New Schools Here Vs. Other Places
I'm working on a story about how different districts close and open schools -- Chicago's not the only one -- and finding some interesting differences between how CPS does it and how others have figured it out. In LA, for example, a turnaround effort requires a majority vote of both the teachers and the parents before it's implemented. And in New York City, kids aren't forced to change schools and the school being phased out is given special support to make sure that it's programs don't dwindle before the kids all graduate out. Of course, some folks will say that schools should never be closed, and new schools are almost by definition suspect. That's not my view, but I think that the closing process in Chicago still needs to get better. The TAC closing and opening advisory process seems especially weak.
Speaking of new schools, the Renaissance Schools Fund is holding a Symposium on Tuesday May 6th at the Mid-America Club in Chicago. It will involve education leaders from the Chicago Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, NewSchools Venture Fund, KIPP, Chicago civic and business leaders, and many more in "a discussion of the early successes and challenges of the new schools movement (www.rsfsymposium.org)."
Digg
Del.icio.usChicago, as you know, gives new elem schools about 5400/kid to operate a new school (charter and contract anyway). If you are in a cps building they the deduct approximately 1000/kid from that amount for the pleasure of being in a cps building. Conversely, they give you 425/kid if the new school lands in a non cps buidling. This is a perverse incentive to be in a cps building - and at a time of reduced enrollment, and half empty public buildings - seems a bit weird.
More interesting maybe, deducting 20% of a modest per pupil threatens the heart of the mayors signature education initiative. A vitale legacy... I doubt the mayor even realizes what the
district is up to. And it might just be the dagger in the heart of Ren10.I am pretty sure that it just ain't so in other places.
-- alexander
Having charter schools and contract schools out of CPS buildings seems clearly to be less expensive for the school district. I would have to assume it is about $1,000 per child cheaper a year. The bottom line is CPS is not doing Ren 2010 to cost the district and tax payers more money, but rather it is hoping to break even or possibly save money.
The issue raised about CPS needing to fill up unused buildings is fundmentally incorrect. If the unused or supposedly under used building is in a community that is still experiencing increases in property values it can be sold off, example Inter-American's old site on the north side. There are other examples.
Buildings can also be put into storrage for up to about 5 years without much damage, assuming the roof is good. Basically the building retains just an engineer on site for 40 hours a week and has a contract with a security firm to monitor the building. So filling up buildings is not as critical as the poster might believe.
As to whether or not the Mayor is aware of this cost factoring, it would be fair to assume he is not. However, if the Ren 2010 fund folks go to him and complain he may ask Duncan, who will tell him it will cost CPS too much money to change the policy. Once money comes into play Daley will listen to Duncan and Williams as to why this can not happen. The reason for this is that he has no money to give to CPS from the city and must backdown when CPS says it has no money to do something such as being proposed by the poster. Reform is all fine and good just as long as it does not cost too much after all!
A former CPS facilities dept employee
By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. District 299 reserves the right to delete or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Reader comments are limited to 500 words.
