|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 26, 2008 8:42:57 GMT -5
Meeks' plan flawed, but picture perfect
There are several things wrong with Democratic state Sen. James Meeks' big plan for next Tuesday:
The date, for one.
Classes started last week in the North Shore communities of Winnetka and Northfield. So that was when Meeks should have led a caravan of inner-city kids up from Chicago to seek to enroll them in high-performing, affluent schools.
Waiting until the first day of classes in Chicago next week deprives the students and Chicago public schools of the benefits of their attendance and undercuts his pro-education message
The location, for another.
Meeks' beef—inequities in public school funding caused by an overreliance on property taxes—is with his colleagues in the General Assembly. They're the ones who've failed to adjust the funding formula and tax rates over the years, not the suburban students, administrators and residents who will be forced to share the spotlight when at least 125 busloads of city students roll into town.
The narrow target, for a third.
Unequal funding is a problem in public education, but it's not the only problem. Parents who expect teachers to do all the work imparting knowledge, enforcing discipline and creating an enthusiasm for learning in their children deserve a big dollop of blame for low test scores in certain schools.
But there's one thing likely to be just right about Meeks' plan: The imagery.
Pictures of thousands of largely poor, minority children being rejected by three well-appointed, mostly white schools—New Trier Township High School's East Campus in Winnetka and West Campus in Northfield, and Sunset Ridge School in Northfield—will inevitably (if unfairly) recall Little Rock, Ark., in 1957 and Tuscaloosa, Ala., in 1963—two dramatic schoolhouse-door moments in the Civil Rights movement.
In Little Rock, President Dwight Eisenhower had to federalize the Arkansas National Guard to allow nine black students to enroll at Central High School. In Tuscaloosa, Alabama Gov. George Wallace literally stood in the way of two black students trying to register for classes at the University of Alabama until federalized National Guard troops made him step aside.
But don't look for seething mobs, armed phalanxes or hostilities of any kind in Winnetka and Northfield next week.
Meeks, Democratic state Sen. Jeff Schoenberg of Evanston and area police, school and municipal officials met Thursday to tour the area and work out logistics.
"The meeting was very cordial," said Schoenberg, whose district includes the three schools. "Meeks repeatedly stressed that he didn't want the demonstration to disrupt classroom activities."
School and police officials I spoke with Monday were vague about what they described as "evolving" plans. Schoenberg said he anticipates the scene will have the look and feel of a massive school open-house.
Meeks said his understanding is Chicago students will be allowed to fill out registration forms, after which administrators will formally reject them because they don't live in the district.
No sit-ins, Meeks said. No chanting. No confrontations.
"The people in New Trier understand that there's a problem," he said. "And we understand that it's not their fault."
But even in this peaceful, orchestrated format, next Tuesday's event is likely to draw more attention to this issue and spark more debate and action than hundreds of sermons, editorials, academic papers and legislative proposals.
"Pictures are not our main goal," Meeks said. "Our goal is equality in funding. But the pictures will help—they're a means to an end.".
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 26, 2008 11:50:48 GMT -5
.... Unequal funding is a problem in public education, but it's not the only problem. Parents who expect teachers to do all the work imparting knowledge, enforcing discipline and creating an enthusiasm for learning in their children deserve a big dollop of blame for low test scores in certain schools. .... Chicago Tribune had an op ed piece last week. This writer, along with Zorn and many people posting here, bring up major point that this is not simply a matter of dollars. A personal thought of mine...it is overwhelming to look at the CPS low-income student numbers. A second thought, the author's proposed solution of interdistrict public school choice is challenging enough to implement in metropolitan areas of the scale he gives examples from (St Louis, Indianapolis, etc). The mega scale of Chicago would be an extreme complication. Radical idea: Open the doors of affluent suburban schools to Chicago students Richard D. Kahlenberg, Chicago Tribune, 8/22/2008 Sen. James Meeks' (D-Chicago) proposed student boycott of Chicago public schools next month has sparked furious controversy. Should students miss their first day of class for the worthy goal of promoting equity in public school spending? Leaders such as Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Public Schools Chief Arne Duncan are worried about the disruption involved as Meeks seeks to enroll Chicago students at New Trier High School in Winnetka. Missing from the discussion is a bigger point: The main reason New Trier's students achieve and graduate at much higher levels isn't per-pupil expenditure; it's differences in the socioeconomic status of the student bodies in Chicago and New Trier.
Decades of research have found that the biggest determinant of academic achievement is the socioeconomic status of the family a child comes from and the second biggest determinant is the socioeconomic status of the school she attends. The main problem with Chicago schools isn't that too little is spent on students but that the school district has overwhelming concentrations of poverty.In the 2005-06 school year, Chicago public schools spent $10,409 per pupil, much less than New Trier ($16,856), but slightly more than several high-performing suburban school districts, including ones in Naperville ($9,881) and Geneva ($9,807). The key difference is that while 84.9 percent of Chicago students come from low-income homes, New Trier has a low-income population of 1.9 percent, Naperville has 5 percent and Geneva 2.4percent.What Chicago students need even more than higher per capita spending is what New Trier, Naperville and Geneva schools provide: middle-class environments. It's an advantage to have peers who are academically engaged and expect to go to college; parents who actively volunteer in the classroom and hold school officials accountable; and highly qualified teachers who have high expectations. On average, all these ingredients to good schools are far more likely to be found in middle-class than poor schools. Low-income students in the 4th grade who are given a chance to attend more affluent schools are two years ahead in math of low-income students in high- poverty schools, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Indeed, low-income students in affluent schools outperform middle-class students in high-poverty schools. More important, research has long found that while black students don't do better sitting next to whites per se, low-income students of all races do better in middle-class environments. What is to be done? To provide genuine equality of educational opportunity, Sen. Meeks shouldn't be seeking merely equal funding—a 21st Century version of "separate but equal." Instead, a reasonable number of low-income students in failing Chicago schools should be given the opportunity to attend high-performing schools in Chicago's affluent suburbs. This may sound like a radical idea, but long-standing interdistrict public school choice programs exist in several metropolitan areas—including Boston, St. Louis, Hartford, Conn., Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Rochester, N.Y., and Indianapolis. Typically, low-income students who transfer into these programs achieve at high levels and are more likely to graduate and go on to college. Even Chicago has experienced successful urban-suburban integration through the historic, court-ordered Gautreaux housing programs, which gave low-income minority families a chance to live in the suburbs. Gautreaux students rose to the occasion and performed significantly better when given the chance to attend good middle-class schools. Meeks would do well to push for a new school-based version of Gautreaux allowing low-income Chicago students a chance to attend good middle-class suburban schools. Overwhelming evidence suggests that equal spending just isn't enough. Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public School Choice." This piece was originally published in the Chicago Tribune. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 26, 2008 19:28:53 GMT -5
That cannot possibly be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 19:38:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 26, 2008 22:16:42 GMT -5
Then the definition of low-income is preposterous. More than 6 out of every 7 students in the CPS come from families that are considered poor? Read that again -- over 6 out of every 7?
|
|
Arwen
Master Member 
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Aug 26, 2008 23:17:02 GMT -5
The definition from the report card sounds fairly reasonable to me:
"Low-income students come from families receiving public aid; live in
institutions for neglected or delinquent children; are supported in foster homes
with public funds; or are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches."
From my experience, anybody who can afford it sends their kids to private school if they don't get into a magnet school. That norm takes most of the middle and upper class students out of the system and leads to the % low income you are objecting to.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Aug 26, 2008 23:18:08 GMT -5
The low income numbers are not a full picture of the city of Chicago. One must remember that many students attend private schools and they are not counted. This still does not discount the fact that there is a tremendous amount of concentrated poverty that puts these students at a higher risk of failure. I suspect that the Reverands mission is two fold in showing the young people there is hope beyond the area they know, but more importantly making other people aware of the "up hill battle" these kids face every day.
I wonder if the voters of our district had a chance to vote,how one would proceed.
Regarding our own back yard (albeit at a much lesser scale) it is encouraging to see the supt. aggressively working with the issues at our "at risk schools" and the subset populations in district.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 27, 2008 1:34:03 GMT -5
From what I've read, the number of students in Chicago that enroll in private schools is around 15-17% (and declining with the closing of many Catholic schools). So, with a little rough math:
390,000 students in CPS
331,500 (85%) are low-income
464,000 total students residing in Chicago (390,000 divided by an estimated 84% CPS enrollment rate)
71% (331,500/464,000) of all students are low income
So even taking the 16% enrollment in private schools into consideration, 71% of Chicago residents are considered low-income? It would actually be even higher as there are some low-income students going to private schools.
I am having a hard time conceptualizing that more than 71% of families living in Chicago are receiving (or eligible for) public aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Aug 27, 2008 9:29:45 GMT -5
The idea that 70%+ families in Chicago are low income is probably incorrect. The idea that 70%+ students that attend the CPS are low income unfortunately is probably correct. This problem has been growing for years ever since the advent of the suburbs as people with the means opt to exit leaving an ever decreasing tax base in the city proper. To compound the problem add the "loss of many commercial and mfg. positions" in the city and near suburbs and what you have is a receipt for disaster. Just look at the ever increasing sales taxes, employee head taxes, fuel taxes, and various other taxes and you can begin to understand the magnitude of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2008 9:58:23 GMT -5
The definition from the report card sounds fairly reasonable to me: "Low-income students come from families receiving public aid; live in institutions for neglected or delinquent children; are supported in foster homes with public funds; or a re eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches." the reduced price lunches may be the biggest category putting people into the Low Income Student definition. That can still happen even if family is above poverty level. US census data says 31% of people under 18 in Chicago are below poverty level. (21% of all people) factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1714000&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=onFor comparision, I checked out City of Aurora in same tables... it has 16% of people under 18 below poverty level, and 10% of all people. We all are astounded by the scale of these Chicago Public School numbers, no doubt. |
|
