Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The CCS Opportunity In Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Reason Foundation’s report on state open school enrollment policies…
A 2023 Available to All report found that 24 states criminalize address-sharing—a practice where parents falsify their address to gain access to a public school other than their assigned one. Parents caught doing so can face hefty consequences, including being incarcerated in 20 states and fined in 16 states. For example, parents caught address-sharing in Texas can receive maximum prison sentences of up to 10 years and a maximum fine of $10,000. Robust open enrollment laws, however, can reduce the number of families risking address-sharing since it weakens the tie between housing and schooling. […]
Reason Foundation finds there are five key components to robust open enrollment laws. While no state has fully adopted all five best practices yet, six states have adopted at least four of them.
Reason’s Five Best Practices for Open Enrollment
#1 Statewide Cross-District Open Enrollment
School districts are required to have a cross-district enrollment policy and are only permitted to reject transfer students for limited reasons, such as school capacity.
#2 Statewide Within-District Open Enrollment
School districts are required to have a within-district enrollment policy that allows students to transfer schools within the school district, and are only permitted to reject transfer requests for limited reasons, such as school capacity.
#3 Transparent Reporting by the State Education Agency (SEA)
The State Education Agency annually collects and publicly reports key open enrollment data by school district including transfer students accepted, transfer applications rejected, and the reasons for rejections.
#4 Transparent School District Reporting
Districts are annually required to publicly report seating capacity by school and grade level so families can easily access data on available seats. Open enrollment policies, including all applicable deadlines and application procedures, must be posted on school districts’ websites.
#5 Children Have Free Access to All Public Schools
School districts should not charge families transfer tuition.
Remember, this is about public schools, not private or parochial.
* Illinois…
Illinois meets none of Reason’s best practices policy goals and criminalizes
unsanctioned student transfers.Students can transfer schools under very limited circumstances in Illinois, such as specific agreements between districts. School districts can charge cross-district transfers tuition. In fact, parents who knowingly enroll in a nonresident district and try to avoid paying tuition are guilty of a class C misdemeanor, which can result in up to 30 days of imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,300.
Within-district transfers are voluntary as districts have significant discretion regarding eligible transfers. For instance, districts can reject within-district transfer applications because the applicant doesn’t meet academic criteria required for enrollment at a particular school (as set by the LEA).
Unfortunately, the Prairie State’s transfer policy is weak on transparency. The state doesn’t require districts to post their available capacity on their websites, nor is the SEA required to collect and publish open enrollment data, such as the number of transfers and the reasons transfer applications are rejected
Illinois policymakers can improve their open enrollment options in three main ways:
● Require districts to participate in statewide cross-district open enrollment and require them to post about these options on district websites.
● Require districts to participate in statewide within-district open enrollment and require them to post about this option on district websites.
● Require districts to post their available capacity on their websites.
Your thoughts on these ideas?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The CCS Opportunity In Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Anxious to see JS Mill’s reaction.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:30 am
If we can have true school choice with a voucher - then at least adopt this provision
” allows students to transfer schools within the school district, and are only permitted to reject transfer requests for limited reasons, such as school capacity”
it adds an element of competition when parents can choose between multiple elementary and middle schools within their home district.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:31 am
This reality combined with the housing crisis in Illinois results in severe school segregation by socioeconomic status in many areas. I’m not comfortable with that reality and hope others are not either. Affordable housing and open enrollment are key. People serious about fighting crime should consider the potential positive impacts of socioeconomically diverse areas and improved opportunities for all Illinoisans.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:34 am
This foundation supports school choice. Outside of that this is way more complicated then the report indicates. There are many reasons that open enrollment is not necessarily the end all be all. Students safety, capacity, lack of capitol dollars, student data privacy, etc. Also consider the implementation of this, how this would affect EBF, and how individuals could falsify addresses. The report is misguided & lacks many details as well as the complicated nature of this practice.
Comment by Veto Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:39 am
With this in place ..how much more will our schools become segregated? This is baking on schools that are primarily poorm
Comment by DTownResident Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:42 am
Traveling long distances to go to your school of choice is disruptive, hard on students and favors households who have the agency to facilitate the travel. When people say they move to the suburbs “for the schools” they mean the school that’s within walking distance or on a regular bus route, and that they don’t have to spend a bunch of time researching and applying to.
The logical conclusion of this *report* is that schools should be equally funded at the county or state level, but I wonder what Reason would say if you told them that.
Comment by 48th Ward Heel Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:43 am
With this in place ..how much more will our schools become segregated? This is bailing on schools that are primarily poor
Comment by DTownResident Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:44 am
Open enrollment mainly in cases of things like bullying is a good thing. I share concerns of segregation that said if it helps increase public school enrollment I’m definitely in favor.
Comment by Lake villa township dem pc Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:49 am
Are we comfortable with a talented high school athlete perhaps going to four different schools during their career to find the right fit? What could go wrong?
Comment by Oldtimer Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:52 am
Hard pass. This is just another way to stick it to poor, minority schools under the guise of freedom.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 10:53 am
It’s a feature, not a bug.
I’ll guess that Illinois is near the top of the charts when it comes to the number of school districts per 1000 kids as well.
Our myriad school districts, especially elementary school districts, were created to institutionalize racial segregation. Carving out small, racially homogenous K-8 districts allowed you to send your white kids to all white elementary public schools and then all-white private high schools.
Excitable Boy misses the point. Parents in Rogers Park having the option of sending their kids to nearby Evanston or Skokie is a great thing.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:01 am
- Parents in Rogers Park having the option of sending their kids to nearby Evanston or Skokie is a great thing. -
Will they all get to go? What happens to the schools in Rogers Park and the kids left behind?
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:08 am
There was a limited test of public school choice during the George W. Bush administration and it was a wild success, but that’s partly attributed to the fact that the most motivated parents will seek better schools distances from their local one and arrange for transportation. But ABSOLUTELY the principle is sound. If there’s a great school in the suburbs with classroom space, parents whose local schools have abysmal performance scores should at a minimum have the option to send their kids elsewhere. And the dirty little secret is that if Black and Hispanic students started showing up in these schools, suburban lawmakers would pay a lot more attention to education issues.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:11 am
-What happens to the schools in Rogers Park and the kids left behind?-
Not much difference. These aren’t college prep. types schools by and large. They are expensive child care buildings that keep kids off the streets and hopefully not committing crime.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:13 am
When the state fully funds elementary and secondary schools, then this could be worth considering. But short of that?
How does Reason say schools ought to be funded?
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:14 am
I am not a fan of “open enrollment” across districts. I see it as a recipe for accepting segregation in some parts of the state, and for privileging the middle class and above.
As presented in items 1 and 2 above, the only reason for denying would be school capacity. Racial balance is ignored, as are SES-related issues associated with school funding. I think we can do better, so as to prevent patently obvious ethnic and social class imbalances across districts, and within geographic areas.
While I might sound “paranoid,” one only need look at white flight and the drawing of school district boundaries historically in Illinois and in the Chicagoland region. Chicago is currently the second most segregated city in the U.S. (behind Detroit). Within micro-regions and across adjoining school districts, ethnic imbalances and class inequalities / inequities already exist.
Unless racial balance and SES considerations are intentionally used as a consideration for allowing or denying transfers, open enrollment will not solve the problem of underfunded schools, overworked teachers and staff, etc. It will only serve as a tool for middle-class families to avoid underfunded schools and the people compelled to attend those underfunded schools.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:17 am
- They are expensive child care buildings that keep kids off the streets and hopefully not committing crime. -
In other words you don’t care about poor black and brown kids. Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:20 am
70% of property taxes in the suburbs go towards local schools.
Will the money follow the child? Or is it now the taxpayers of Evanston/Skokie that take care of the children of Rogers Park?
Will the $29k/child that is spent in Chicago follow the child to the Evanston/Skoie district? Do Evanston/Skokie taxpayers have to provide transportation to the child from Chicago?
if this is about in district transfers, that’s already allowed. If one school is performing below standards than another school inside the district, you are allowed to transfer to the better performing in district school.
Comment by Frida's boss Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:21 am
===These aren’t college prep. types schools by and large. They are expensive child care buildings that keep kids off the streets and hopefully not committing crime.===
That is quite a bit to things.
All I can say.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:22 am
=== There was a limited test of public school choice during the George W. Bush administration and it was a wild success, but that’s partly attributed to the fact that the most motivated parents will seek better schools distances from their local one and arrange for transportation. But ABSOLUTELY the principle is sound. If there’s a great school in the suburbs with classroom space, parents whose local schools have abysmal performance scores should at a minimum have the option to send their kids elsewhere. ===
Bingo.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:24 am
I struggle to see how this will increase segregation. The current practice combined with our housing crisis and geographic segregation encourages school segregation. Furthermore we are only talking about instances where schools have available space after serving their local population’s needs. Those seats should be filled by anyone and not denied based on geography.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:24 am
Frida - that’s the problem: whether a kid gets a good education shouldn’t be determined by how much tax revenue their local school gets. The local residents still get a guarantee of space in their schools.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:24 am
Interesting concept, but how will people in well-regarded school districts react to parents using schools they didn’t pay for via their own taxes? I imagine this would be a lot easier to execute if the state share of school funding was higher; as it is, local funds cover a little more than half of Chicago Public Schools’ expenses while state funds cover a bit more than a quarter, and I imagine that fraction is similar elsewhere.
Also, how do magnet and selective enrollment schools factor into this? (Is everyone in Chicagoland going to try to get their kids into Whitney Young?)
Comment by Benjamin Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:27 am
=== What happens to the schools in Rogers Park and the kids left behind? ===
Presumably Chicago’s newly elected school board and Mayor Johnson will resource Rogers Park to compete with Evanston, so everyone wins.
Reformers have been saying for decades that the quality of a kid’s education shouldn’t depend on their zip code.
Here is a chance to address that, head on.
Honestly, this is the school choice bill that freaks Republicans out.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:32 am
-And the dirty little secret is that if Black and Hispanic students started showing up in these schools, suburban lawmakers would pay a lot more attention to education issues.-
The not so dirty secret is that the suburbs are not so lily white anymore. Looking at enrollment data for Lake and DuPage school districts, both counties are hosting populations that are less than 50% white. Hispanics students make up just under 25% in DuPage and 35% in Lake
Comment by SteveM Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:38 am
The proposition presents a classic conundrum.
Should we sanction measures that potentially benefit a select group?
Considering the option for students to attend schools beyond their zoned boundaries, it’s clear this would necessitate certain resources—be it transportation or proactive guardianship. Such prerequisites may not be universally accessible, but they will undoubtedly be within reach for a subset of students. Should we then curtail these prospects for some, simply because it isn’t universally attainable?
We currently face analogous disparities. For instance, my son had the privilege to learn Mandarin in high school. Yet, a student residing slightly further, in a neighboring district, wasn’t granted this chance.
A simple visualization, mapping the percentage of students eligible for free lunches against the perceived ‘quality’ of schools, reveals a telling trend. The quality of one’s education appears intrinsically linked to their family’s financial standing and their residential locale, which again, is often a function of financial means. By endorsing inter-district school admissions, we might edge closer to neutralizing the inherent disadvantages of socio-economic disparities.
The underappreciated element in this equation is the profound impact of a family that actively champions the cause of education. Reflecting on my own upbringing, among the cohort of males in my vicinity, only my brother and I pursued college degrees. This was not a coincidence but a testament to our parents’ unwavering emphasis on education. Sadly, many in our community were devoid of such familial encouragement.
If facilitating transfers to alternative schools can be an additional lever for those families prioritizing education in environments where it’s not the default ethos, then such an initiative has my endorsement.
(Thanks ChatGPT for helping try to make my point)
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:43 am
@LCD-The local residents still get a guarantee of space in their schools.
And have to also pay for the kids from other districts because the schools they’re at are no good. What wraparound services will have to be provided to “catch that child up”, at who’s cost, extra ESL, extra special needs, extracurricular activities, transportation, the list can go on and on.
In Lake County you pay some of the highest property taxes in the state, do you think your taxpayers, especially ones without kids in school, are going to want to pay for children that don’t even live in the district?
If the social construct of, any child any school, then the money paid per student per district needs to follow the child to the district performing the service.
Comment by Frida's boss Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:48 am
The Reason foundation is a rw think tank that has historically been funded by the Kochs, why should illinois entertain any of their suggestions? This is just another push by the right to erode public education and, by extension, teachers unions.
Comment by Left of what Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:48 am
=== The underappreciated element in this equation is the profound impact of a family that actively champions the cause of education. Reflecting on my own upbringing, among the cohort of males in my vicinity, only my brother and I pursued college degrees. This was not a coincidence but a testament to our parents’ unwavering emphasis on education. Sadly, many in our community were devoid of such familial encouragement.
If facilitating transfers to alternative schools can be an additional lever for those families prioritizing education in environments where it’s not the default ethos, then such an initiative has my endorsement. ===
100% OneMan. Parental involvement in a child’s education is the number one factor in the academic success of a child. There is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and parental involvement, but if a poorer family makes their child’s education a priority, they would likely perform better, with the caveat that if that student is in classes with a majority of classmates whose parents don’t prioritize their child’s education, it will limit the student’s ability to learn as much as if they attended a different school. To me that is what this is about and why I would support school choice such as this.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 11:57 am
I think this could work with some guiderails:
1. Transfers only to nearby districts (e.g., within 5 miles of the boundary of the home district)
2. Districts cooperate on transportation (e.g., home district transports to the receiving district’s boundary who then transports the rest of the way)
3. Split the funding (e.g., local funding stays with the home district, state funding follows the student)
4. Limit income disparities (e.g., preference given to households under median income)
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:13 pm
=== Parental involvement in a child’s education is the number one factor in the academic success of a child ===
With all due respect to your Hannibal Lecter (and the American Dream/Horatio Algers myth), this is an overly simplicist truism, used to blame the poor for the education they are provided.
Parental involvement actually shouldn’t be a factor in determining the outcomes of the educational process. Poor kids whose parents are unable to assist them with geometry and calculus and physics and chemistry and literature and grammar should have the same opportunity to excel as children whose parents are able to assist with these courses.
They problem is that unequal education persists across social classes and ethnic groups, over time and across generations because some kids have parents who cannot help.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:15 pm
FB - Again, that’s the problem (or a big part) - funding for education shouldn’t be primarily local. As for Lake County: there’s historical precedence for part of what I’m talking about: North Chicago once couldn’t get enough money for its bankrupt school district, so it threatened to disband it and send the students to neighboring districts - voila! additional funds were found.
That said, if the suburban schools are –that– underused that out-of-district students filling them would be that much of a burden, doesn’t that say something about those high tax rates and some of what is being purchased by it?
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:18 pm
PS: Very much a tangent, but I highly recommend this article in the NYT discussing research showing we could greatly improve student performance by letting them stick with the same teachers for a couple of years. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/opinion/education-us-teachers-looping.html
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:20 pm
When schools are primarily funded by a state income tax and each school is given the resources they need to educate the children, open enrollment could become more acceptable to taxpayers in high tax districts. Transportation and poaching of athletes and other gifted students will be a problem. This “problem” can be fixed by adequately funding each school in every neighborhood.
Left of what is spot on. The Koch fund this kind of attacks on public education. They have no interest in helping anyone except themselves.
Comment by froganon Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:34 pm
=== Poor kids whose parents are unable to assist them with geometry and calculus and physics and chemistry and literature and grammar should have the same opportunity to excel as children whose parents are able to assist with these courses. ===
H-W - this has been researched time and time again. Whether you think that parental involvement should impact student success, studies have shown that it unequivocally does. I don’t think a parent has to be an expert in geometry or algebra to be involved in their child’s education. They just have to care enough to make sure their child is being placed in an environment where they will succeed.
Unfortunately, I believe in most situations where a parent is not invested in their child’s education will suffer to some degree and there is nothing that the government or various educators can do about that.
I encourage you to read the following article:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/does-parent-involvement-really-help-students-heres-what-the-research-says/2023/07#:~:text=The%20APA%20study%20showed%20that,That%20finding%20also%20applies%20internationally.
Here is a snippet that I found relevant to this discussion:
“4. Results of parent involvement don’t discriminate based on race or socioeconomics
Research has shown a consensus that family and parent involvement in schools leads to better outcomes regardless of a family’s ethnic background or socioeconomic status.
Parent involvement has led to higher academic outcomes both for children from low and higher socioeconomic status families.
When comparing the impact of parent involvement on students of different races and ethnicities, the APA found that school-based involvement had a positive impact on academics among Black, Asian, white, and Hispanic children, with a stronger impact on Black and white families than families from other demographics. The finding also extended internationally, with similar effects on children outside of the United States.”
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:38 pm
Within-district open enrollment would definitely decrease segregation in my district. Many people buy their home based on “which side of the tracks” it’s on. I’ve actually heard this phrase many times.
The instruction is the same at all of our schools, the diversity isn’t.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:46 pm
Just for City of Chicago alone that system would be vastly preferable and similar to what CPS does now. It’s not like families unhappy with their local schools aren’t already going to try for selective enrollment CPS schools, private schools, or vouchers if they have the means. Make it easier for them to stay in CPS if schools have room.
The rest of it will never pass because every suburb will build a wall before they open empty seats to CPS families anyway.
Comment by ChicagoBars Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:53 pm
As a property tax payer, why should I have to pay to educate an out of district child? If an out of district parent wants to enroll their children in my district, they can pay for it.
If they try to cheat the system and get caught, too bad. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
If a parent wants a good school district, then move to that area.
This nonsense is getting too much.
The bunch that wrote this drivel is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They advocate for the rule of law, but want to be able to send their children to the best schools while living in a low property tax area.
https://reason.org/about-reason-foundation/
They claim to be “non-partisan” but as a libertarian think tank, they are anything but non-partisan.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:54 pm
===Poor kids whose parents are unable to assist them with geometry and calculus and physics and chemistry and literature and grammar should have the same opportunity to excel as children whose parents are able to assist with these courses.===
I think this simplifies the problem too much the other way. Sure, a kid whose parents are unable to assist with homework should have support from the school to help them excel. But, that assumes the parents allow the kid to accept that support, that the family has the time to let them get that support, and that the home environment has not sucked the motivation out of the kid. For example, I have a family member who won’t let their kid get an IEP for their ADHD because it will label them, and they are on track to repeat a grade twice in a row because of it. Others may need to babysit a sibling or work a job and cannot stay after school for help. There are a host of compounding, confounding, and spurious factors that make up the correlation between parents and academic success. Are schools to blame in part? Absolutely. Are they primarily to blame? Not that I have seen in research nor in my experience.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 12:56 pm
== Parental involvement actually shouldn’t be a factor in determining the outcomes of the educational process. Poor kids whose parents are unable to assist them with geometry and calculus and physics and chemistry and literature and grammar should have the same opportunity to excel as children whose parents are able to assist with these courses. ==
I don’t see how, to a large degree, you take parental involvement out of the picture as a determining factor for almost anything involving childhood, be it education, nutrition, sports, religion, you name it. Yes, it would be great if it wasn’t a factor in educational outcomes, but I don’t see how you get close to that.
My parents could not help me with almost any of the math I took in high school. At most, they may have taken algebra. But to their credit, they found me help using their resources when I needed help. Neither had taken much science and couldn’t help me in physics or chemistry.
I think it isn’t really the ability to offer direct help as in “let me help you find the 2nd derivative.” But the advantage or disadvantage resides in the general availability of resources outside of school and support and encouragement that can be (nor not be provided).
A family member taught for a few years in a rural area of Missouri. They didn’t have many resources. She was a science teacher with really old equipment and limited resources. She also had families who felt that working at Subway was what their kids should be doing for the rest of their lives, and they didn’t need science class to do that. I am not sure how many resources at school can overcome a family with limited expectations for their children.
No matter what schools can do, parents (and other adults) can be a force multiplier or a force divider. I don’t see how you get away from the advantages or disadvantages of that.
Figure out how to help those adults you can be force multipliers and you will make a better world.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 1:04 pm
For a downstate perspective. I like their proposals though I’d be just as happy with some consolidations. I’ve worked with municipalities and I’ve seen a lot if small towns holding onto their schools, in the mistaken thought that the school is what’s keeping the town alive. I thinkk it would be nice for those parents who are stuck in towns that can’t offer the same level of education to be able to move their kids to a school that better suits their needs. Just my 2c, we should probably redraw the districts and reduce the number of schools, I suspect that would be very politically unpopular so a pipe dream.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 1:12 pm
===Parental involvement actually shouldn’t be a factor in determining the outcomes of the educational process.===
Teachers can tell on the first day of class which kids have non-involved parents.
When a student first goes to school, there is a vast amount of difference between students as a result of parental involvement or non-involvement.
Parents who sat down and read books with their kids, taught them how to tell time, gave them coloring books, taught them the alphabet, how to count to ten or more, were more prepared to go to school. Some kids with non-involved parents start school with a total vocabulary of about 200 words and are way behind their classmates. Even though the teachers spend lots of extra time teaching them these basic things, a lot of these kids fall way behind and never catch up.
Ask any teacher.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 1:38 pm
It is important to note this caveat throughout the Reason Foundation’s proposal “…only permitted to reject transfer students for limited reasons, such as school capacity.”
This means the proposal is cover for letting some, preferred, children in while keeping others out because the school “lacks the capacity.” I can imagine schools with room for high academic performers and top athletes while lacking the capacity for students who struggle. In addition, parents need the means to get their kids to that desired district, furthering the overall sorting of the haves from the have nots.
What would be better is to dump the property tax and start funding all of the schools with resources that ensure success for all students. Our state and country have the resources to do this, but the rich want to hoard their wealth and educating other peoples’ kids is not a priority.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:02 pm
@ Hannibal Lecter
=== H-W - this has been researched time and time again. Whether you think that parental involvement should impact student success, studies have shown that it unequivocally does. ===
My PhD concentrations include Educational Leadership and Administration (along with Social Inequalities and “Work, Organizations and Labor Relations).
I know there is a strong, demonstrable finding that parental involvement helps. We are not in disagreement there.
What I argued is that some parents cannot help, and some cannot help even remotely enough. Those parents can only encourage their kids to do what they are told and pay attention. They cannot help with middle school science assignments or math or other academic work if they themselves have not graduated from college, or high school, etc.
When I taught at Millikin University in Decatur, my students were required to serve at an after school program (Youth with a Positive Direction) if they wanted to enroll in any of my classes.
What they learned time and time again is poor parents are poorly prepared to participate in their children’s education. They have less education experience, and less time (particularly single mothers). My students provided that assistance (”participation” that the mothers could not provide consistently.
We do not disagree in the importance of parental engagement, HL. But we may well disagree in the assessment of whether or not poor parents can compete on an even foot (or even adequate foot), relative to middle class parents.
Peace
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:07 pm
@ OneMan
=== No matter what schools can do, parents (and other adults) can be a force multiplier or a force divider. I don’t see how you get away from the advantages or disadvantages of that. ===
I do not get away from the advantages and disadvantages of that. I argue that some have advantages that others do not. As you said yourself in this clause, parental involvement CAN be a multiplier. It also sometimes isn’t enough. And still other times, it is absent (but less rare than most assume).
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:11 pm
= we should probably redraw the districts and reduce the number of schools, I suspect that would be very politically unpopular so a pipe dream =
The hardest animal to kill is a school mascot.
Comment by cover Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:13 pm
I would imagine if this became a reality the first thing the tax payers would want to know is why do we have extra capacity. And it would be eliminated as wasteful.
I would not mind if the receiving school could test the student and if the student is not at the average level of the existing students then don’t let them in. No district should then have to pay for specials to catch up a student who doesn’t even live there. But a perk for engaged students, that doesn’t sound so bad and wouldn’t be extra-costly for the tax payers (if the capacity is there anyway).
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:20 pm
==we should probably redraw the districts==
Consolidated school districts is a start. One school district for K-12.
You could argue CPS should be split between the haves and have-nots. Let Lincoln Park fund their schools like the North Shore folks (sky high property taxes) and push more state funding to the schools in poor neighborhoods.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:31 pm
=== But we may well disagree in the assessment of whether or not poor parents can compete on an even foot (or even adequate foot), relative to middle class parents. ===
Actually we do not disagree on that point as well. Poor parents cannot compete in this regard. Where I think we disagree is what can be done about it.
Parental involvement cannot be replaced and some kids are doomed to fail because of a lack of it. Nobody wants to hear that a kid is doomed to fail, but I have seen it time and time again. My position is that we shouldn’t punish kids that do have that type of involvement by limiting their opportunity to attend schools that will nurture their success and give them better opportunities to grow. Give these kids and their families a choice and a chance.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:35 pm
@ Champaign Life
=== I think this simplifies the problem too much the other way. ===
You are right of course. It does. Such is the nature of truisms, right?
It also places an almost unmanageable burden upon teachers and professional educators if we wish to educate all children (future citizens) toward an equal outcome regardless of where children begin in the processes. In some ways, the metaphor of “it takes a village” is too simplistic as well. But it undeniable does require a community to overcome family disadvantages that some children are born into.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:35 pm
=== It also places an almost unmanageable burden upon teachers and professional educators if we wish to educate all children (future citizens) toward an equal outcome ===
I think that trying to teach children towards an equal outcome is a noble goal and the primary goal of teachers. Unfortunately, it is not realistic. There will always be inequality in educational outcomes as long as the human ace exists. When I tell my teacher friends this, they get very upset with me, but they can’t show me that I am wrong.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:40 pm
Under current conditions in Illinois this is a hard no and has zero chance of passing.
The first thing that would absolutely have to change is how we fund schools. The money would have to flow almost totally from the state. As no one in a high property value (higH EAV) district would be interested in paying for someone from another communities kids.
Transportation is also an issue. The state does not reimburse our claims at the full 100% of their formula. Districts won’t share, we all struggle with transportation.Few people will drive very far for this and in rural Illinois it just won’t happen much. This gives those with the means a leg up, about their schools are likely good already.
Poor communities do not translate to poor schools. Under the old funding model, school with high poverty were very well funded and that goes for the new formula. Cicero 99 regularly had annual fund surpluses oy more than $20 million. Poverty is the single most influential factor in achievement, so there is wisdom in dispersing student from schools with concentration of high poverty.
Recruitment would be interesting but that would focus on sport and not academics. That would lead to an increase in corruption and that is not beneficial to students.
I think one of the big impediments to open enrollment is the inconsistency in enrollment. The state would have to change the rules and timelines for reduction in force (RIF) because enrollments could vary significantly year over yer. That does happen in Wisconsin. How do you plan for staffing and facilities when you don’t necessarily have a reliable predictor of enrollment. How will you build and fund facilities work? Currently district bond for most of that work (through referendum if it is new construction) and who is going to get that passed locally with open enrollment?
Spoiler alert, no one.
=it adds an element of competition when parents can choose between multiple elementary and middle schools within their home district.=
This is a common fallacy that it would increase competition. You do not understand educators at all. We are not trying to beat the other school (unless it is sports) we are trying to provide the best edycation possible. We are usually collaborating with other districts and this approach would certainly end that and that would hurt education everywhere.
====Parental involvement actually shouldn’t be a factor in determining the outcomes of the educational process.===
It is a factor. A big one. And it should be. It always has been and research supports that. That is why schools work hard to get parents involved. Kids don’t stay at school 24/7, when they go home parents have a responsibility to check in with their students and make sure they are getting their work done etc. I work crazy hours and always found a way to check in with my kids enough for them to be accountable. A student’s education is and never has been 100% the school’s responsibility. If it was, every district would be a residential facility so we could fully raise the kids and go a long way toward ensuring success.
=Just my 2c, we should probably redraw the districts and reduce the number of schools, I suspect that would be very politically unpopular so a pipe dream.=
How many hours a day do you want your kids on the bus?
=Our myriad school districts, especially elementary school districts, were created to institutionalize racial segregation. Carving out small, racially homogenous K-8 districts allowed you to send your white kids to all white elementary public schools and then all-white private high schools.=
With respect, that statement is false. Most districts were created at a time when education was a 100% local responsibility with no state involvement. That meant most schools were small, single building districts with local control. CPS aside, most districts with multiple schools of the same grade levels were set up as neighborhood or community schools for numbers and transportation. That does not mean what you assert did not ever happen, I am sure it did. But that is not why Illinois has so many school districts. Local control is.
It would take years to ramp all of these recommendations up. The report itself is simplistic, biased, and lacks an understanding of the “why” of schools and what communities are about.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 2:49 pm
I was wrong.
I should not have said, “parental involvement should not be a factor in educational attainment.”
Wrong words there. I was trying to suggest it shouldn’t be a primary determinant.
It should be a significant contribution to the process of education, and in those cases in which parents are unable to provide sufficient contributions, we should be prepared to supplement.
But what I said was wrong. Sorry about that.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 3:37 pm
= we should be prepared to supplement.=
Yep. We certainly do and so do others.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 4:16 pm
=What I argued is that some parents cannot help, and some cannot help even remotely enough.=
I hold a post graduate degree and readily acknowledge that I cannot help my high school child pass algebra. So I pay hundreds each month for tutoring. It is a level of parental involvement that is simply not feasible for poor parents. It would be foolish not to recognize that these disparities exist.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 4:27 pm
And thank you JS Mill for proving once again that simple solutions to simple problems are usually neither. My hats off to you and all administrators and teachers who work tirelessly to educate our kids.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 4:42 pm
This would have a nightmarish impact on EBF
Comment by wonkie Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 4:48 pm
Tip of the hat to @Pundent.
I have a graduate degree and a postgraduate degree. Calculus and Advanced Chemistry was a bridge too far for me for both of my kids. I paid a tutor in one case and @PUndent is correct that is not available to a lot of parents out there. It can be challenging to find one anyway.
But involvement is not just homework help. There is more to it that any parent can do. Just checking the book bag, checking grades (almost everyone is online now), talking to the kids even if it is like pulling teeth sometimes. It puts the kids on notice that you are paying attention, and paying attention or the perception is 90% of that battle. Kids don’t need to think you know all of the answers. They need to know that you have expectations and will help or find help or at least try.
Here is a free pro tip: If you a parent calls the teacher, and definitely if the kid asks the teacher, the teacher will find time to help the students. It might be before and it might be after school, but that help costs parents nothing extra. It boggles my mind how few parents and kids actually do this. Many many schools offer have students that will help or scheduled homework help before and after school. I know the system so it is easy for me to navigate the parent part, but just a little bit of effort can go a long way.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 4:59 pm
As - RNUG - is to his expertise, - JS Mill - is to education.
I learn so much when both (in this case, - JS Mill -) share their wealth of knowledge, so appreciative for the learning.
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 5:06 pm
=There was a limited test of public school choice during the George W. Bush administration and it was a wild success, but that’s partly attributed to the fact that the most motivated parents will seek better schools distances from their local one and arrange for transportation.=
I didn’t catch this the first time through the thread. I would love to see data that supports this claim. NCLB was a colossal failure. Within NCLB there was a school choice component that worked like this: If your scores as a whole or for disaggregated groups fell below the threshold set by the law (changed each year as well) then you could ultimately be forced to offer “school choice” either within the district (if there was a higher performing school) or with another district. In Illinois, you had to request that, through an intergovernmental agreement, another district (usually a neighbor) allow your students to attend. I was in a district that received such a request from our neighbor. We denied the request as did every district I am aware of the received something like that. I am not saying that was absolute, but I know of more than a dozen places where this took place. NCLB ultimately led to most high schools falling under sanctions, and all high schools that received Title 1 funds. Ours never did, but we were not Title 1.
It was a horrible plan, I cannot see how it was possibly a “wild” success especially since NCLB was an utter failure. Same with Race to the Top which was far less punitive.
As a state and as a country we have pumped billions upon billions into high poverty schools. Not exclusively in cities but that certainly is a common thread. And the results have been underwhelming in my opinion. There has definitely been growth, but not enough. Until we find a solution to poverty and start to turn those numbers around, we will continue to struggle.
Thanks OW, the feeling is mutual.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 7:44 pm
My parents and I openly discussed paying transfer tuition, because my home school district was just that bad.
If these rules are implemented, there need to be a lot fewer school districts. Ideally, one or just a couple per county.
I can definitely see room here to create inequality and increase segregation. This won’t solve the “white flight” problem.
Comment by Odysseus Thursday, Oct 26, 23 @ 8:16 pm