The purpose of this blog is to organize documentation of the hearings that the appointed Chicago Board of Education is holding to hear public response to the proposed closings, consolidations, phase-outs and turnarounds.
The public seating area was nearly empty when I arrived for the Nia hearing. There was a woman from Alderman Fioretti’s office in attendance and a man from a neighboring school, but no representatives from Nia itself. When I arrived, Eric Skalinder from CORE was wrapping up his testimony, quoting research about the negative effects of student mobility on student learning. The final speaker of the night was John Kugler from CSDU. He stated that his school, Hyde Park, is a receiving school for many schools that have been closed and he sees firsthand on a daily basis the negative effects closings are having on student performance. He said that closing schools is an “unfair labor practice” and that faculty should be “treated as the assets they are.” He asked how teachers could be expected as professionals to be there for their students if they are worried about keeping their jobs.
By 4:15, there were no other speakers present, so the hearing was concluded.
After the hearing, I spoke with the woman from Alderman Fioretti’s office. She seemed to be in favor of closing Nia, saying that “some schools just need to be closed.” She also told me that she couldn’t see why charter schools were bad and thought that they were actually a good alternative. When I explained to her how charters do not have to accept all students and how they screen out potential students using lengthy applications and other tactics which weed out students whose parents cannot or will not participate in the application process, she told me that it’s the parents’ fault and asked what that has to do with neighborhood schools closing.
The hearing for Princeton Elementary (5125 S. Princeton) was not attended by any representatives from Princeton itself. The five speakers were representatives from CORE, CSDU, and CTU. There were no representatives from the Board of Education present.
The hearing officer, Michael Hernandez said that he was an attorney in private practice and had been retained by the CEO of CPS on January 5, 2009. Ruchi Verma an attorney for the Law Department read CPS’s argument for closing Princeton, followed by James Dispensa giving a report about the underutilization of Princeton. He said that in the 2005-06 school year, Princeton had 265 students. For the 2008-09 school year, the enrollment has declined to 151 students, which is a decline of 43%. He said that Princeton had a “utilization rate” of 36%. He said that Princeton is a receiving school and that students reside outside of the neighborhood. Because fewer students are being bused out of their neighborhoods, Princeton is receiving fewer students. He said that the Princeton’s thirty 8th grade students will be able to attend Southwest Area Middle School and the 121 students in grades 1-7 will return to their neighborhood schools.
I was the first speaker and testified about small schools being beneficial for students and reminded the hearing officer that CPS was pushing the small schools model as the latest reform model a few short years ago. I stated that the students being targeted by Ren2010 reforms are already some of the neediest children in the district that face socio-economic issues that negatively impact learning. I argued that these students need stability from their schools more than most students because they often have less stability in their neighborhoods and homes. I concluded by calling for a moratorium on turnarounds, closings, phase outs, and consolidations and stated that data regarding schools needs to be studied by people that understand the requirements for student success and not just the financial success of CPS and its business partners. I concluded by asking why there were no school board members present.
Next, John Kugler from CSDU spoke. He stated that he was against the closing of Princeton because as a teacher at a receiving school of students whose schools had been closed and he sees the effects of school closings every day. He said there is an increase in violence, a decrease in test scores, and an increase in the dropout rate. He said that there are Nationally Board Certified Teachers in the district that are working as day to day substitutes as a result of school closings. He said that the Board hasn’t shown data to prove that these reforms will work. He also asked how teachers could do their jobs if they are worrying about their jobs.
Eric Skalinder of CORE spoke next, citing research he had done regarding student mobility rates. According to a 2001 study, there is a strong correlation between increased student mobility and decreased student achievement. The study cited mobility as a cause of behavior problems and peer retaliation and said that these problems were cumulative, and increased as the number of changes in schools increased. Students with high mobility rates experience a slower acquisition of skills, require slower pacing of learning, are slower to form attachments to their peers, and are 25% less likely to graduate.
Although there were only 11 people in the audience and 5 people signed up to speak, Skalinder was told to conclude his testimony at the end of two minutes.
Eileen Camacho, the CTU Field Rep. for Princeton spoke next. She said that teachers complained to her that they had heard the school was closing from the news and not the Board of Ed. Camacho complained that it was unfair to “put Princeton in the heap of schools” because they were closing due to underutilization. She stated that there are no problems with academics or the staff of Princeton and asked that the Board assist the staff at Princeton in finding jobs. She said that she thought it was a good thing that the students were going back to their neighborhood schools, but doesn’t want the teachers and PSRPs “tossed out.” She asked for “extra special help for this staff” and asked that they be hired at the new middle school.
Colleen Dykas from CTU spoke next, saying that she agreed with Camacho. She said that she thought it was “wonderful” that the special education and homeless students would receive appropriate placements. She said that she was making a plea to the Office of Human Resources that the Princeton teachers should get “special consideration.”
Xian Barrett gave the final testimony of the night calling for a moratorium and asking for more study of the topic. Barrett said that schools are told to bring up their scores and once they are able to they are told that there are too few students attending the school. Instead of closing these schools, the rest of the district should be emulating them. Barrett said that these closings hurts the professionalism of teachers and prevents them from creating ties in the communities and forming relationships with parents. Barrett told the hearing officer that he teaches his students to stand up and speak out against wrong. He said he tells his students that “when people are doing wrong, look them in the eyes.” Barrett then looked directly at the hearing officer and told him that he has heard speakers say over and over that the process is wrong. He asked if the hearings are about listening or just giving the public a chance to talk.
The public seating area was nearly empty when I arrived for the Nia hearing. There was a woman from Alderman Fioretti’s office in attendance and a man from a neighboring school, but no representatives from Nia itself. When I arrived, Eric Skalinder from CORE was wrapping up his testimony, quoting research about the negative effects of student mobility on student learning. The final speaker of the night was John Kugler from CSDU. He stated that his school, Hyde Park, is a receiving school for many schools that have been closed and he sees firsthand on a daily basis the negative effects closings are having on student performance. He said that closing schools is an “unfair labor practice” and that faculty should be “treated as the assets they are.” He asked how teachers could be expected as professionals to be there for their students if they are worried about keeping their jobs.
ReplyDeleteBy 4:15, there were no other speakers present, so the hearing was concluded.
After the hearing, I spoke with the woman from Alderman Fioretti’s office. She seemed to be in favor of closing Nia, saying that “some schools just need to be closed.” She also told me that she couldn’t see why charter schools were bad and thought that they were actually a good alternative. When I explained to her how charters do not have to accept all students and how they screen out potential students using lengthy applications and other tactics which weed out students whose parents cannot or will not participate in the application process, she told me that it’s the parents’ fault and asked what that has to do with neighborhood schools closing.
Princeton Elementary Closing Hearing
ReplyDeleteThe hearing for Princeton Elementary (5125 S. Princeton) was not attended by any representatives from Princeton itself. The five speakers were representatives from CORE, CSDU, and CTU. There were no representatives from the Board of Education present.
The hearing officer, Michael Hernandez said that he was an attorney in private practice and had been retained by the CEO of CPS on January 5, 2009. Ruchi Verma an attorney for the Law Department read CPS’s argument for closing Princeton, followed by James Dispensa giving a report about the underutilization of Princeton. He said that in the 2005-06 school year, Princeton had 265 students. For the 2008-09 school year, the enrollment has declined to 151 students, which is a decline of 43%. He said that Princeton had a “utilization rate” of 36%. He said that Princeton is a receiving school and that students reside outside of the neighborhood. Because fewer students are being bused out of their neighborhoods, Princeton is receiving fewer students. He said that the Princeton’s thirty 8th grade students will be able to attend Southwest Area Middle School and the 121 students in grades 1-7 will return to their neighborhood schools.
I was the first speaker and testified about small schools being beneficial for students and reminded the hearing officer that CPS was pushing the small schools model as the latest reform model a few short years ago. I stated that the students being targeted by Ren2010 reforms are already some of the neediest children in the district that face socio-economic issues that negatively impact learning. I argued that these students need stability from their schools more than most students because they often have less stability in their neighborhoods and homes. I concluded by calling for a moratorium on turnarounds, closings, phase outs, and consolidations and stated that data regarding schools needs to be studied by people that understand the requirements for student success and not just the financial success of CPS and its business partners. I concluded by asking why there were no school board members present.
Next, John Kugler from CSDU spoke. He stated that he was against the closing of Princeton because as a teacher at a receiving school of students whose schools had been closed and he sees the effects of school closings every day. He said there is an increase in violence, a decrease in test scores, and an increase in the dropout rate. He said that there are Nationally Board Certified Teachers in the district that are working as day to day substitutes as a result of school closings. He said that the Board hasn’t shown data to prove that these reforms will work. He also asked how teachers could do their jobs if they are worrying about their jobs.
Eric Skalinder of CORE spoke next, citing research he had done regarding student mobility rates. According to a 2001 study, there is a strong correlation between increased student mobility and decreased student achievement. The study cited mobility as a cause of behavior problems and peer retaliation and said that these problems were cumulative, and increased as the number of changes in schools increased. Students with high mobility rates experience a slower acquisition of skills, require slower pacing of learning, are slower to form attachments to their peers, and are 25% less likely to graduate.
Although there were only 11 people in the audience and 5 people signed up to speak, Skalinder was told to conclude his testimony at the end of two minutes.
Eileen Camacho, the CTU Field Rep. for Princeton spoke next. She said that teachers complained to her that they had heard the school was closing from the news and not the Board of Ed. Camacho complained that it was unfair to “put Princeton in the heap of schools” because they were closing due to underutilization. She stated that there are no problems with academics or the staff of Princeton and asked that the Board assist the staff at Princeton in finding jobs. She said that she thought it was a good thing that the students were going back to their neighborhood schools, but doesn’t want the teachers and PSRPs “tossed out.” She asked for “extra special help for this staff” and asked that they be hired at the new middle school.
Colleen Dykas from CTU spoke next, saying that she agreed with Camacho. She said that she thought it was “wonderful” that the special education and homeless students would receive appropriate placements. She said that she was making a plea to the Office of Human Resources that the Princeton teachers should get “special consideration.”
Xian Barrett gave the final testimony of the night calling for a moratorium and asking for more study of the topic. Barrett said that schools are told to bring up their scores and once they are able to they are told that there are too few students attending the school. Instead of closing these schools, the rest of the district should be emulating them. Barrett said that these closings hurts the professionalism of teachers and prevents them from creating ties in the communities and forming relationships with parents. Barrett told the hearing officer that he teaches his students to stand up and speak out against wrong. He said he tells his students that “when people are doing wrong, look them in the eyes.” Barrett then looked directly at the hearing officer and told him that he has heard speakers say over and over that the process is wrong. He asked if the hearings are about listening or just giving the public a chance to talk.