personally submitted a 40 page document related to this issue at the Andersen hearing. The hearing officer refused to examine the method used to establish the 47% calculation, he simply accepted that method and agreed with CPS that the school was underutilized.
I see nothing in 8:33 AM's post that refute's George Schmidt's concerns relating to the method used by CPS. In fact this poster specifically stated that the CPS method of program capacity took into consideration only <art, music, computer labs, etc> The etc does not include self contained special education classrooms that by state regulation must have lower class sizes than 30. Neither art classes nor music class have any specific mandate for the significantly lower student to teacher ratios that self contained special education classes do. George is not only ethically correct in his analysis, he is empirically correct.
Lastly this is not the first time this issue has occured in CPS. In the late early 1990s when Tom Heir was CPS associate superintendent for Special Education this exact same issue occured. Tom had the same fight over how the CPS was calculating space allocation within schools. In fact he found numerous situations where students with disabilities whose IEPs indicated that they required self contained classes being taught in hallways and on auditorum stages. When these issues were raised with CPS facilities department they said the schools had room based on their data, Tom's answer was please come look. By the way the current head of CPS Specialized Services was a graduate student of Tom Heir's at Harvard, he is an outstanding indivdual who had real concern for these students. Some bad things just never change.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:44 AM
March Board Meeting
Did Mr. Duncan or Mr. Dispensa ever visit any of these "underutilized" schools? I know they are terribly busy and important men however I would think they would at least visit the schools in question and see for themelves if the schools are sitting half empty or not.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:46 AM
March Board Meeting
Well, I guess I'll take a minute to respond to Rod's post about Andersen.
It would always be wrong to suggest that the design capacity of a given classroom be reduced from 30 to 10 for any reason, regardless of use. Doing so rejects the need to seperate design from use.
A classroom is a classroom is a classroom. If it is used in a programmatic way that restricts the class size, that's ok, but it doesn't change the fact that the classroom space was (originally) designed to accommodate approx. 30 students.
Imagine the outcome if every time one of the tens of thousands of public elementary school classrooms' use changed, the classrooms' design capacity changed.
If a school uses a classroom for the AP's office, should we reduce the design capacity of that classroom from 30 to 1?
Design capacity doesn't change. Uses change. By tracking the former and interpreting it strictly, while simultaneously tracking the latter and providing schools the flexibility to use classrooms how they see fit, the clearest picture is presented.
What seems to get lost in these discussions is the fact that design capacity, space utilization, etc., are not the be-all-end-all variables that factor into recommendations. They do, however, help demonstrate when a school's enrollment and public school student population (that is, the number of public school students living within the school's boundary) is a relatively small fraction of its classrooms space.
It would always be wrong to suggest that the design capacity of a given classroom be reduced from 30 to 10 for any reason, regardless of use. Doing so rejects the need to seperate design from use.
A classroom is a classroom is a classroom. If it is used in a programmatic way that restricts the class size, that's ok, but it doesn't change the fact that the classroom space was (originally) designed to accommodate approx. 30 students.
Imagine the outcome if every time one of the tens of thousands of public elementary school classrooms' use changed, the classrooms' design capacity changed.
If a school uses a classroom for the AP's office, should we reduce the design capacity of that classroom from 30 to 1?
Design capacity doesn't change. Uses change. By tracking the former and interpreting it strictly, while simultaneously tracking the latter and providing schools the flexibility to use classrooms how they see fit, the clearest picture is presented.
What seems to get lost in these discussions is the fact that design capacity, space utilization, etc., are not the be-all-end-all variables that factor into recommendations. They do, however, help demonstrate when a school's enrollment and public school student population (that is, the number of public school students living within the school's boundary) is a relatively small fraction of its classrooms space.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM
March Board Meeting
Dear JD
I get your logic and want to thank you for the information. Your post has also
solved a mystery that has bothered me for awhile.
In reality the Titanic had enough lifeboats for its design capacity
but too many passengers for its use capacity. After all a lifeboat is a lifeboat
is a lifeboat.
I get your logic and want to thank you for the information. Your post has also
solved a mystery that has bothered me for awhile.
In reality the Titanic had enough lifeboats for its design capacity
but too many passengers for its use capacity. After all a lifeboat is a lifeboat
is a lifeboat.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM
March Board Meeting
I do not concur with JD that a classroom is a classroom. It is not simply a classroom when state law absolutely madates a reduced class size. It is also irrelvant whether or not students using a facility live within the school's boundary area in the case of students with disabilities in self contained programs. This is because unlike all other children the CPS has the legal authority under state law to place these children at a specific school that meets their needs. All out of area students with disabilities at Andersen who were in these 7 classrooms had school district approved IEPs that placed them at Andersen. The idea of placement is a formal legal concept under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it does not mean there were not families of disabled students who sought out Andersen and wanted their children to go there. In fact I meet several parents who did just that. But CPS agreed formally to placement by allowing the IEP to be approved.
Also unlike all other students, the families of these children can litigate where CPS places these children if it is deemed by them to be inappropriate. Legally CPS can send these more disabled self contained students to any school that in theory meets their needs as long as the travel time is 1 hour or less in each direction (this is based on an Office of Civil Rights decision). In the situation of residential placement it can even be out of state. Legally a parent of a disabled child can not formally argue that their child must attend a school only 15 minutes away if CPS can show it can not support the child at the closer school. Moreover, the law dictates that a disabled child has no legal right to attend the home school if the district can show it currently can not support the child there. The parent can not force the CPS or any other school district to provide particular services at the home school if those services are offered to a child at another school and the least restrictive environment situation is fundamentally the same.
So JD's perspective is not compatable with the mandates established by law. The children in these rooms are not the same as all other children, in fact under law they are formally called members of a protected class. All of this does not mean that CPS can not close a school down and move students with disabilities in self contained classes to another school that will provide legally appropriate services. In fact the CPS has no legal requirement on the State level that it have any basis for closing a school, however it has under its own rules established the idea that there has to be some type of utilization factor in this process. So if you are going to have such a factor then it needs to be consistent with the requirements of state law relating to student teacher ratios.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Also unlike all other students, the families of these children can litigate where CPS places these children if it is deemed by them to be inappropriate. Legally CPS can send these more disabled self contained students to any school that in theory meets their needs as long as the travel time is 1 hour or less in each direction (this is based on an Office of Civil Rights decision). In the situation of residential placement it can even be out of state. Legally a parent of a disabled child can not formally argue that their child must attend a school only 15 minutes away if CPS can show it can not support the child at the closer school. Moreover, the law dictates that a disabled child has no legal right to attend the home school if the district can show it currently can not support the child there. The parent can not force the CPS or any other school district to provide particular services at the home school if those services are offered to a child at another school and the least restrictive environment situation is fundamentally the same.
So JD's perspective is not compatable with the mandates established by law. The children in these rooms are not the same as all other children, in fact under law they are formally called members of a protected class. All of this does not mean that CPS can not close a school down and move students with disabilities in self contained classes to another school that will provide legally appropriate services. In fact the CPS has no legal requirement on the State level that it have any basis for closing a school, however it has under its own rules established the idea that there has to be some type of utilization factor in this process. So if you are going to have such a factor then it needs to be consistent with the requirements of state law relating to student teacher ratios.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM
March Board Meeting
To Quote RR "there you go again" JD you seem to be missing the point. Here you are saying a classroom is a classroom is a classroom. It doesn't matter if its a science classroom or a homeroom when you figure your "total capacity". In your CPS world "total capacity" equals "design capacity". In the real world "design capacity" equals "program capacity".
What goes without saying, when people are looking at your numbers though, is that the "total capacity" must be divisible by 15. It always gives me a chuckle when you throw out a number at a meeting when the number isn't divisible by 15(for example 410); you do know that the credibility of ALL of your numbers are shot down when you make a mistake like that don't you? Power point does have an interface with excel you know.
What goes without saying, when people are looking at your numbers though, is that the "total capacity" must be divisible by 15. It always gives me a chuckle when you throw out a number at a meeting when the number isn't divisible by 15(for example 410); you do know that the credibility of ALL of your numbers are shot down when you make a mistake like that don't you? Power point does have an interface with excel you know.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM
March Board Meeting
Can you tell us the total capacity of the 7th floor offices at 125, last count was 84 in legal?
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:24 PM
March Board Meeting
A few years ago, the Bowen complex, with four small schools in it, and almost no spare space other than classes or crammed multi-occupant offices, underwent a capacity analysis of laughable proportions. The school was ruled underoccupied even though we had taken over the auditorium balcony and the (only) faculty men's room as storage spaces and so forth. The reasoning was thus: each school had 12.5% of its space empty during lunch. Therefore, the empty space in my school should have been used by other schools in the building during lunch. Ergo, the building was underutililized. There is a lot ot say about this, and part of it is the reason why CPS should abandon multi-school complexes altogether, such as the one being rammed through by the Senn alderman.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:34 PM
March Board Meeting
Rod, here you say "being taught in hallways and on auditorium stages" isn't that almost the same language found in the exhibits in the latest filing under the US v. CPS board of Ed as it applies to ELL's? Talk about a pattern of abuse on CPS part.
You also say "In fact the CPS has no legal requirement on the State level that it have any basis for closing a school, however it has under its own rules established the idea that there has to be some type of utilization factor in this process." I would add ...unless the established policy goes against a legally binding desegregation agreement and in that case CPS legal will say that NO POLICY applies.
You also say "In fact the CPS has no legal requirement on the State level that it have any basis for closing a school, however it has under its own rules established the idea that there has to be some type of utilization factor in this process." I would add ...unless the established policy goes against a legally binding desegregation agreement and in that case CPS legal will say that NO POLICY applies.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 3:15 PM
March Board Meeting
Yes. Hi JD I read the MALDF and ACLU brief relating to ELL students that was filed with Judge Kocoras March 13 in the on gong desegregation case. The issues are still the same as back in the early 1990s in terms of space and locations of various programs. ELL students with disabilities were particularly being denied access to appropriate programs according to that brief and based on my own experiences in CPS schools that rang very true to me. You are so right about CPS legal denying the applicability of their own rules when they are called on enforcing them or claiming they do not apply. One wonders sometimes why they even both to write all these thing up.
Rod Estvan
Rod Estvan
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM
March Board Meeting
"By the way the current head of CPS Specialized Services was a graduate student of Tom Heir's at Harvard, he is an outstanding indivdual who had real concern for these students."
What lesson did OSS head take away from her studies with Heir? What did she miss?
What lesson did OSS head take away from her studies with Heir? What did she miss?
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 5:30 PM
March Board Meeting
Mentee, I think only Renee Grant-Mitchell can answer that question. But Heir would be first to admit the reality of running a big urban special education program is far different than being a university professor. One big difference that Tom had in relation to that job was he was not really worried about his future and was willing to butt heads.
But he was not able to achieve the things he wanted to because of the same basic problem all directors of special education have and that is money. The money problem is huge and it drives the relationship between the director of special education programs and the Board in every district. The other big problem is larger ideas for school district transformation, like Ren 2010. How do they fit with special education and the legal mandates a special education director is required to meet. Do they help or hurt?
On the level of school district transformation special education is seen as tertiary. The special education programs in CPS and elsewhere have to respond to changes and for the most part are not instrumental in creating district level policy. I guess from what I know of Tom Heir's body of work, if Renee missed anything then it was becoming herself critical to CPS on the larger policy level. But if she reads this I think she would clearly say she was in the meetings and raised relevant issues and some her considerations were accepted and others ignored. What more could she do?
I think Tom Heir was honest, he recoginized the real short coming of special education and still notes how poor the outcomes are for special education students in urban areas. That honesty has a certain protective aura around it in some contexts, the CPS is not one of those contexts. Sue Gamm another former CPS Special Education director was pretty honest about the short comings of CPS for students with special needs, when asked once by the media about the fact that lots of students with disabilities did not have special ed teachers she said she was not a magican. That did not work, that was not being on message, she was effectively moved out once Vallas was gone.
So working for the current Board the special education director is required at best to be evasive if not dishonest publicly. That public posture is easily internalized and then there is no honesty even in the administrative hallways and offices on Clark Street. When that happens and I think it is happening now we are in real trouble.
Rod Estvan
But he was not able to achieve the things he wanted to because of the same basic problem all directors of special education have and that is money. The money problem is huge and it drives the relationship between the director of special education programs and the Board in every district. The other big problem is larger ideas for school district transformation, like Ren 2010. How do they fit with special education and the legal mandates a special education director is required to meet. Do they help or hurt?
On the level of school district transformation special education is seen as tertiary. The special education programs in CPS and elsewhere have to respond to changes and for the most part are not instrumental in creating district level policy. I guess from what I know of Tom Heir's body of work, if Renee missed anything then it was becoming herself critical to CPS on the larger policy level. But if she reads this I think she would clearly say she was in the meetings and raised relevant issues and some her considerations were accepted and others ignored. What more could she do?
I think Tom Heir was honest, he recoginized the real short coming of special education and still notes how poor the outcomes are for special education students in urban areas. That honesty has a certain protective aura around it in some contexts, the CPS is not one of those contexts. Sue Gamm another former CPS Special Education director was pretty honest about the short comings of CPS for students with special needs, when asked once by the media about the fact that lots of students with disabilities did not have special ed teachers she said she was not a magican. That did not work, that was not being on message, she was effectively moved out once Vallas was gone.
So working for the current Board the special education director is required at best to be evasive if not dishonest publicly. That public posture is easily internalized and then there is no honesty even in the administrative hallways and offices on Clark Street. When that happens and I think it is happening now we are in real trouble.
Rod Estvan
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM
March Board Meeting
"If a school uses a classroom for the AP's office, should we reduce the design capacity of that classroom from 30 to 1?"
No, and when pigs fly, we'll be using that nifty example, JD; if you'd spent any time in a Chicago Public School over 50 years old, you would know that the opposite is the case, you fool. In other words, 99% of spaces originally designed for non-classroom use, from cavernous auditoriums and gyms to tiny offices and therapy rooms have already been appropriated for instruction, most of it for classrooms.
A dozen divisions will hold homeroom in the cafeteria, therapeutic teams will share a common space in an area meant for one therapist, and attempt to conduct private and confidential tests, interviews and conferences with their colleagues forced to listen in, inhibiting both the students and parents they're attempting to serve.
The mere idea of school staff co-opting instruction space for administration is beyond insulting. You need to cease and desist peddling these awful ideas to ignorant 125 administrators who have never taught a day in their lives. You should be ashamed of yourself.
No, and when pigs fly, we'll be using that nifty example, JD; if you'd spent any time in a Chicago Public School over 50 years old, you would know that the opposite is the case, you fool. In other words, 99% of spaces originally designed for non-classroom use, from cavernous auditoriums and gyms to tiny offices and therapy rooms have already been appropriated for instruction, most of it for classrooms.
A dozen divisions will hold homeroom in the cafeteria, therapeutic teams will share a common space in an area meant for one therapist, and attempt to conduct private and confidential tests, interviews and conferences with their colleagues forced to listen in, inhibiting both the students and parents they're attempting to serve.
The mere idea of school staff co-opting instruction space for administration is beyond insulting. You need to cease and desist peddling these awful ideas to ignorant 125 administrators who have never taught a day in their lives. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 3:13 AM
March Board Meeting
This was not a morning when I expected to laugh out loud here. Opening the Zell Tribune yesterday morning and seeing a photograph of the front of "James H. Bowen High School" with another reminder that things have gotten worse -- not better -- for kids in this town was no help. When I taught (and doubled as "security coordinator") at Bowen, I stood on that side of the building with (CPD Officer) Frank Arias and other security people every morning and every afternoon for about 1,500 mornings and afternoons. It was part of our deployment. We didn't stop all the killings, but at least many of them didn't take place within a block of Bowen.
But this thread is about the Orwellian world of "CPS Demographics" and the discussion since yesterday morning of "Design Capacity" and "Program Capacity" has already exposed the noxious nature of CPS data. Every school that was up for closure (er., or "reorganization") in February 2008 refuted Duncan's data. Whether Arne was lying about "overcrowding" on the "northwest side" to justify attacking Edison (which is in the "sliver" west of Harlem and north of the Kennedy) or the claims about Andersen that Rod Estvan notes above, the data were spun to screw the schools.
And, as noted already, the data for the charter schools isn't even in the inventory.
And, as now noted, Duncan's administration isn't even reporting the growing inventory of unused -- not "underutilized" or some other Orwell joke -- buildings. There are a number of them scattered across the north side, and others across the town. When Oscar Mayer was discussed Wednesday with no discussion of the Mulligan school building (1855 N. Sheffield, less than a mile from Mayer) or the Near North high school building, anyone but a willfully ignorant Board member could see how the fix was being played.
The manipulation of "Demographics" by the people who run Chicago is a long and ugly tradition. It pre-dates any of the people now running CPS, but its ultimate functions have always been the manipulation of public schools against the public school system. This round is just the latest iteration of the stuff that was going on when Tom Teraji ruled that black children couldn't cross Ashland Ave. at the time the Bunche School (65th and Ashland) was opened 40 years ago. At that time, as savants remember, the white folks lived west of Ashland and the black folks had just "filled in" the area east of Ashland.
CPS has always operated this way, making claims that were simply repeated as fact no matter what the facts on the ground.
(As soon as black people had moved across Ashland -- and survived the welcoming committees -- CPS "Demographics" discovered that black children were, in fact, capable of crossing Ashland Ave. from the east side of the street to the west side of the street.
By the way.
Five years ago, some of my in-laws moved from the area around Diversey and Broadway (Nettlehorst School attendance area) to Wilmette. Suddenly, "design capacity" and instructional capacity of their school were no longer an issue to be manipulated politically.
They consider a regular classroom overcrowded if there are more than 20 children in it. Imagine the flexibility CPS principals, communities and teachers would have if Mr. Dispensa's formulas were make on the basis like that. Real learning in a humane environment?
Instead, we get ignorant prattle that makes Chicago children sound like they were hens being fitted for one of Tyson's factory farms.
But this thread is about the Orwellian world of "CPS Demographics" and the discussion since yesterday morning of "Design Capacity" and "Program Capacity" has already exposed the noxious nature of CPS data. Every school that was up for closure (er., or "reorganization") in February 2008 refuted Duncan's data. Whether Arne was lying about "overcrowding" on the "northwest side" to justify attacking Edison (which is in the "sliver" west of Harlem and north of the Kennedy) or the claims about Andersen that Rod Estvan notes above, the data were spun to screw the schools.
And, as noted already, the data for the charter schools isn't even in the inventory.
And, as now noted, Duncan's administration isn't even reporting the growing inventory of unused -- not "underutilized" or some other Orwell joke -- buildings. There are a number of them scattered across the north side, and others across the town. When Oscar Mayer was discussed Wednesday with no discussion of the Mulligan school building (1855 N. Sheffield, less than a mile from Mayer) or the Near North high school building, anyone but a willfully ignorant Board member could see how the fix was being played.
The manipulation of "Demographics" by the people who run Chicago is a long and ugly tradition. It pre-dates any of the people now running CPS, but its ultimate functions have always been the manipulation of public schools against the public school system. This round is just the latest iteration of the stuff that was going on when Tom Teraji ruled that black children couldn't cross Ashland Ave. at the time the Bunche School (65th and Ashland) was opened 40 years ago. At that time, as savants remember, the white folks lived west of Ashland and the black folks had just "filled in" the area east of Ashland.
CPS has always operated this way, making claims that were simply repeated as fact no matter what the facts on the ground.
(As soon as black people had moved across Ashland -- and survived the welcoming committees -- CPS "Demographics" discovered that black children were, in fact, capable of crossing Ashland Ave. from the east side of the street to the west side of the street.
By the way.
Five years ago, some of my in-laws moved from the area around Diversey and Broadway (Nettlehorst School attendance area) to Wilmette. Suddenly, "design capacity" and instructional capacity of their school were no longer an issue to be manipulated politically.
They consider a regular classroom overcrowded if there are more than 20 children in it. Imagine the flexibility CPS principals, communities and teachers would have if Mr. Dispensa's formulas were make on the basis like that. Real learning in a humane environment?
Instead, we get ignorant prattle that makes Chicago children sound like they were hens being fitted for one of Tyson's factory farms.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 3:24 AM
March Board Meeting
Here's hoping that Arne Duncan's censors don't cut everything from the video version of Wednesday's Board meeting. The debate -- yes, a real debate, after years of the Rubber Stamp disease -- at the finish line was interesting enough.
My favorite part came when the Demographics Department (never asked, by the way, how one gets certified in "Demographics" other than a Bridgeport pedigree) and Arne Duncan repeatedly lectured the President of the Chicago Board of Education (and other Board members) in what sounded to me like a fairly patronizing way.
What amazes me (and which I discussed with a couple of Board members) is why the Board doesn't just demand that there be a comprehensive facilities and demographics map available to them in a data base, and why while that's being developed (I know, they'll give it to the same geniuses who've done IMPACT and payroll) they don't just bring in a couple of those large CPS maps they can print out in five minutes ten floors up from the Board chambers. Either the Board members don't want to know, or they haven't thought of it.
But when they were discussing that bizarre move of "Burroughs II" into Pope and being told that Pope was the "only" nearby available space, I was wondering why nobody was asking for a map. Just, say, to prove it.
The reason is that one month earlier, the Board had voted to close "Midway Academy", which is west of "Burroughs" (original). Why nobody asked whether the Midway building might be available (instead of those bizarre plans involving a number of Southwest Side schools) was at least a question worth putting before the Board.
Maps would help.
So would floor plans.
And maybe photographs.
Because despite what Duncan and his people said about Andersen Elementary, it does need a lot of work. Anyone walking around the outside of the buildings (that's a plural) can see that.
But if the Saturday video isn't cut, judge for yourself.
My favorite part came when the Demographics Department (never asked, by the way, how one gets certified in "Demographics" other than a Bridgeport pedigree) and Arne Duncan repeatedly lectured the President of the Chicago Board of Education (and other Board members) in what sounded to me like a fairly patronizing way.
What amazes me (and which I discussed with a couple of Board members) is why the Board doesn't just demand that there be a comprehensive facilities and demographics map available to them in a data base, and why while that's being developed (I know, they'll give it to the same geniuses who've done IMPACT and payroll) they don't just bring in a couple of those large CPS maps they can print out in five minutes ten floors up from the Board chambers. Either the Board members don't want to know, or they haven't thought of it.
But when they were discussing that bizarre move of "Burroughs II" into Pope and being told that Pope was the "only" nearby available space, I was wondering why nobody was asking for a map. Just, say, to prove it.
The reason is that one month earlier, the Board had voted to close "Midway Academy", which is west of "Burroughs" (original). Why nobody asked whether the Midway building might be available (instead of those bizarre plans involving a number of Southwest Side schools) was at least a question worth putting before the Board.
Maps would help.
So would floor plans.
And maybe photographs.
Because despite what Duncan and his people said about Andersen Elementary, it does need a lot of work. Anyone walking around the outside of the buildings (that's a plural) can see that.
But if the Saturday video isn't cut, judge for yourself.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 7:49 AM
March Board Meeting
Rod and George...thank you for continuing to fight the good fight!!!!
Each of you has knowledge and expertise that continues to boggle my mind.
"other than a Bridgeport pedigree" is a classic! I'd have paid to see Little Guido's characteristic crimson (when you call him on a lie) dome when he read that one.
Each of you has knowledge and expertise that continues to boggle my mind.
"other than a Bridgeport pedigree" is a classic! I'd have paid to see Little Guido's characteristic crimson (when you call him on a lie) dome when he read that one.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM
March Board Meeting
I find it interesting that the Office of Language and Cultural Education (which does ELL education) had both it's Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer retire last year and an upheaval of close to 50% of employees in that department "left" for other positions or retired and now the department is being investigated big time by the Department of Justice. The office looks like a ghost town...I smell a RAT!
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM
March Board Meeting
Demographics doesn't matter!!! If CPS wants your school, they just take it and say whatever they want to say about why they did it!
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 8:13 PM
March Board Meeting
"...Demographics doesn't matter!!! If CPS wants your school, they just take it and say whatever they want to say about why they did it!..."
True and not true. Edison is just one example of how.
But they hate to be caught making up all those lies, and after Wednesday it's clear to me that several of the members of the Board actually have become suspicious of the data they're being fed. After all, when you are told "X" about a school and then you go out there and see "Not X" it's pretty convincing.
True and not true. Edison is just one example of how.
But they hate to be caught making up all those lies, and after Wednesday it's clear to me that several of the members of the Board actually have become suspicious of the data they're being fed. After all, when you are told "X" about a school and then you go out there and see "Not X" it's pretty convincing.
Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:42 PM
March Board Meeting
I saw the two little kids from Paul Revere speaking about the gun violence in the city on the TV portion of the board.
The kids got a standing ovation.
Rufus says the schools are safer than they have been- it's the getting to and from school that's the problem.
We as educators know whatever is going on outside of the school and in the neighborhood is coming into the school- both from the students and the parents. Yet we continue to cut back on specialized services such as social workers in our buildings.
The kids got a standing ovation.
Rufus says the schools are safer than they have been- it's the getting to and from school that's the problem.
We as educators know whatever is going on outside of the school and in the neighborhood is coming into the school- both from the students and the parents. Yet we continue to cut back on specialized services such as social workers in our buildings.
Tue Apr 1, 2008 at 9:14 PM
March Board Meeting
George may go one past your attention span, but he has been saying this in his posts for a while now....
Tue Apr 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM
March Board Meeting
To evemerlot923, what makes the needs of the students at Southside more important than those of the students at Randolph? Should Randolph students be forced out of an annex that the community fought for and that is used? Should the Randolph students be shut out because Southside's principal over enrolled? Besides, why didn't Southside take the more than ample space that was offered at Calumet H.S.? I thought the goal was for Southside's students to be educated with, or at least among their peers. Whatever happened to inclusion?.......is it just an illusion?
Fight on and hurt the students at Randolph so that the students at Southside don't have to be educated with their peers.
Fight on and hurt the students at Randolph so that the students at Southside don't have to be educated with their peers.
Wed Apr 2, 2008 at 2:16 AM
March Board Meeting& the new Charters
Why is it that schools which actually are small are closed to allow the new, small charter school to occupy the site? school is starts
Why is it that CPS has a small school initiative--and allows numerous charter schools with numerous administrations to replace its own small schools and administration.
The Board approved the hiring of the teaching staff and administration. This approved staff followed Board directives and staff development, as well as Board designed boundaries and the CPS discipline code.
Is this an admission on the Board's part that they can't really run a school district?
Is there any charter school actually handling the population of the school that it is taking over?
Wouldn't a real test of the charter's work be: take the students--for instance, all the 8th graders at the current grade school, which the UIC Noble Street charter is taking over, and put those 8th graders in the UIC Noble Street Charter High and see what the results are...after all every school has excellent students, average students, troubled students...
Will those students be part of the Noble Charter school experience?
No, they will attend CPS schools? In fact, the 8th grades must apply to "other" Noble charter schools, not the campus that is taking over their gradeschool. Not the one they can walk to. Not the one where their parents reside.
They will attend CPS schools like Orr, which CPS changed into "small schools" which followed CPS directives, boundaries, staff development, etc. Didn't CPS staff a principal to that school in the fall? The principal that just got fired? The teacher leader CPS chose?
The CPS way of dealing with troubled students, students with erratic attendance, regular students and some excellent students is to? What? Fire the teaching staff? Ax its own principal?
Of course! Create a charter!.
Will someone please do an actual study of the student population at Orr. Track each and everyone currently enrolled and track how they do at the charter. Track how the population changes. Track what actual discipline code is in place and enforced. Track the actual graduation rate, test scores and college enrollment.
Keep the name the same so that everyone can look up the data for the past decade and compare Orr old with Orr new. Track the budget and administrativew support with Orr old and Orr new. Track how long the faculty stays at Orr new and where they go when they leave.
I'd like to see this data.
In the trenches, tortured by the Fresh Start Agreement, waiting to see the continued firing of tenured teachers...and PATS and support staff...
Waiting to see those people on the "Do Not Hire" secret list. Waiting to hear the union quote Tom Reese, "If you are on probation, you deserve to be fired."
Waiting to have Marilyn Stewart continue to arrange for the firing of union members, as she has with the Fresh Start agreement.
Why is it that CPS has a small school initiative--and allows numerous charter schools with numerous administrations to replace its own small schools and administration.
The Board approved the hiring of the teaching staff and administration. This approved staff followed Board directives and staff development, as well as Board designed boundaries and the CPS discipline code.
Is this an admission on the Board's part that they can't really run a school district?
Is there any charter school actually handling the population of the school that it is taking over?
Wouldn't a real test of the charter's work be: take the students--for instance, all the 8th graders at the current grade school, which the UIC Noble Street charter is taking over, and put those 8th graders in the UIC Noble Street Charter High and see what the results are...after all every school has excellent students, average students, troubled students...
Will those students be part of the Noble Charter school experience?
No, they will attend CPS schools? In fact, the 8th grades must apply to "other" Noble charter schools, not the campus that is taking over their gradeschool. Not the one they can walk to. Not the one where their parents reside.
They will attend CPS schools like Orr, which CPS changed into "small schools" which followed CPS directives, boundaries, staff development, etc. Didn't CPS staff a principal to that school in the fall? The principal that just got fired? The teacher leader CPS chose?
The CPS way of dealing with troubled students, students with erratic attendance, regular students and some excellent students is to? What? Fire the teaching staff? Ax its own principal?
Of course! Create a charter!.
Will someone please do an actual study of the student population at Orr. Track each and everyone currently enrolled and track how they do at the charter. Track how the population changes. Track what actual discipline code is in place and enforced. Track the actual graduation rate, test scores and college enrollment.
Keep the name the same so that everyone can look up the data for the past decade and compare Orr old with Orr new. Track the budget and administrativew support with Orr old and Orr new. Track how long the faculty stays at Orr new and where they go when they leave.
I'd like to see this data.
In the trenches, tortured by the Fresh Start Agreement, waiting to see the continued firing of tenured teachers...and PATS and support staff...
Waiting to see those people on the "Do Not Hire" secret list. Waiting to hear the union quote Tom Reese, "If you are on probation, you deserve to be fired."
Waiting to have Marilyn Stewart continue to arrange for the firing of union members, as she has with the Fresh Start agreement.
Wed Apr 2, 2008 at 5:41 AM
March Board Meeting
I would like to believe that Marilyn Stewart still realizes that she was elected by the membership.
I would like to believe that she will recognize her mistakes and restore her day to day operation in order to provide services to members.
I would like to believe that Union will take a court action against schools closure.
I would like to believe that she will not sell us out.
I would like to believe that she will recognize her mistakes and restore her day to day operation in order to provide services to members.
I would like to believe that Union will take a court action against schools closure.
I would like to believe that she will not sell us out.
