Meeks Gidwitz pilot school plan

[gatordog]

Meeks has new school pilot project
Plan ties funding to performance
By Carlos Sadovi | Chicago Tribune reporter
August 26, 2008

A Democratic state senator and a former Republican candidate for governor on Monday proposed a three-year, $40 million pilot project aimed at proving that better funding and more resources would give low-performing schools a lift.

The proposal could lay the groundwork for the long-sought statewide overhaul of public school funding, possibly including a tax increase, once the 2010 race for governor is over.

Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago), who outlined the proposal with GOP businessman Ron Gidwitz in a meeting with the Tribune editorial board, also tied the proposal to his call for Chicago Public Schools students to boycott the first day of classes Sept. 2.

Meeks said he will rescind his boycott plan if three fellow Chicago Democrats, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Senate President Emil Jones and House Speaker Michael Madigan, would publicly back the pilot proposal. Meeks said he hoped to meet with them in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.



A minister at a huge South Side church, Meeks is threatening to bus Chicago students to the northern suburbs Sept. 2 to attempt to register them in New Trier Township High School District 203 and Sunset Ridge School District 29 in Northfield. He said the protest will draw attention to the disparity between rich and poor school districts.

Meeks and Gidwitz, a former chairman of the State Board of Education who lost in the 2006 Republican primary for governor, said their plan would set up four clusters of schools—two in Chicago, one in the suburbs and one Downstate—to examine curriculum, discipline, student progress and grading policies. Clusters could have several schools or districts.

Meeks, who has pushed for a school-funding plan that would raise income taxes and lower property taxes, said the plan would show business leaders and state lawmakers that putting more money into schools is a good investment.

If successful, the pilot could provide a model for lawmakers to embrace if they need political cover for voting in favor of a tax increase for a broader, statewide plan.

Gidwitz, former head of Helene Curtis Industries, said the city's 44 percent dropout rate is not much better than when he first began working on education causes more than 20 years ago. But he said the pilot project works because it offers accountability.

"He's got a plan that makes sense," Gidwitz said. "I believe it will be a plan that will be palatable to the business community."

The plan calls for Meeks and Gidwitz to oversee a committee under the auspices of the Illinois State Board of Education that would monitor student progress in the four geographic clusters.

The focus would be on districts with pre-kindergarten through high school classes, said Blondean Davis, superintendent of the Matteson School District 162 who helped develop the proposal.

Currently, districts report student progress to the state. Under the plan, which needs legislative approval, the committee would evaluate why the district is struggling and earmark money to improve it, said Laura Murray, a former Homewood- Flossmoor School District 233 superintendent.

"School districts need to be audited to find out why they are not succeeding," said Murray who helped develop the plan.

But Julie Woestehoff, executive director of Parents United for Responsible Education, questioned how it would generate more money.

"How many hoops do schools have to jump through?" Woestehoff said. "This is just another hoop."

Tribune reporter Ray Long contributed to this report.

[gatordog]

Chicago Tribune editorial

Squeezing lousy schools
August 27, 2008
"Public education as a whole is under attack because the perception is that there is no accountability for the use of public funds. The logical conclusion that follows is that legislators are hesitant to invest further funds without documentation that there is a plan that works."

—State Sen. James Meeks and Ron Gidwitz, Illinois 21st Century School Reform Initiative



The Democrats who run Springfield now are fretting about state school aid for only one reason: State Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) has thrown a hellacious tantrum. He doesn't want the kids who routinely are cheated by Illinois' worst-performing schools to lose another year. "We know that we've lost generations of kids," Meeks told us Monday. He refuses to lose any more

Let the other Democratic pols from Illinois think of little beyond their party's national convention in Denver. Meeks is demanding a new and, in our opinion, appealing agenda. He wants Senate President Emil Jones, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Gov. Rod Blagojevich to join his effort—and commit to paying for it—by Friday at the latest.



You can guess the rest of the ultimatum: If Jones, Madigan and Blagojevich stiff him, Meeks will take busloads of Chicago students to wealthy North Shore schools Tuesday—and let the state's top Democrats explain to the national news media why these Chicago kids are hostages to city schools that soak up billions of tax dollars—but aren't held more rigorously accountable for actually educating anyone.



•••

Meeks' reform agenda, with school accountability attracting increased funding, steps well beyond the usual mantra of "More money for schools!" His lead partner in this initiative: Chicago businessman Ron Gidwitz, former head of the Illinois State Board of Education and an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor in 2006.

Meeting with the Tribune editorial board, Meeks and Gidwitz argued that:

• The current political climate in Illinois, coupled with the poor performance of so many public schools, precludes passage of any new funding scheme—probably until after the 2010 gubernatorial election.

• Even then, citizens, businesses and many legislators won't pour more billions into schools that can't, or won't, improve.

• The way to win support for more funding is to demonstrate convincingly, via pilot programs in four clusters of schools, that those schools can be fixed. Two pilot clusters—high schools and all of their feeder schools, down to pre-kindergarten—would be in Chicago, with a third in a struggling suburban locale and a fourth Downstate.

• Rescuing dead-end schools means subjecting them to levels of scrutiny and progress measurement more intense than their staffs ever have seen. The present and former school superintendents recruited by Meeks and Gidwitz would visit every cluster school to audit its curriculum, staff, leadership—the list goes on. The point would be to diagnose, and try to fix, each failing school. Example: If students are disruptive, or if teachers get poor support from above, why is that the case at this school?

• Three years is enough time to turn around tightly monitored schools. Ballpark cost of the four pilot programs: $40 million per year, or perhaps $120 million total.

• If Meeks and Gidwitz can prove that more money really can fix loser schools, they expect Illinois voters and legislators to support a tax increase. That money would fund the same reform protocol—with the same tough accountability standards—in every underperforming school statewide.



•••

The document summarizing the Meeks-Gidwitz agenda still is in draft form and isn't yet readable online. It includes line items that might infuriate some in the public education industry, but would help guarantee every child a better education. Two of our favorites:

• Yearly testing using a nationally normed test such as the Terra Nova, which Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago schools use. That would show how well or poorly Illinois kids perform by comparison with kids across the U.S.—and would end the current reliance on state-based tests that can be dumbed down to make schools look better than they are.

• "On a weekly basis, each school in the cluster must provide evidence of progress toward the achievement of identified learning outcomes." Amen to that. This reform initiative is all about the goal that excellent educators embrace but that excusemakers dodge: outcomes. Either Illinois schools are preparing students to compete in a global economy or they aren't. Which is it?

We can't handicap the prospects for what Meeks and Gidwitz want to accomplish. School issues in Springfield typically revolve around what's good for officeholders and their political supporters in the education industry, not about what's best for kids.

We believe, however, that Gidwitz is correct when he says this is an agenda that is "supportable by the people who create jobs"—the Illinois business owners frustrated by the inability of too many public school graduates to qualify for entry-level employment.

And we know Meeks is correct when he says nobody will give more money to lousy schools that doom so many students to join the generations of the cheated.

[majorianthrax]

I certainly can understand Meeks frustrations. The schools in Chicago and most of Illinois are lousy largely because our elected officials are more interested in lining their pockets with money that should go to the kids. Evidently edcuation isn't important in Illinois as evidenced by the states low ranking in edcuation. However going to New Trier is just being seen as a publicity stunt. They should be marching at Springfield.

[sardines]

This got me thinking about the parameters we use to measure success for our kids. With the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND push it seems we are measuring success primarily with standardized tests and lumping everybody into the same category.

I read an article this summer (cannot for the life of me remember which newspaper or the author) describing "why do we continue to push ALL students toward college prep instead of allowing more vocational curriculum when indicated? Some kids are not cut out for college and would greatly benefit from curriculum aimed at skilled occupational choices not taught at the four year university."
He had spoken with an educator with 30 some years experience who strongly believed that the stress from teaching to the test and the kids performance anxiety was seriously detracting from the big picture of graduating kids that could effectively function in the work force with relevant skill sets if not college bound.
Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and asked "how am I going to use this in real life" and then realized I probably wouldn't .

[wvhsparent]

These plans are still lacking a lot of detail to form an opinion. My present opinion is that throwing more money at it is not the answer.

[doctorwho]

Aug 31, 2008 9:51:27 GMT -5 sardines said:

This got me thinking about the parameters we use to measure success for our kids. With the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND push it seems we are measuring success primarily with standardized tests and lumping everybody into the same category.

I read an article this summer (cannot for the life of me remember which newspaper or the author) describing "why do we continue to push ALL students toward college prep instead of allowing more vocational curriculum when indicated? Some kids are not cut out for college and would greatly benefit from curriculum aimed at skilled occupational choices not taught at the four year university."
He had spoken with an educator with 30 some years experience who strongly believed that the stress from teaching to the test and the kids performance anxiety was seriously detracting from the big picture of graduating kids that could effectively function in the work force with relevant skill sets if not college bound.
Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and asked "how am I going to use this in real life" and then realized I probably wouldn't .

There is an issue I agree- and if you remember early on discussions on the 3rd HS also incuded some discussion on whether we as a district needed to provide some alternatives to college prep- a skills/trade based track for those who want to go in that direction. Not every kid is going to a LA college and going to thrive and apply that knowledge in their life- it's unrealistic. Offerings like AP courses and the COD link are excellent for those who know they are going in that direction - but one size does not fit all.

I know a kid who came out of WV a few years ago - as gifted with computer skills as anyone I know ( I would love to have heir gift)- went to a 4 year college and left after one semester. Just not for them - yet DeVry was perfect and is a LAN system Manager for a major corp today because although the 4 year program of general topics along with tech stuff did not fit - the sky is the limit for the tech side.

[wvhsparent]

We already have a very good Tech Program thru TCD.
My son is a perfect example of this too...not college material (even COD) went to TCD for HVAC.
He's looking for a job right now........

[sardines]

Aug 31, 2008 11:25:53 GMT -5 wvhsparent said:

We already have a very good Tech Program thru TCD.
My son is a perfect example of this too...not college material (even COD) went to TCD for HVAC.
He's looking for a job right now........

Good luck to your son on the job hunt!!
Do you think some of the "failing" (low scoring)Illinois High Schools offer comprehensive vocational course choices and such?I really don't know.
In regards to the high school level, is part of the problem that they are measuring "success" by how high the school's average score is on a college prep/standardized test?And making everyone take it even if they don't have future college plans?

I guess my question about all of this is are they suggesting throwing more money(I'm all for more money towards education generally speaking) into improving standardized test scores?For instance improving the ACT scores for people not even planning on going to college?
Or are they also considering financing other avenues to increase graduation rates and promote/ensure job skills of the non-college bound student perhaps interested in acquiring tech/vocational occupations right out of high school?
I just think there is too much dependence on measuring test scores and how can we "teach to the test" and perhaps not enough emphasis on how can we help all students graduate with the necessary skills to succeed on their chosen "post high school" life path.

[asmodeus]

The schools in Chicago and most of Illinois are lousy largely because our elected officials are more interested in lining their pockets with money that should go to the kids.

I would disagree. The schools are bad because the majority of students are coming from broken homes, usually without a father.

[wvhsparent]

Aug 31, 2008 21:20:16 GMT -5 asmodeus said:

The schools in Chicago and most of Illinois are lousy largely because our elected officials are more interested in lining their pockets with money that should go to the kids.

I would disagree. The schools are bad because the majority of students are coming from broken homes, usually without a father.

I would agree with that assessment. Which is why I say just throwing more money at it will not solve it, rather there needs to be a social solution.....of which I have no idea for.