Posted on 08/07/2003 9:21:30 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
Chicago public schools braced for a "logistical nightmare'' Wednesday, revealing that an estimated 250,000 students could be vying for only 5,000 seats under tough new federal standards designed to free students from failing schools.
Officials released tentative data showing that 368 schools--or 61 percent of all city public schools--could have to offer transfers to 54 higher-performing ones under the "choice'' provisions of the No Child Left Behind law.
"With such a long list of schools eligible for choice, following the law becomes a logistical nightmare,'' Chicago Board of Education President Michael Scott said.
Statewide, an estimated 209 additional schools also will probably be required to provide students the choice of better schools by the first day of classes, Illinois State Board of Education officials said Wednesday.
However, state officials cautioned that all the numbers were a work in progress. Some schools could be added. Others could be subtracted under a loophole called "safe harbor.''
In addition, Chicago schools CEO Arne Duncan doubted that many of the 250,000 students eligible would want to switch schools. Last year, only 8 percent of those offered a chance to transfer expressed interest, and far fewer actually switched.
Schools are supposed to have 45 days to appeal, but most districts will have to scramble just to notify parents in time for the first day of school--which in some cases is only two weeks away. Chicago will notify parents by Aug. 18; hold a lottery on Aug. 26 that gives priority to low-income and low-scoring students, and release each student's new school by Aug. 29. Classes start Sept. 2.
The number of schools on the tentative statewide choice list more than doubled this year, mostly because of a tougher standard for 2003 test results. This year's list was based on three years of state test scores--two years under the old standard and one under the new standard.
Last year, the first year the law was in effect, overall low scores and insufficient progress in five subject matter tests triggered choice. This year, for 2003 tests, only reading and math scores were considered, but the poor performance of just one "subgroup''--such as low-income kids, special education students, African American kids or Hispanic students--was added to the mix.
For previously low-scoring schools, that meant that if 60 percent of students schoolwide or 60 percent of students in any subgroup did not hit grade level on state math or reading tests, then all students would be eligible for choice. That 60 percent threshold was up from about 50 percent last year.
Chicago schools on the tentative choice list included 11 honored as "schools of distinction'' for progress on a battery of measures, including last year's state tests. That included Shields Elementary, which was tripped up by the performance of about 200 special education and bilingual education students.
The news left Principal Rita Gardner reeling Wednesday. Plus, she had no idea whether Shields met the "safe harbor'' exemption.
"I was a school of distinction,'' said Gardner. "We've done nothing but raise our scores. But now I'm on a bad list. I have 2,000 kids. Where would they go? People are fighting to get their kids in here.''
Chicago also conceded Wednesday that 24 of the Chicago choice schools may be subject to the more severe sanction of "corrective action,'' which can include replacing staff. Duncan refused to say whether he would replace staff in those schools, but said he definitely will not do so in three of the 24 schools that have already agreed to work with the Chicago Teachers Union and the district on improving student performance.
The mass migration of students from low-performing schools to high-performing schools will be A Good Thing only if the bulk of the migrating students (and their parents) are truly interested in getting an education. If this ends up being the case, then great. Otherwise, the high-performing schools will be dragged down.
Since the school district is not responsible for transportation to and from the school of choice, don't look for these numbers to increase.
Fair enough.
What's interesting to me is that the intent of this rule is to get the poor-performing schools to clean up their act. The more cynical types in the educational establishment might instead be motivated to ensure that so many of the schools are poor performing that there will in effect be no place for the students in these schools to go -- which is the case in Chicago.
Maybe I'm the one who's cynical. But the track record of government-sponsored, union-run education gives plenty of reason for cynicism.
The way to do this is to get rid of the unions (which will follow to the new schools because that is where the money and growth will be) and fix the existing structure of public schools.
Sadly that is incorrect. The intent of this law was to make it appear that the federal government was actually doing something about poor-performing schools while actually putting all the responsibility, cost and logistics of dealing with such a reform on the local school districts. While Washington comes out looking as if they care when they really don't, Chicago is seen as the villain for not being able to meet this mandate.
The migration of a constrained system to a free system almost always causes "disruption". Just look at Russia - they have suffered tremendously trying to migrate from socialism to capitalism, and it still remains to be seen if the society can stick with it long term. Nonetheless, it should not be surprising that taking a no-choice system to a partial-choice system is going to cause chaos. What would have happened to the U.S. automobile industry if we had imposed exceedingly high tariffs on Japanese automobiles for 20 years and suddenly dropped the tariff wall? Chaos in the auto industry would have been the result as massive customer defections occurred.
Disruption during transition does not necessarily invalidate the move. The use of vouchers also does not necessarily add to the cost of schools. Rather, it allows the parent to direct the spending of that money - and to supplement it, if necessary. The choice is still the parents' - they don't HAVE to move their child. If they choose to do so and fund the difference, that is an economic decision made by the family in their better interest.
Certainly, competition will result - and pricing will emerge as a means to enforce relative performance. But tell me this: how is this any different than today? Many parents still have a choice to send children to private schools, and many do. The advent of vouchers would merely open the door of opportunity to a wider group. Within a short time, private schools would appear to absorb the excess supply of students - driven by price premiums paid to existing private schools. Again, no different than today - just a larger population involved.
Bearing the cost of the old school system should not be an issue. The cost of that system should decrease if the students leave - shouldn't it??? I see no reason why the cost should be allowed to increase. Nonetheless, any cost increase in the school systems is inevitably at the consent of the local populace. They must approve the tax levels and can force reductions in spending. We live in a representative republic. The problem is that we act like we live in a monarchy most of the time.
I agree that unions are a large part of the problem, but abolishing the teachers' unions is neither practical nor legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.