As CPS prepares to close a record number of schools, the fate of students and communities is in question.
Join the conversation
We encourage our readers to leave comments and engage in dialogue about our stories. But before you do, please check out our "rules of the road."
Recent Notebook Entries
Right Now On Notebook
Subscribe to catalyst-chicago.org by e-mail
Other Blogs
catalyst-chicago.org feeds
Current Issue
For the Record: High school cops
Once routine, the long-standing practice of stationing two police officers at high schools has become controversial in recent years. Activists for students worry about a rush to arrest teens, and district officials have made murky claims about the cost.
This year’s proposed budget includes just $13 million to pay for these officers, far less than officials have previously estimated as the cost for current staffing levels. But CPS officials declined to say which schools would lose their police officers and how many would be cut.
Spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler responded to a request for details with the statement: “Police officers will continue to play a very important role in providing for the safety of our students in our schools.” Ziegler added that the district is moving toward a more holistic approach to safety that focuses on classroom management and positive behavior supports.
Principals, however, say they would like concrete answers about what to expect next year. Wells Principal Ernesto Mathias says he has heard nothing about a reduction in police officers.
“I filled out a basic form for security needs but nothing else,” Matias wrote via e-mail.
New Corliss Principal Leonard Harris says he definitely sees a role for police officers in the schools: Their presence makes people feel safe.
“They are able to address some of the immediate issues that might come up,” he says.
Last year, CPS leaders, then new to the job, tried to entice principals to get rid of their school’s police officers, offering them $25,000 in exchange for letting the officers go. But few principals took the cash.
Even principals in schools with high-performing students in better neighborhoods, such as Whitney Young, held onto their police officers. As a result, the district didn’t realize the savings officials predicted and the district paid nearly $20 million to keep the police in place.
Reducing the police presence in schools is a goal of VOYCE--Voices of Youth in Chicago Education--a coalition of student activists who say the regular presence of police in schools leads to arrests for minor offenses.
VOYCE wanted CPS to impose more stringent guidelines for police calls in the revamped Student Code of Conduct approved in June. Yet CPS refused, leaving the code as is as it pertains to police involvement in schools.
Paying cops vs. teachers?
Last year, VOYCE leaders said the cost of the police in schools is another reason to limit their presence. This year, the issue of cost recently became an issue in teacher contract negotiations.
According to a February 2010 intergovernmental agreement obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Chicago Teachers Union, the district agreed to pay the police department $32.8 million or $8 million a year for these officers from 2009 thru the end of 2012.
Then, last year, the new CPS leadership announced that CPS had been under-cutting the police department and owed it an additional $70 million. A CPS spokeswoman said the police officers actually cost about $25 million a year and Chief Administrative Officer Tim Cawley said the district had “no choice” but to pay.
But CTU leaders were suspicious. About the same time as CPS leaders announced they would pay the extra money to police, the Board of Education rescinded a promised 4 percent raise for teachers and other staff. The raises would cost the district $80 million, about the same amount as CPS was suddenly giving to the police department.
The union obtained a subsequent intergovernmental agreement---not signed until December of 2011—in which district officials agree to pay the police department $70.8 million more than called for in the original contract.
Recently, in the midst of teacher contract negotiations, CTU leadership accused the district of diverting money to the police department to get out of paying the raises. And an independent fact-finder noted that the union is still bitter about the rescinding of the raises and it weighs heavy into the contract negotiations.


Confused
I'm confused. CPS's "proposed budget includes just $13 million to pay for these officers, far less than officials have previously estimated as the cost for current staffing levels."
But, "According to a February 2010 intergovernmental agreement obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Chicago Teachers Union, the district agreed to pay the police department $32.8 million or $8 million a year for these officers from 2009 thru the end of 2012."
And, "The union obtained a subsequent intergovernmental agreement---not signed until December of 2011—in which district officials agree to pay the police department $70.8 million more than called for in the original contract."
Can you or anyone else explain please why the cost for police officers would rise so suddenly and drastically? And why the district would pay far beyond what they needed to for officers in the schools?
Rahm ripped off CPS with the escalation of the cop costs
The previous intergovernmental agreements — clearly a matter of public record during all previous administrations back to when the "Cop Costs" became a CPS budget problem in the 1990s — were clear. CPS owed only $8 million for fiscal 2012 (the 2011 - 2012 school year). But Tim Cawley escalated the cost (in one of the bigger lies of recent CPS creation) as part of the June 15, 2011 Power Point that supposedly documented the "fiscal crisis" that CPS claimed justified breaking the contract to pay the four percent raise to all unionized workers.
CPS actually broke two contracts during that mendacious orgy. The union contracts were broken in creating the fictional "fiscal crisis" (the CAFR for FY 2012 will show just how big that Big Lie was). But then CPS doubled down by breaking the contract it had with the City of Chicago and agreeing to pay a 500 percent increase in the Cop Costs without public discussion or debate. That was done by a vote of the Board of Education's seven members (as usual, no discussion or debate) not at the June 15 meeting (when the first contract was broken, with the unionized workers) but at the August meeting (when the Board members mentioned a new "intergovernmental agreement" escalating the Cop Costs wildly).
We covered all that at substancenews.net at the time, but there was a question that has remained at least as interesting since the Cop Costs were first put into the schools in the 1990s under Richard M. Daley: Why should CPS pay for routine police services at all? That, too was never discussed or debated on the Chicago Board of Education. One day, it was just done, on orders of one mayor. For years, then, the annual cost went between $8 million and $15 million.
NEVER HIGHER.
Until 2011, when it popped through the roof, first to $70 million (in Cawley's fictional Power Point utilized by CPS to break the contracts) and then higher (at least for one year) when CPS finally briefly made public the content of the new "Intergovernmental Agreement.
As usual, the suckups in Chicago's corporate media ignored the entire thing, and now it's being cast amid obfuscations and murky nonsense like the story above. The issue is clearly not whether police are needed in most Chicago high schools (and in many Chicago elementary schools) but whether they should be paid out of the City of Chicago or the Chicago Board of Education budget. Given the ruthless and vicious violence forced into many schools by the city's drug gangs (based on my experience as a local school security coordinator and later as director of security for the CTU, the vast majority of serious incidents of violence in and around the schools — including murders — are gang related), the recent claims that CPS is suspending and arresting too many students has to be examined, not just repeated.
During my years at public forums on school violence, when I served as security coordinator at Bowen High School (and during a time when seven of our students and recent former students were murdered in gang murders), this question would be raised by some ideologue in the audience. My response would always be the same: We arrest and suspend for the crime, not the person.
The day CPS completely enforces the quotas currently lurking in the shadows against arrests and suspensions, the degeneration of those schools facing the massive gang problems we all know about will be complete. Not only will those schools be unsafe near the schools for everyone, especially the children, but no one will be safe inside those schools as well.
Which is why the principals, wisely, are rejecting the notion, typical of this clueless Board and its clueless administrators, that the schools should be disarmed in the face of the violent attacks on their students and staff by some of the most vicious criminal activists in the USA: Chicago's drug gangs.
IGAs
"According to a February 2010 intergovernmental agreement obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Chicago Teachers Union, the district agreed to pay the police department $32.8 million or $8 million a year for these officers from 2009 thru the end of 2012."
"The union obtained a subsequent intergovernmental agreement---not signed until December of 2011—in which district officials agree to pay the police department $70.8 million more than called for in the original contract."
Has anybody else seen these intergovernmental agreements besides the CTU? Are the agreement published by the city clerk?
Secret documents typical of CPS version of "transparency"
The intergovernmental agreements are mentioned in the Board Reports from those meetings. The Board Reports are available by going to the "Action Agenda" for each of the meetings, and then searching through all the items.
However, the Board Reports did not attach copies of the Intergovernmental Agreements.
As most people who watch the Board carefully know, the more the Board members and the Brizard team members talk about "transparency," the more they go towards "murkiest." They simply tell you that they are being "transparent," and then do the opposite.
Take two recent examples:
First. Last month the Board held budget hearings (simultaneously on the same night at three separate non-CPS locations, an unprecedented thing, after refusing to print any copies of the Proposed budget for the public; also unprecedented) at which the "Board" people (the only Board member at any of the actual hearings was David Vitale; there were none at the Malcolm X hearing I covered) promised two things: One, they would "get back to everyone..." who had a question and, Two, they would published the transcripts of those hearings.
They haven't done either of those things, and it's been a month.
Second example of murkiest cover up: The latest "Position Roster." The Board maintains an active computer file which has always been called the "Position File" which lists the name, unit number, pay, and job title of every worker in the system. That document, which I've gotten via the Freedom of Information Act for decades, is in spreadsheet format (for the past decade or so, it's in Excel).
But the current Board doesn't post that document on www.cps.edu. Instead, last week the "public" got a thingy called the "Position Roster" which is a truncated rendition of the Position File, in PDF format. Since Ron Huberman, CPS has been publishing this thingy and pretending it fulfills the requirement of "transparency."
As their mentors from the previous century taught: When you tell a lie, tell a big one. Or as "Bunk" says in "The Wire" — "The bigger the lie, the more they believe it..."
Add your comment