Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Pay raise politics
Posted in:
* Kristen McQueary interviews Rev. Sen. James Meeks. He does a pretty good job…
Q: But parents should be more responsible for their kids’ education.
A: That misses the point. Even if parents in New Trier had to operate on Chicago Public Schools’ budget, they would lose $31 million. They could not provide the same education today with a $31 million hole in the budget. Multiply that by 25 years and you get all the social ills we have. They couldn’t do it, even with two parents.
Q:Throwing money at the schools is not going to solve the problem.
A: I beg to differ. Ask Linda Yonke (New Trier’s superintendent) if she didn’t have that extra $7,000 per pupil, could she do the job she is doing today? She will tell you that money matters. Don’t let anybody tell you money does not matter. They have training coaches for kids taking the ACT test and ACT prep courses and 17 students in a class. When Thornton or Fenger high school students take the ACTs, that’s the first time students sat down with it. Money matters because they have a coach and aquatics and microbiology.
Also, the school that feeds into New Trier spends $21,000 per student. Those kids come prepared. They don’t need remedial courses. They are all (Advanced Placement) when they come there.
Q: There are districts, particularly downstate, that are able to do more with less, that spend less than Chicago Public Schools, and get better results.
A: No downstate school has New Trier’s statistics of 88 percent of teachers with master’s degrees and 95 percent college graduation rate. No downstate school has that. It’s a totally different environment downstate. Everybody knows everybody.
Q: But back to the parents, do you admit they play a more important role than the school?
A: I am not going to let this discussion go in the way people are trying to take it. They’re trying to take this into family responsibility. We have two-parent families in our congregation, a mother and a father, who insist their kids do their homework; who take their children to school; who know who is on the local school council. But if the school doesn’t have the resources to do the job, it makes no difference the commitment level of the parent. […]
Q: Are you going to run for governor?
A: I doubt it. There are other more qualified people to become the Democratic nominee.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Pay raise politics
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Q: If New Trier works, why do you want to break it?
Comment by Beerman Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 6:32 am
This isn’t about “breaking” New Trier, it is about fixing the inability of other high schools to get within 10 percentage points on HS graduation rates, college graduation rates, absenteeism, extra-curricular activity, and other aspects of the HS environment that yield students who are better prepared for college, and yes, eventually work.
Families move intentionally to Wilmette, Winnetka, Glencoe, Northfield, and Kenilworth so their teen can attend New Trier. Many of these families could move to any community in the US. All Meeks wants to do is level the playing field a bit.
My goodness Senator, don’t let Governor Blagojevich promise something to you ever again.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:00 am
Gee whiz Sen. Meeks, just a couple weeks ago you said you would definitely run for governor if Rod seeks a third term. Now you say you’ll probably not run. Whatever takes the day, takes the day, I guess.
Comment by DeepFriedOnAStick Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:09 am
Meeks again with the slap-and-tickle: “I’ll run against him, I won’t, I will, I won’t”. Every time you reverse yourself you lose more credibility.
I think we need to take the education system off the property tax roller coaster. Tax swap seems like the way to do it.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:10 am
There’s no real dispute. More money that’s spent on increasing and enriching educational opportunities contributes to success. Parental involvement is critical.
When it comes to high school kids, student motivation, driven by peer pressure and culture, is critical.
At New Trier, the pressure to succeed academically is severe — sometimes with terrible consequences for individuals. On the other hand, if your high school is averaging a 50% dropout rate, the culture isn’t demanding or rewarding achievement.
But even at wealthy schools, there’s a gap. Oak Park River Forest High is 25% black. On the State Report Card, 80% plus of the white kids meet or exceed minimum standards, around 30% of the black kids.
Maybe Meeks brushed over the most critical factor — early education. If you’re playing catchup in high school, it’s a tough row.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:20 am
I always liked the idea of imposing a ‘luxury tax’ on the rich school districts, and giving the money to the poorer ones.
Kind of like how Major League Baseball does it.
Comment by Leroy Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:34 am
===I always liked the idea of imposing a ‘luxury tax’ on the rich school districts, and giving the money to the poorer ones.===
It happens that way now. State funding (including grants) accounts for about 3% of New trier’s revenues. Most of the remainder comes from local property taxes. The state income taxes paid by residents of the New Trier district fund poorer districts. For example, Springfield schools receive almost 30% of their revenues from the state.
Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:51 am
The financial argument is nonsense. It is like insisting that everyone is entitled to a Ferrari for their commute to work. New Trier, like Stevenson are elite schools for a variety of reasons. How about a comparison to more ‘average’ suburban high school like Warren Township District 50? The dollars spent on the students are nearly identical (16,664 CPS, 15,994 Warren) The percentage of state dollars paying the costs of the Chicago student are 22.7% while the suburban kids are only worthy of a 2.9% subsidy. (less than 500 per child from the state)
If money is so important, than why doesn’t the Mayor of Chicago belly up to the bar and get the schools system more local money?
The TIFFs in the city are siphoning up available property tax revenue growth. Property tax rates are less the one half of what the suburban districts charge. All the funds used to ‘grease’ the system in the Chicago way are stealing revenue from the children.
So who is the enemy of quality education?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:57 am
What Word said.
Also meeks had some great responses oerall. he is right, money does matter. Small class size, private coaching for school, strong feeder schools, high level teachers, lots of course offerings are all critical.
There are other areas that need work as well, but finding is the most critical. We could vastly improve the quality of education in Illinois by setting class sizes at 10 students. The problem we have today is if a kid gets behind in first opr second grade, they are never brought back into the fold. Lots of kids are passed through grade school sturggling to get by. Each year a kid struggles in school is a year the kid is falling further behind. We burry these kids in big classes and teachers squeek them on year to year.
The ones who do well and make it to high school with good baic knlwedge then find themselves limited by course curiclium in preparing for college. We offer little beyoudn basic classes, and nothing when it comes to college entrance tests in many schools. Our kids are our last resource, we need more schools like New trier, I would not take away their funding, I would use them as a model for schools throughout the State.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:04 am
The luxury tax is the income tax as the wealthy are taxed more than others. Money is important, but he still does not want to adress the issue of family responsibility. That is most important. If you give someone extra money and expect that to be the magic bullet, you are doomed to fail. Are people in Chicago willing to put up with a bigger chunk of their income being taken away so they can compete w/New Trier? Regardless, the New Trier residents will expect the higher expectations and will get their kids what they need.
Meeks is well intentioned, but willfully ignorant if he thinks the only thing that really matters is anything outside the family unit or lack there of.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:25 am
You’d think that newspapers and their reporters could understand the impact of 1 in 4 adult Illinoisans being functionally illiterate.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:35 am
Wumpus -
Please explain to me “the issue of family responsibility” and what you think the state can do about it?
Are you suggesting Homework Police do random raids, or what?
I’ve done my fair share of research, and I haven’t found any evidence that PARENTS are to blame for the failures of our education system.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:40 am
From the AP story:
“‘Today we are back to two-tiered schools — white and affluent on one side, and black, brown and poor on the other,’ said Meeks, who also is a minister on the city’s South Side. ‘That’s an injustice and it’s immoral.’”
There are many, many poor school districts downstate that have a majority of white students who are at risk. Perhaps Sen. Meeks should have said Illinois has three-pronged schools.
Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 10:02 am
YDD, yes, the homework police can share a budget with the nueter police/dog testicle checkers suggested by Skeeter.
It is about expectations. If parent/s expect/encourage/support/ect their student to do well at school, it is more likely that the student will do well. Simple things like going to PTA meetings can help.
Perhaps PARENTS are not to blame for the failures of the system, but they are to blame for the failure of the students.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 10:31 am
It is unfortunate that Meeks refuses to accept that parents have a major role.
In doing so, we are left with a “throw money at it” solution.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:02 am
I live in a small rural community in central Illinois. My 3 children attended a school that contained Pre-K thru 12th grade in the same building and had a total enrollment of approx 500 students and has been on the financial watch list for years and yet our students continue to achieve academic honors and a respectable college attendance/graduation percentage. How is this achieved? Small class sizes, parental involvement and the use of the Illinois Virtual High School Online program to enrich the curriculum of those students who desire classes that are not mainstream enough to warrant the capital expenditure. Parents play a MOST important role in our school system, they volunteer as teacher’s aides, organize fund raisers when money is needed for things NOT included in the budget and are expected to be an integral part of their childs’ educational experience through PTO functions, teacher’s meetings, serving on various committees, etc. It does not matter how big or little or how rich or poor a school is; if the parents or guardians do not stress academic success, do not take an interest in their child’s education, all the money in the world will not make a difference. Our children understood from the time they started school that school was their JOB and would be until they actually entered the job market. They understood also that they would be held accountable for poor performance in school just as in a real job, so no excuses, no slacking would be tolerated. It was their civic duty to do their job to the best of their abilities. School was as much work for us as them, but in the end it was well worth the effort. We have 3 very successful college educated adults to show for our hard work.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:17 am
Meeks=quality guy with quality answers. I don’t hear him denying the need for parental responsibility. He’s figured out the rules in Springfield now, and he’s fighting back. “Accountability” and “parental responsibility” are the code words in Springfield, like the old segregation code words. Accountability (the lack thereof) is why we can’t give the schools more money at this time. Parental responsibility (the relative absence thereof) is why it wouldn’t do any good to give them more. Meeks is saying “you’ve used that long enough, I’m not going to let you continue to divert me from the task any longer”. Give them (literal) Hell, Reverend!
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:18 am
This is NOT about race. This is about how funding is allocated. We have thousands of rural schools who are majority white and I do not see ANYONE standing up and demanding that these children of the favored majority get 18,000 - 20,000 a year spent on them. No golf carts, no big fancy stadiums, no super cool computer or science labs, etc etc etc. Quit pulling the “race card” on every issue. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:25 am
When the parents are members of a street gang, it is tough to keep the kids out of street gangs.
Saying “I’m not going to discuss it” is ridiculous and frankly, insulting.
This is my money we are talking about. If you want to spend my money, you should have a real solution.
So far, all Meeks has offered is “send some money.” I haven’t heard him talk about parental responsibility at all.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:27 am
SPP, who, exactly was that rant aimed at?
Skeeter, the number of parents with kids in gangs would not be a majority. And, he does talk about parental responsibility. Read what he says.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:32 am
Gee, Rich, could it be me who has made people touchy?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:35 am
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:36 am
Possibly, but not in the article attached. And I haven’t read anything by Meeks where he blames parents. Miller has heard him speak more than I have though, so I might be mistaken.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:38 am
Meeks: “We have two-parent families in our congregation, a mother and a father, who insist their kids do their homework; who take their children to school; who know who is on the local school council. But if the school doesn’t have the resources to do the job, it makes no difference the commitment level of the parent.”
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:39 am
My two cents worth is: vouchers as the primary method of school funding. A parent who wants a good education for his kid may not be able to move to a better school disrict, but give him a $10,000 or $15,000 voucher he can give to his kid’s school and he will be able to get his kid in a decent school. Give every parent that kind of voucher, and the schools will come to them.
Money won’t solve the problem for kids whose parents don’t care and who don’t have extraordinary drive of their own, but putting resources in the control of parents who do care will give their kids a chance and will go a long way toward creating schools where less-well-motivated families’ kids can succeed.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:44 am
Since $10,000 and $15,000 vouchers ain’t going to happen, what’s Plan B? I forgot school vouchers as code word 2A.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:49 am
If you haven’t heard Meeks talk about parental responsibilty, visit his church–it’s quite conservative on social issues.
However, that’s a canard to avoid dealing with the issues of inequitable funding. Meeks can be criticized for cherry picking his numbers a bit, but that’s hardly unusual for a politician.
That said, the students in the CPS are nearly 1/4 of the students statewide and they face concentrated poverty. That alone is a significant factor in how well students achieve. Even with involved parents, students don’t do as well when surrounded by students who aren’t doing as well.
It shouldn’t be surprising that students around high achieving students tend to achieve at higher levels. Thus, stick a bunch of kids in a classroom in Winnetka, and nearly everyone excels. They have parents that read to them, that understand how education works, and have the resources to deal with any developmental problems the child may face.
Contrast that to parents who may not have finished high school themselves. didn’t have a lot of success in school, are intimidated by school, and don’t know the basics of how to prepare a child to do well in school and the problem is only starting.
Take a parent who knows to do all those things with a child surrounded by kids who don’t have parents who know those things and the kid around the other kids with fewer resources performs more poorly.
This also explains the relative success of many downstate districts where there is more diversity present and smaller class size (a product of fewer students–if there is only a couple classrooms for each grade they are often quite small).
No one disputes the importance of parents, but it’s also not about the parents, it’s about children. Those children may need interventions better off children don’t need. Look at Duncan’s proposal for boarding schools–it’s specifically designed to deal with parents who don’t have the resources to be good parents. That also costs money.
Kids facing more challenges need more resources–that’s not surprising. If you want to use some lame response that it’s the parents’ fault and it makes you feel better about yourself–go for it. But all it does is leave kids without a way out.
Comment by archpundit Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:50 am
Give Meeks points for staying on target for his agenda. If my kids were at New Trier it would be great, but my house would also be worth about 10x what it is worth in our local market which would result in far higher taxes than I currently pay and my current job certainly does not allow a mortgage 10x my current mortgage. There is an economic reality that has to be faced.
In our local school district there are some kids who are already in the crime sheets while others are moving on to college or good trades training. Having classes of 10 would be wonderful, but it will not happen and the chances of local property taxes being raised to the level to allow it is 0. Hopefully Meeks can include areas like ours in his basic message. Good education brings the employers/business which brings the properety values which brings the funding.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:51 am
Z, that’s why the extra money needs to come from statewide taxes, not property taxes. Many less affluent downstate districts tax themselves quite heavily for their schools, but they lack the tax base for that to provide much money. Tax rates in affluent districts that spend $15,000 or more per child may be not much higher (or even lower) than yours.
There are no easy answers, or the problem would have been solved a long time ago. At least Meeks is in there trying to do something. I have a hard time naming many other legislators who are making much of an effort on school funding reform. Rep Eddy of Hutsonville and a few others come to mind, but not many.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:59 am
While Meeks is sincere, sincerity doesn’t make your views on a complex issue such as this one, correct. While Meeks is thoughtful, thoughtfulness doesn’t make your views correct either. While Meeks is pointing out a funding inequity among public schools, he glosses over any proof that funding inequities are at the root of his community’s social ills. His sincere thoughtful presentation that educational funding inequities just makes this claim. His sincere thoughtful presentation of his logic behind his view justifies his claim.
But he is still wrong. Like the guy stranded alongside the road with a burning car wreck, his claim that the cost of his car resulted in the fire does not equate. While the facts about funding inequities cannot be denied, his claim that funding inequities as the root of societal ills overlooks far more complex realities.
In 1932, the demand for a people’s car gave the Germans a Volkswagon Beetle. But by 1946, the demand for a people’s car gave the Eastern Germans a Traubant. Demanding one-size-fits-all solutions to societal ills under a banner of fairness doesn’t take into consideration the reality of how poorly one-size-fits-all solutions work in the real world. After all, it is this mentality that is at the basis of our public school system - and Meeks recognizes it as a failure.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Rich:
No “rant” intended. The race card has been interjected at one time or another by BOTH sides in this fray. My point is this: Throwing money at ANY problem will not solve it. Regardless of race or location, property tax funding for schools does not work, is NOT fair and should be replaced. As to Mr. Schnorf, he doesn’t make me touchy, just itchy.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:09 pm
===roperty tax funding for schools does not work, is NOT fair and should be replaced.===
You have a point, but without the property tax a whole lot of businesses would pay minimal taxes.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:11 pm
VM,
Your German car analogy cleared things up in a hurry.
I suspect if the educational opportunities and culture of New Trier were the “one-size-fits-all” template” of Illinois high schools, it would be a good thing.
Meeks is using an extreme to make a point and get publicity. PR 101.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:12 pm
VM, Meeks isn’t suggesting one size fits all. He’s not trying to dumb down New Trier.
First, this isn’t about more money for Chicago (though they would get more), its about more money for most schools around the state. Second, its about reductions in the property tax burdens on taxpayers all over the state. Third, any fool among us knows that money alone will not solve our school performance problems. Places like Chicago, East St Louis, some of the near south suburbs and other areas have problems that cause grave and vexing circumstances for their students and their schools that school funding will not address. And, fifth, most fools among us should be able to understand that in addition to all that, there are some problems in many schools that more money would definitely help solve.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:14 pm
Rich:
No argument here. I completely agree. Property taxes should not be eliminated, but should not be the backbone of how schools are funded either. Unfortunately most businesses pay minimal taxes as it is. Take the state, they lease most of their buildings and in doing so, tens of thousands are lost in local property taxes annually. Or take the “TIF” zones, politically favored businesses get TIF’s extended to them by friends in high places and they in turn are given a legal pass on taxes and in doing so, rob the community where the business is located of that very needed tax base. This funding thing is a very tough issue. I believe in small neighborhood schools with small class sizes and teachers/administrators who know your child. One way to relieve the burden is to implement a VAT. This VAT is a fair way of obtaining tax revenue without unfairly burdening EVERYONE and it could be collected and split equitably throughout the state by alloting so much per full time attending student. We already tried the lottery, but all that happened was that the GA stole all GRF monies and replaced them with lottery dollars which in turn did NOT increase school funding as it was originally proposed to do.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:38 pm
Sweet Polly, if the state leases a building, the owner doesn’t pay property taxes?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:44 pm
About five years ago, a now retired Chicago Health Dept. employee took me on a weekend tour, at my request, of some of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. We didn’t go into the “absolutely worst” neighborhoods because the badge displayed on the dashboard offered only limited protection. What I saw should not exist in a civilized nation. And children lived in the midst of the filth and chaos. With the present economic downturn, I suspect conditions are worse.
My suggestion is that before the debate banters between “money is not the answer” or “parental responsibility”, interested parties should take the tour through Chicago’s worst neighborhoods. Linger for a while if you dare on a Saturday night. Take a look at the housing and ramshackle storefronts. Smell the air. See the filth almost everywhere.
The children who live in this Calcutta-like squalor weren’t asked to be deposited there, anymore than a Glencoe kid was asked to be born to a neurosurgeon dad and attorney mother.
I don’t know if money is the answer to educating these kids. I do know that “parental responsibility” probably takes a back seat to survival.
You folks who comment on these pages seem pretty bright. Go take the tour,and then I ‘d like to read your comments on what to do on educating kids raised in Chicago ghetto poverty. I’ll bet a lot of that detached, policy-speak will disappear.
Comment by Peter A. Quilici Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:45 pm
==Are people in Chicago willing to put up with a bigger chunk of their income being taken away so they can compete w/New Trier? ==
Yes, we are, and so are about 65% of all voters statewide who support a tax increase to fund education.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:58 pm
Amen, Peter.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:00 pm
VM your redifning the discussion to fit your conclusion. Putting funding for all schools kids at the same level is not a one size fits all solution, it is one step in dealing with the problem. BUT that said we have all kinds of one size fits all elments to our society. We have building codes, safety codes, laws etc that impose the exact same set of minimial standards on everyone in the State. We have a one siza State sales tax, gas tax etc. germany does the same. We are not building cars, we are building a society and its future. We expect all people to follow the same rules about not beating or killing each other; on safe construction of buildings, driving of cars, safety qeuipment on vehicles, standards for becomeing a doctor, lawyer, chirpractor, pharmacist. Each county does not pick who can be a doctor based upon the standards they want to use locally for their benefit.
We finction best when rules are unfiorm through the society so that all people have the same standards applied. We gave up seperate but equal long ago as a fallacy, and its time to do the same for PUBLIC schools. Nothing wrong with uniform spending and standards across the State.
As for solutions, if you have something that does not work, whether it be a computer program, a mechanical device, or a problem like a disease outbreak etc the first step in coming up with a solution, remove variables to narrow down causes.
If we spend the same amount of money on every child in Illinois we remove any problems created by funding inequities. We can then move on and address the problems which remain or appear after removing that variable. No one claims money is a complete solution, BUT money is a problem and a solution. There is no reason why in a PUBLIC school each child should not receive the same level of funding from government across the State.
BTW New Trier and other schools that are doing well should have no probelm if they were to lose money. Ater all they obviosuly are just using good parenting to achieve their success, so a uniform amount per kid throughout the State will have no effect.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:01 pm
WS:
You are correct and I stand corrected. My post should have read that if the state OWNS a building then the area would lose the property tax paid on the building, as the state does NOT pay property taxes - as I understand the law. THANK YOU!
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:03 pm
The first thing we need to identify is just how much of the cost per pupil is ACTUALLY spent on the pupil - NOT administrative overhead, building maintenance, etc etc etc. I believe one would be surprised to find that in the larger school districts a great deal of the per capita spending is used for the salaries/pensions of administrative personnel, not to mention perks including cars, blackberries, laptops and the like. Most school districts could do with a little housekeeping. Eliminate redundant/political hires, unneeded district offices/staff and funnel more money to the actual education of the students. Most school districts have become top heavy with needless paper pushing administrators, while schools are having to cut down on frontline teachers, which in turn affects the education of a child by limiting the scope of the curriculum and the ability of the child to be accepted into the college or technical school of their choice.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:16 pm
School Report Cards delineate instructional expenditures from operating expenditures.
New Trier: Inst. $9,757 Oper. $16,856
Chi. Carver: Inst. $6,255 Oper. $10,409
Vandalia: Inst. $3,816 Oper. $7,749
State: Inst. $5,567 Oper. $9,488
Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:47 pm
==Since $10,000 and $15,000 vouchers ain’t going to happen, what’s Plan B?==
Plan B is to continue with the same godawful system we have for poor kids. Unless you want to propose taking kids away from their “unfit” parents and putting them all in foster homes in good neighborhoods or in state-run boarding schools.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 1:53 pm
Is there any data available by one of our many experts that illustrate the performance of students in wealthier/more stable areas that get the sme funding? I believe there are some schools that are using innovative methods and such. Any info?
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 2:02 pm
You know there is that phrase “it takes a village” and really that is true. It’s more than money and more than parents, it is the self-image and self-expectations of individuals and of the neighborhoods and communities they live in: city, suburb, small town, rural.
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 3:04 pm
Perhaps Sen. Meeks should inform the couple he mentioned about Chicago’s selective enrollment and magnet high schools. There are also a couple charters that aren’t doing too badly. CPS has options for families with the energy to look for them and the talent and luck to score well on tests or win lotteries. Those schools tend to get less money from CPS than the general schools that have to take everyone. However they spend differently. Many of the general high schools have to spend considerable amounts on security due to having a more volatile population and they also tend to have a higher number of special ed students, which could be due to nonfunctional families, lead poisoning and other reasons.
You won’t be able to equalize funding between districts. Wealthier parents will simply form parents groups that pay for enrichment programgs, etc. anyway (thus freeing up moneys in order to create smaller classes and such). That’s the other reason that the selective enrollment schools in CPS do so well despite getting less money from CPS than general schools, they get massive infusions of cash from parents groups.
The problem of CPS (and some of the suburban districts as well), really, at a nutshell is how do you educate poor children in an economically segregated school system? There is research that shows if you take a poor child and put him with economically better off children in school, he will do pretty well. But if you put him with children just as poor as he is, he probably won’t. This is because children learn from one another (for instance vocabulary which research shows poor children enter school with a lot less words than wealthier children) and they get expectations from one another.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 3:20 pm
cermak_rd: You’re right; there are options within the CPS system but winning a spot takes luck, which would be ok if we were talking about the lottery. But we’re talking about our kids, their futures, and ours. Luck should describe one’s locker assignment; not whether our kids have a shot or not.
I’ve navigated CPS selective enrollment. Bright, deserving kids get edged out all of the time. When that happens, families in the city have one of two options: (1) move out of the city to find a decent school, or (2) pay private school tuition. Assuming you can even secure a spot, tuition will run $3-20K.
You’re correct when you note, “You won’t be able to equalize funding between districts,” but that’s not the goal. Create an EQUITABLE funding scheme is.
Comment by Suzanne Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 6:54 pm
Seems as if the Mayor of the City of Chicago cared about his public schools as much as he cares about a Children’s Museum, the CPS would be a much more positive educational system.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Aug 19, 08 @ 8:11 am