Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 319 499 PS 018 781
AUTHOR Easton, John Q.; Storey, SandraTITLE June 1989 Grade Retention in Chicago Public
Elementary Schools. Monitoring and Researching theEffects of School Reform in Chicago.
INSTITUTION Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance,IL.
SPONS AGENCY Chicago Community Trust, Ill.; Spencer Foundation,Chicago, Ill.
PUB DATE May 90NOTE 45p.i Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (Boston,MA, April 16-20, 1990).
PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- StatisticalData (110)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Community Characteristics; *Criteria; Educational
Policy; Educational Practices; Elementary Education;*Grade Repetition; *Institutional Characteristics;*Public Schools; *School Districts; StatisticalStudies; Tables (Data)
IDENTIFIERS *Chicago Public Schools; Research Results
ABSTRACTThis report offers a review of the Chicago Public
Schools' official policy on promotion and retention, a discussion ofresearch on the issue of retention, and an analysis of June, 1989retention rates in Chicago. The first section covers retention andpromotion policies in Chicago and other cities and research on theeffects of retention and promotion on student achievement anddropping out. The second section presents statistics about retentionrates in the Chicago Public Schools. The third section lists June,1989 retention rates for every grade in each graded elementaryschool. The schools are grouped by community so that neighboringschools can be compared. 21:- index provides the district number andcommunity of each school. MO
*****1:*******x***********%*********************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.**********************************************************************
-4-.1A s4i;, , ,_._._7Q:,,,,_,iiltsi-:.:,,-:-;.,--..w,,,r,,e,-,4,,,,.. wrilou *ma-,. ck ,..., ;:::...,;s.,..... ...
'"sot.Z304,,, , TFFim1
Q,Nxt,;:,71-k; 8 ,,.,
''1';')'.>t...*,,.,:=:',.. , ,,,.
'-.,'..*0.
U.S. DEPARIMENT OF EDUCATIONOtficed Educahonvt Research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
4Ais document has been reproduced asewed from the person or organaarion
originating itC M=r ...flanges have been made to improve
< reproduction outlay
Points of view or opecons sta :Om this doctrmeat do not necessarily represent °the*.OERI position or pohol
WO,
A
a, 31,,
JUNE.1989 GRADE ALIENT113ii
IN CHICAGO PUBLIC M:EMENTARY. SCHOOLS
Prepared by
John Q. EastonDirector of Monitoring and Research
Sandra StoreyResearch Analyst
MaY 1990
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
.3 OM CI COSte14
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
CHICAGO PATE- ON PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY AND FINANCE220 South State Street, Suite 1212 ChkagorIllincis 6060.4 (312)A:39-2202
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
CHICAGO PANEL ON
PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY AND FINANCE
Harold W. Smith, PresidentJames Lucien & Arturo Jauregui, Vice Presidents
Lauren E. Allen, Treasurer; Carolyn Cordes, SecretaryTee Gallay, Honorary President; G. Alfred Hess, Jr., Executive Director
The Chicago Panel is a coalition of the following member organizations
American Jewish CommitteeAspira Inc., of Illinois
Center for Neighborhood TechnologyChicago Region PTA
Chicago UnitedChicago Urban League
Chicago Westside Branch N.A.A.C.P.Citizens Schools CommitteeCommunity Renewal SocietyErie Neighborhood House
Jewish Council on U:ban AffairsJunior League of Chicago, Inc.
Latino InstituteLawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of Women Voters of ChicagoMetropolitan Mission Strategy Organization of the United Methodist Church (Metro)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational FundUnited Neighborhood Organization of Chicago
The Woodlawn OrganizationYouth Guidance
Monitoring and Research Project Staff
Jc Q. Easton, Director of Monitoring and ResearchCheryl Johnson, Coordinator of Monitoring
Jesse Qualls, Research AnalystSandra Storey, Research Analyst
Major Funding for the Monitoring and Research Project is provided by
The Chicago Community TrustThe Field Foundation of Illinois
The Lloyd A. Fry FoundationThe John D. and.Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The Spencer FoundationThe Woods Charitable Fund
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
THE EFFECTS OF RETENTION AND PROMOTION ON STUDENTS 2
The Context of Grade Retention Data 2Criteria for Promotion/Retention Decisions in the Chicago Policy 2Research Evidence on Promotion or Retention 4Alternatives to Retention 5
ELEMENTARY RETENTION STATISTICS FOR JUNE 1989 8
Grade by Grade Retention Rates 8Factors Related to School Retention Rates 10
MAP OF COMMUNITY AREAS 12
SCHOOL RETENTION RATES BY COMMUNITY AREA
INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY COMMUNITY AREA
REFERENCES
SUGGESTED READING
13
32
38
40
INT'RODUCT'ION
Retention (requiring a student to repeat a grade) is an important policy issuebecause it can have a significant impact on achievement and the dropout rate. Thoughretention is often looked at as a result of a student's academic or social problems in school,research has shown that retention is also a cause of these and related difficulties. Manystudies have shown that retention rarely improves achievement or gives students anadvantage in later grades. In fact, retention may disrupt academic growth and increase thechances that students will drop out of school before graduating. Even though retention canhave such a major effect on students' academic careers, statistics and research aboutretention in the Chicago Public Schools have not been sufficiently examined or publiclydiscussed in the past.
The purpose of this report is to review the Chicago Public Schools official policyonpromotion and retention, discuss research on the issue of retention, and analyze June 1989retention rates in Chicago. This paper contains three separate sections plus an index andreference section. The first section discusses retention and promotion policies in Chicagoand other cities and reviews some research on the effects of retention and promotion onstudent achievement and dropping out. The second section presents statistics aboutretention rates in the Chicago Public Schools. The final section lists June 1989 retentionrates for every grade in each graded elementary school. The schools are grouped bycommunity area so that neighboring schools can be compared. An index follows to providethe community area for each school.
The Panel is studying retention rates as part of its project to monitor theimplementation of school reform. One of the Reform Act objectives is a reduction in theretention rate:
educational reform...shall be implemented in such a manner that:...by the conclusionof the 1993-94 school year, the percentage of students within the district failing andnot advancing to the next higher grade or graduating is at least 10% less than thepercentage of students within the district failing and not advancing to the next highergrade or graduating at the conclusion of the 1987-88 school year.1
The June 1989 retention data that is contained in this paper will be base line informationfor our future reports on how retention rates are affected by the implementation of schoolreform.
The Board of Education's Department of Research, Evaluation, and Planningcollected the grade retention data examined in this report from elementary schools startingin June of 1989. The Department provided the Chicago Panel with this data in ,,der tocooperate with the Panel's project Monitoring School Reform in Chicago. The ChicagoPanel and the Chicago Board of Education, along with other research groups, plan toundertake several cooperative or collaborative endeavors related to assessing the impact ofschool reform in Chicago.
Note: All endnote references are listed on pages 38 and 39 of this report. Suggestedreading is listed on page 40.
15
THE EFFECTS OF RETENTION AND PROMOTION ON STUDENTS
The Context of Grade Retention Data
Public schools in the past decade have been under increasing pressure to producebetter prepared students -- students who can read, write and compute mathematics at ornear grade level! In Chicago, educators and the public are rightfully alarmed at statisticsthat show that students often graduate from high school without having achievedcompetency in basic skills such as reading and mathematics. For example, in 1988-89, only32.6% of eleventh grade Chicago public school students scored at or above grade level inreading on the nationally standardized Test of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) and only29.9% scored at or above grade level in mathematics on the same test. In order to keepChicago up to national standards, at least 50% of students must score at or above gradelevel.
Like many other school boards during the 1980s, the Chicago Board of Educationresponded to the concern over lack of student competency by changing the standard bywhich elementary students were promoted from one grade to the next. The Board adopteda tougher promotion policy in 1985 that based grade promotion decisions on a student'sreading and math scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) as well as on completionof the curriculum.
This promotion policy requires that promotion decisions be based on a student'stest scores which must be above certain minimum standards. The policy states that a"student shall not be promoted from one grade to the next if the student has not met theminimum levels of performance for the assigned grade levels!""
However, in direct contradiction to this requirement, the Board's policy also statesthat "...decisions must be made on an individual basis...bringing to bear all that is knownabout the student."-5 It states that grade retention should be a last resort to be used "onlyif all other intervention strategies have failed to bring the student up to minimum levels ofperformance and only if it is genuinely felt that the student will profit from an extra yearin the elementary school:'
The policy thus offers two opposing criteria for retention/promotion decisions: onethat bases retention decisions on the individual characteristics of the student, and thesecond that requires that the staff retain every child who does not reach a certain testscore.
Because of the ambiguity of this promotion policy, staff at different schools haveinterpreted the policy in different ways. Some schools have looked at the overallperformance of each student when making retention decisions, but many others have reliedsimply on the test score.
riteria for Promotion Retention Decisi n in the Chica g o Poli
The 1985 promotion policy was a response to what national critics perceived to bea lack of standards for public school students. Many people thought children were coastingthrough school and were merely passed on to a new teacher at the next grade even if they
2
had not achieved minimum grade level competency. The tougher promotion policyattempted to appease these critics by increasing the number of students who were retainedin grade due to poor achievement test scores. This policy was supposed to give newaccountability to teachers, who could not pass on low achieving students as easily, d tostudents, who could no longer expect to be promoted and graduate if they did not meetminimum requirements on a standardized test.
The desire to increase achievement and accountability is certainly laudable. Chicagostudents do need to reach national standards in order t) be competitive in future educationand employment. However, local school councils, principals, teachers and the ChicagoBoard of Education need to examine whether the current promotion policy will have apositive effect on education.
The current promotion policy has been criticized for using ITBS scores as a methodof identifying students who have not learned enough. The most compelling objection to theuse of ITBS scores for promotion decisions is that individual student scores are prone toerror and are easily influenced by factors such as illness at the time of testing, mistakes inusing the answer sheet, poor test-taking skills, and distractions in the test taking setting.Consequently, the test does not always reflect the knowledge of the student. David Labareeof Georgetown University argued this point in reference to the New York City PromotionalGates Program which had a policy of retaining any student who did not score at or aboveset minimums on the reading section of the California Achievement Test:
Any achievement test score should be viewed statistically as a rough estimate of astudent's true ability and thus is best expressed as a confidence interval rather thatas a single figure...a number of the students who pass have true scores below thecutoff while a number of those who fail have true scores above the cutoff!
Another valid criticism of using ITBS scores to make promotion decisions is thatnationally standardized tests do not test students on their progress in the Chicagocurriculum, but on their progress in what the test-makers consider to be what "most. schoolsteach at a particular grade level. Labaree also addressed this issue in his discussion ofPromotional Gates:
It is hardly valid or fair to evaluate what a student has learned on the basis of a testmeasuring what he or she has not been taught, or at least has not been exposed toin that particular form. National standardized tests ate so abstract in their relationto particular curricula and instructional practices that their validity as measures ofstudent learning should always be suspect.8
Labaree argues that if the test is to be a valid measure of student learning, it may meanthat teachers must teach to the test, which most educators agree is an rnfortunate sacrificeof curriculum for the sake of higher test scores.
The current Board has addressed the problems contained in the official promotionpolicy by establishing a committee to revise the policy. The new policy will probablycontain different measures by which students are retained or promoted. However, evenmore important than whether or not the current policy uses correct criteria for
37
retention/promotion decisions is whether retention in grade will improve the student'seducation.
Research Evidence on Promotion or Retention
Most schools use retention as a method of improving the retained student'sachievement. However, the bulk of the research evidence on the effects of graderepetition show that retained students do not have higher achievement levels. Althoughsome researchers claim that grade retention is ,:eneficial, many others have found thatstudents are done more harm than good when they are forced to repeat a grade.
Gregg Jackson, author of a critical review of the research on the effects thatretention has on achievement, believes that the reason why different studies have come upwith opposite conclusions is that most of them contain inherent biases in their researchdesign toward either grade retention or E 'cial promotion (the practice of promoting astudent automatically).9 Of the studies that did not contain bias, the data was notstatistically significant. Jackson found from his research review that 'There is no reliablebody of evidence to indicate that grade retention is more beneficial iho.n grade
,promotion...' .io He argued that educators who hold students back "...do so without validresearch evidence to indicate that [retention] will provide greater benefits to students withacademic or adjustment difficulties than will promotion to the next grade."11
Most writers who have done extensive reviews of the research on the effects ofglade retention tend to believe promotion is more likely to improve achievement thanretention. According to Labaree, of the six major Met ature reviews in the ten yearspreceding the time he wrote his paper "not one of these writers adopts a position in supportof retention. Three remain neutral on the policy question, while one...mildly favors socialpromotion, and the remaining two strongly support social promotion."12
C. Thomas Holmes, in his two meta-analyses of the research on retention andpromotion, strongly supported social promotion because he found that grade retentionactually inhibits the student's achievement: "It seems that retained pupils fall behindduring the year that they are retained and spend the rest of their academic careers invain attempt to catch up."13 The later meta- analysis that Holmes coauthored came to asimilar conclusion finding that the "potential for negative effects consistently outweighspositive outcomes."14
_ lonica Overman, in a research review she wrote for the Phi Delta Kappan, arguedthat the evidence showed that retention does not boost achievement:
The tenor of the times may account, at least in part, for the current popularity ofachievement-based promotion. But the evidence to date suggests that achievement-based promotion does not deal effectively with the problem of low achievement.15
In addition to having a negative effect (or, at best, no effect) on achievement,retention has been correlated to increaseu dropout rates. A study of the class of 1982 bythe Chicago Panel found that overage freshman are more likely to eventually drop outthan normal age students who are at the same reading level. Overage students are alsom...-z likely to drop out than normal age freshman with lower scores. For example, of
4
overage freshman who scored in the sixth stanine or higher (high achievement), 37.9%eventurOly dropped out compared to only 18.3% for normal age freshman in stanine six orup and 27% of normal age freshman who scored in the fifth stanine (averageachievement).16 The pattern is repeated at other reading achievement levels. The overagedropout rate is approximately 11 to 15 percentage points higher than the normal agedropout rate when comparing students in the same reading stanine. When overage studentsare compared to normal age students in the next lower stanine, the overage dropout rateis at least six percentage points higher in almost every comparison.
Staff researchers at the Chicago Public Schools' Department of Research, Evaluationand Planning have also studied the effects of grade retention. One of their studies used aformat comparable to the Chicago Panel study discussed above, but analyzed records ofstudents in later classes!' This study reached findings similar to those in the ChicagoPanel's study. A second study found that rigid 1980 promotion standards that affected onlyeighth graders resulted in an increase in the dropout rate for the class of 1985.18
Additional support for the research finding that retention increases the dropout ratehas come recently from the New York City public schools. After ten years of thePromotional Gates program that required schools to retain large numbers of fourth andseventh graders based on poor test scores, the New York City Schools Chancellor, JosephFernandez, has decided to scrap the program. One of the reasons for eliminatingPromotional Gates was its effect on the dropout rate. According to Fernandez, 'Theprogram may have been well-intended. But over all, it has not worked. A disproportionatenumber of kids are becoming dropouts."19
Alternatives to Retention
Though retention has many negative effects, social promotion by itself is not thesolution to low achievement. Promotion may have fewer negative effects than retention,yet merely moving a low achieving student forward a grade is not enough. Students withacademic difficulties need intervention in order to raise their achievement.
Charleston County School District in South Carolina recently developed acomprehensive new strategy to raise the achievement levels and the graduation rate of itsstudents without using grade retention. Its diverse school district includes inner-city,suburban and rural students, many of whom are at-risk, low-achieving students. The newplan begins in the early grades and serves as an alternative to retention for low-achievingstudents while at the same time enhancing the education of all students. According toDavid Sklarz, deputy superintendent of curriculum and instruction, the program containsthe following interventions:
1. High quality kindergarten programs that focus on reading readiness;
2. Individualized instruction including extra-help from teachers, computerassisted learning and students helping students;
*Standardized test scores are divided into nine scores, called stanines. Stanines 1, 2 and3 are considered low achievement. Stanines 4, 5 and 6 are considered average achievement.Stanines 7, 8 and 9 are considered high achievement.
5 9
3. Strong emphasis on reading skills. Students are moved up to new readinggroups as they progress, without waiting until the end of the semester to movethem and regardless of age or grade level. All upper elementary, middle andhigh school teachers, not just English teachers, teach good reading and writingskills as well as their subject area;
4. Creative use of summer school. Summer school is given a positive image andis used to enrich students who might fall behind in the ten weeks they spendaway from school. The summer school program is a non-graded learningexperience that is meant to compensate for the at-risk student's lack oflearning resources in the summer. The emphasis is on helping all at-riskstudents, not just those who have failed courses,
5. Incentive awards for teachers and encouragement for teachers to takeassignments at schools with many at-risk students;
6. Parent workshops that teach parents how to actively participate in theirchildren's schooling and how to reinforce good behavior. The program alsooffers a homework assistance hot-line for parents;
7. Alternative schools or programs for potential dropouts;
8. Improved school discipline that uses alternatives to suspension so thatstudents will not miss school;
9. Special staff development programs that will show teachers and administratorsthe advantage of having high expectations of students. The goal is that theschool staff will "...want all children to learn and...believe that all children canlearn."2°
New York City is also initiating a new tactic to deal with students who achieve belowgrade level. Instead of the Promotional Gates system of automatically retaining studentswho test poorly at the third grade level, students are offered a six week summer schoolprogram after third grade and an after school program during fourth grade. Students whoparticipate in these programs are not retained?'
Other alternatives to grade retention have been recommended by educationalreseamhers. One is the use of formal individualized education plans (IEPs). With IEPs,the school can promote low performing students to the next grade level but offer specialhelp in problem areas. This intervention addresses the individual student's needs insteadof merely promoting the student. The IEP also benefits higher achieving students byallowing them to do more advanced work while remaining with their age peers 22
Low achiever, may also benefit from a curriculum that gives them meaningful work:for example, studehrs can be given real world math problems instead of multiplicationtables and drills. This has the dual effect of making education more interesting andincreasing learning:
610
The belief that children have to master component skills before moving on tocomprehension and problem solving consigns slow learners to school work that is notonly boring but devoid of any connection to the kinds of problems they encounterin the real world. Furthermore, current learning theory indicates that skills cannotbe learned effectively nor applied to new problems unless they are learned incontext.23
The solution to low achievement need not be retention. The best way to raiseachievement is to intervene when a child is identified as a candidate for possible retention,and to restructure the student's educational program so that retention is not necessary.The school should also design its general approach to teaching and learning so that allstudents are taught in an environment where they can stay with their age group and learnat their own pace.
Schools should carefully assess the effects of different interventions on students overtime to determine what learning approaches are most successful. Researchers at schools,at the central office of the Chicago Public Schools, and those at other agencies andorganizations should study what alternatives to retention are the most effective methodsof raising achievement and insuring successful high school completion.
ELEMENTARY RETENTION STATISTICS FOR JUNE 1989
Ir. June 198,, Chicago public elementary schools retained 11,673 students out of anenrollment of 274,231. These retained or non-promoted studs :its accounted for 43% of thetotal elementary school e.irollment in graded schools. (This enrollment and retention datadoes not include non-graded special-education students and schools.)
_Grade by Grade Retenton_Rate*
Systemwide retention rates for June of 1989 widely differed between grades. Themost retention occurred at the first grade where 2,999 students (8.9% of all first graders)were required to repeat the first grade. After first grade, the percentage of retainedstudents steadily declined until the seventh and eighth grades where the retention ratesincreased slightly. The lowest retention rate is at the kindergarten level. Only 254kindergarten students (0.9%) were retained in the spring of 1989. The retention rates foreach grade are shown in the graph and accoml-tanying table below.
RETENTION RATES BY GRADE, JUNE 1989
1ST 210 TA) 4TH STH eM
# StudentsGrade Enrolled
# StudentsRetained
% StudentsRetained
Kgn 27,999 254 0.9%1st 33,736 2,999 8.9%2nd 32,843 1,920 5.8%3rd 34,319 1,513 4.4%4th 32,223 1,193 3.7%5th 29,850 1,017 3.4%6th 29,210 883 3.0%7th 27,226 903 3.3%lb 26.827 .221 1LZ%TOTAL
274,231 11,673 43%
8 i2
Retention rates vary dramatically from one school to another within the ChicagoPublic School system. For example, although the citywide retention rate at the first gradeis 8.9 %©, thirty-four schools have first grade retention rates that are two times greater thanthe citywide first grade retention rate.
The table below contains more detailed information about the distribution ofretention rates for each grade. The table shows how many schools re :tined between 0%and 1.9%, 2.0% and 3.9%, 4.0% to 5.9%, etc., of their students. For example, 378elementary schools (the number in the upper left hand corner) retained between 0% and1.9% of their kindergarten students. 48 elementary schools retained between 2.0% and3.9% of their first grade students, and so on. At most grade levels the majority of schoolshave retention rates of less than 4%. The exceptions are first and second grades.
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY PERCENT OF STUDENTS RETAINED
BY GRADE LEVEL
RETENTION RATE KON I 1ST I 2ND i 3RD I 4TH I 5TH I 6TH I 7TH I 8TH
'0% to 1.9% 378 81 145 179 211 231 253 246 2812.0% to 3.9% 25 48 68 81 74 64 60 63 31
4.0%- to 5.9% 13 51 57 61 54 52 45 30 11
6.0%to,7.9% 11 48 49 31 32 32 25 17 16
8.0%'to 9.9% 6 44 25 33 28 21 14 10 11
10.0% to 11.9% 7 36 32 22 20 14 7 9 5<1244 to 13.9% 2 38 23 6 6 4 9 6 714.0% to 15.9% 0 29 11 8 5 6 4 2 76.0% ti? 17.9% C 27 7 8 6 3 3 4 6:8.0% to 19.9%,
20% ofmore'
0
1
9
23
7
11
2
5
1
4
3
10
3
6
2
8
1
19
Total number of
schools by grade 443 434 436 436 441 439 429 397 395
Factors Related to chgolRetenlionRates.
Several factors are statistically related to school retention rates. Listed below arethe factors, in order of importance, that predict what percent of students were re tained inJune of 1989. (It is important to note that these statistics are based on school averages, noton individual student records, so they do not necessarily indicate what factors affect anindividual retention decision.)
1. Attendance Rate. On the average, the higher the overall attendance ratein a school, the lower the overall retention rate. Attendance and retention rates are notperfectly correlated, but this factor is more highly related to retention than any other factor.
2. Achievement test scores. On the average, the higher the achievement testscores, the lower the retention rates. Achievement test scores are not as strongly relatedto retention rates as attendance is. Although test score results are related to retention,many exceptions are found.
3. Percent of Low Income Students. Poorer schools tend to have higherretention rates than less poor schools. This is true on the average, but there are manyexceptions of poor schools with low retention rates and schools with few poor students andhigher retention rates.
4. Mobility rate. Schools that have higher percentages of students who movein or out of the school during the year tend to have slightly higher retention rates. Thisfactor is the weakest predictor of retention.
The table on the following page contains the correlation coefficients betweenretention rates and the school factors listed above.
14
10
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERCENT OF STUDENTS RETAINED ANDOTHER SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
NPK-8 NP3 NP6 NP8TOTENR
LOWINCOM
MDRATE
MOB-!MY
3RD
READ
ealREAD
enREAD
NPK-8NP3
NP8TOT ENRLOW INCOMAlt) RATEMOBILITY3RD READ6TH READ8TH READ
1.000.720.600.64
-0.010.27
-0.500.16
-0.38-0.29-0.31
1.00
0.450.220.030.27
-0.320.22
-0.31-0.27-0.28
1.000.260.05
0.18-0.210.07
-0.22-0.20-0.12
1.00
-0.060.20
-0.420.18
-0.24-0.18-0.27
1.00
0.21
0.04-0.07-0.26-0.25-0.15
1.00
-0.440.40
-0.74-0.74-0.69
1.00-0.40
0.580.500.57
1.00-0.47-0.39-0.53
1.00
0.770.77
1.00
0.78 1.00
The number of schools In this correlation matrix ranges between 367 and 485.
:LEGENDNPK-8 sa % NOT PROMOTED WHOLE SCHOOL LOW INCOM % OF LOW INCOME (FREE LUNCH) STUDENTSNP3 sa % NOT PROMOTED 3RD GRADE ATTD RATE a ATTENDANCE RATE FOR WHOLE SCHOOLNPS nt % NOT PROMOTED 8TH GRADE MOBILITY MOBILITY RATE FOR WHOLE SCHOOL
NPS % NOT PROMOTED 8TH GRADE 3RD READ al % STUDENTS AT OR ABOVE NATIONAL NORMS -3RD GRADE ITBS READINGTOT ENR la TOTAL ENROLLMENT 8TH READ
8TH READ
al % STUDENTS AT OR ABOVE NATIONAL NORMS - 8TH GRADE rras READING
a % STUDENTS AT OR ABOVE NATIONAL NORMS - 8TH GRADE ITBS READING
15
3.1..1
flgHOWARO
TOUHY
PRATT
OEVON
SEASON
C
A
HOWARO
A
255 L)'
V0
2
MARYJ 77 -
3.2*
COMMUNITY AREASAS OF 1980 V S CENSUS
LAWRENCE?
MONTROSE
IRVING PARK
ADDISON
BELWJNTWELLINGTON
OIVERSEY Ccc,
FULLERTON 5
CITY OF CHICAGO
F4Chad M. DaleyHype
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGDay14 R Masan°. Cormassioaer
1 22 00
ARMITAGE
NORTH
DIVISION
CHICAGO
rsKINZIE A
COMMUNITY AREA NAMES MADISON
I. ROGERS PARK 39. KENW000 HARRISON
2. WEST RIDGE 40. WASHINGTON PARK3. UPTOWN 41 HYOE PARK ROOSEVELT
4. LINCOLN SOUARE 42. WOOOLAWN ma I 15. NORTH CENTER 43. SOUTH SHORE E6, LAKE VIEW 44. CHATHAM CLRMAK7. LINCOLN PARK 45. AVALON PARK8. NEAR 'JORTH SIDE 46. SOUTH CHICAGO 20th
9. EOISCN PARK 47. BURNSIOE10. NO,:XCY.20 PARK 48. CALUMET HEIGHTS 31st
IT JEFFERSON PARK 49. ROSELANO12. FOREST GLEN 50. PULLMAN 350
13. NORTH PARK 51 SOUTH OEERING/I. ALBANY PARK 52. EAST SIOE
ERSHING
15. PORTAGE PARK 53 WEST PULLMAN 43116. IRVING PARK 54. RIVEROALE17. OUNNING 55. HEGEWISCH 47th
18. MONTCLARE 56. GARFIELO RIDGE19. 8ELV.ONTCRAGIN 57. ARCHER HEIGHTS Sla ,......-20. HERMOSA 58. BRIGHTON PARK
5SW 5621. AVONOALE 59. MCKINLEY PARK22. LOGAN SQUARE 60. BRIOGEPORT 59th23. HUMBOLOT PARK 61. NEW CITY24. WEST TOWN 62. WEST ELSOON Dye 6425, AUSTIN 63. GAGE PARK 66th
26. WEST GARFIELD PARK 64, CLEARING 7th Z
VIF.
2
27. EAST GARFIELD PARK 65. WEST LAWN 328. NEAR WEST SIOE 66. CHICAGO LAWN
'g rC. 1 .8
4 529. NORTH LAWNOALE 67, WEST ENGLEW000 a
i30. SOUTH LAWNOALE 68. ENGLEW00031. LOWER WEST SIDE 69 GREATER GRANO CROSSING z32. LOOP 70, ASHBURN33. NEAR SOUTH SIDE 71. AUBURN GRESHAM34. ARMOUR SOUARE 72. BEVERLY35. DOUGLAS 73, WASHINGTON HEIGHTS36. OAKLAND 74. MOUNT GREENW00037. FULLER PARK 75 MORGAN PARKXL GRAND BOULEVAPO 76, O'HARE
77, EOGEWAT ER
7CTn
n
z
75th
79th
834
*7th
2 3etc oi 4
G9S0
111th
11501
URN E
9911.
1036
107111
1204'
V
16
A127th
2
AO
A
O
SCHOOL RETENTION RATES BY COMMUNITY AREA
The following pages list June 1989 retention rates for every grade in each gradedChicago Public elementary school. The schools are listed alphabetically within geograpb.i?.community area. If you do not know a school's community area, look up the school inthe index on pages 32-37. We have also included a map of community areas on theopposite page.
The retention rates for each school are listed on two separate pages that arearranged side by side. The retention rates for the whole school, kindergarten, first, second,and third grades are on the left side, and the retention rates for fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,and eighth grades are on the right side. The picture below demonstrates how the table isorganized
Community Area Unit. School nameWHOLE SCHOOL
End net. %Ret.
KINDERGARTEN
Earl Met. %Ret.FIRST GRADE
Earl Mt. %lint.SECOND GRADE
Earl I/Rct. %Rct.
THIRD GRADE
End Mt. %Rct.CITYWIDE TOTALS 274,231 11,673 *3% 27,999 254 0.9 33,734 2,999 8.9% 32,843 1,920 5.8% 34,319 1,513 4.4%
1 Rivers Part COMMUNITY TOTALS 2,870 97 3:4% 377 13 3.4 375 21 ' 7.5% 325 12 3.7% 367 12 3.3%
3350 FIELD 1,048 26 2.5% 122 1 0.8% 109 7 6.4% 122 4 3.3% 142 3 .2.1%
3480 GALE COMM ACADEMY 866 32 3.7% 116 10 8.6% 143 9 6.3% 82 3 3.7% 115 0 0.0%
4300 KILMER 956 39 4.1% 139 2 1.4% 123 12 9.8% 121 5 4.1% 110 9 $.2%
2 West Ridge COMMUNITY TOTALS 4,766 110 2.3% 437 2 0.5 565 32 5.7% 568 14 2.5% 574 19 3.3%
2080 ARMSTRONG GEORGE 755 31 4.1% 66 0 0.0 . 87 8 9.2% 89 2 2.2% 97 8 8.2%
2320 BOONE 772 10 1.3% 74 0 0.0 98 4 4.1% 91 2 2.2% 88 3 3.4%
2810 CLINTON 1,008 27 2.7% 88 0 0.0% 127 12 9.4% 118 3 2.5% 131 5 3.8%
2990 DECATUR CLASSICAL 251 0 0.0% 28 0 - 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 30 0 0.0% 30 0 0.0%
4180 JAMIESON 728 25 3.4% 70 0 0.0 4 74 6 8.1% 91 4 4,4% 79 3 3.8%5630 ROGERS 538 7 1.3% 39 0 0.0 59 1 1.7% 81 3 3.7% 60 0 0.0%
6070 STONE SCHOL ACADEM 714 10 1.4% 72 2 2.8 68 1 1.5% 68 0 0.0% 89 0 0.0%3 Uptown COMMUNITY TOTALS 5,217 158 3.0%1 623 3 03 729 54 7.4% 657 26 4.0% 679 31 4.6%
4590 ARAI MIDDLE 780 15 1,9% 0 0 ea 0 0 ara 0 0 n/a 0 0 di6600 BRENNEMANN 579 21 3.6% 81 0 0.0% 104 6 5:8% 97 6 6.2% 113 6 5.3%8000 DISNEY MAGNET 1,481 28 1.9% 165 0 0.0% 174 0 - 0.0% 194 6 3.1% 191 6 3.1%3590 GOUDY 535 26 4.9% 70 0 0.0% 103 21 20.4% 83 2. 2.4% 45 0 0.0%
6340 MARTI BILINGUAL BR 116 0 19.0% 0 0 ea 0 0 lila 0 0 Ida 32 0 - 0.0%
6910 MCCUTCHEON 615 33 5.4% 93 3 3.2% 123 10 8.1% 108 6 5.6% 107 8 7.5%
6040 STEWART 396 10 2.5% 68 0 0.0% 78 4 5.1% 64 1 1.6% 72 4 5.6%6060 STOCKTON 715 25 3.5% 146 0 0.0% 147 13 8.8% 111 5 4.5% 119 7 5.9%
4 Lincoln Sqtuuz COMMUNITY TOTALS 2,751 82 3.0%r-221 0 0.0 329 25' 7.6% 290 14 4.3% 326 10; 3.1%2440 BUDLON3 719 0 0.0% 54 0 0.0% 93 0 0.0% 88 0 0.0% 79 0 0.0%2750 CHAPPELL 444 18 4.1% 30 0 0.0% 57 10 17.5% 37 0 0.0% 51 0 0.0%
4800 MCPHERSON 1,066 30 2.8% 98 0 0.0% 134 11 8.2% 105 6 5.7% 133 3 2.3%
6370 WATERS 522 34 6.5% 45 0 0.0% 45 4 8.9% 60 8 13.3% 63 7 11.1%
5 North Cantor COMMUNITY TOTALS 2,435 73 3.0%I 210 2 1.0% 300 19 6.3% 272 5 1.8% 311 11 3.5%2110 AUDUBON 521 34 6.5% 49 2 4.1% 68 2 2.9% 47 0 0.0% 68 8 11.3%
2270 BELL 542 3 0.6% 36 0 0.0% 66 1 1.5% 53 0 0.0% 65 0 0.0%
2860 COONLEY 427 14 3.3% 46 0 0.0% 47 4 8.5% 51 2 3.9% 61 2 3.3%
4170 JAHN 577 12 2.1% 52 0 0.0% 67 5 7.5% 70 3 4.3% 66 0 0.0%5790 SCHNEIDER 368 10 2.7« 27 0 0.0% 52 7 13.5% 51 0 0.0% 51 1 2.0%
6 Lake View COMMUNITY TOTALS 4,227 150 3.5%. 444 5 1.1% 557 48 1.6% 521 29 5.6%. 505 20 4.0%2030 AGASSIZ 294 17 5.8% 35 2 5.7% 47 4 8.5% 37 7 18.9% 45 2 4.4%2300 BLAINE 464 16 3.4% 43 0 0.0% 62 10 16.1% 55 4 7.3% 47 1 2.1%
2470 BURLEY 366 18. 4.9% 32 0 0.0% 50 7 14.0% 47 4 8.5% 51 0 0.0%
2730 GREELEY 537 11 2.0% 60 0 0.0% 64 5 7.8% 61 1 1.6% 55 1 1.8%
3730 HAMILTON 447 6 1.3% 39 0 0.0% 55 1 1.8% 56 1 1.8% 59 1 1.7%
3830 HAWTHORNE SCHOL A 527 8 1.5% 75 1 1.3% 74. 3 4.1% 74 0 0.0% 67 3 4.5%4890 INTER-AMERICAN MAG 513 21 4.1% 54 0 0.0% 60 5 8.3% 55 3 5.5% 60 3 5.0%
4440 LEMOYNE 249 20 80% 19 1 5.3% 26 4 15.4% 34 1 2.9% 30 5 16.7%
5070 NETTELIIORST 309 8 2.6% 30 0 0.0% 41 0 0.0% 27 3 11,1% 29 1 3:4%5550 RAVENSWOOD 521 25 4.8% 52 1 1.9% 78 9 11.5% 75 5 6.7% 62 3 4.8%
7 Lincoln Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,493 215 620 278 6' 2.2% 384 51 13.3% 396 22 5.6% 417 35 '3.4%2040 ALCOTT 350 16 4.6% 42 3 7.1% 49 6 12.2% 41 2 4.9% 46 3 6.5%4420 LASALLE LANG ACADE 560 4 0.7% 62 0 0.0% 66 0 0.0% 60 0 0.0% 63 0 0.0%4480 LINCOLN 539 6 1.1% 38 1 2.6% 58 2 3.4% 50 0 0.0% 68 0 0.0%4680 MAYER 631 20 3.2% 37 2 5.4% 60 4 6.7% 85 1 1.2% 82 1 1,2%5010 MULLIGAN 297 34 11.4% 20 0 0.0% 32 5 15:6% 41 10 24.4% 45 11 24.4%5080 NEWBERRY MAGNET 630 8 1.3% 52 0 0.0% 58 3 5.2% 60 3 5.0% 59 1 1.7%5500 PRESCOTT 486 127 26.1% 27 0 0.0% 61 31 50.8% 59 6 10.2% 54 19 35.2%1
8 Near North Side COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,027 124 4.1% 346 5 1.4% 349 24 6.9% 402 28 7.0% 343 14 4.1%2560 BYRD COMM ACADEMY 502 20 4.0% 49 4 8.2% 68 4 5.9% 65 0 0.0% 60 2 3.3%4581 FERGUSON CPC 45 0 0,0% 45 0 0.0% 0 0 ats 0 0 Ida 0 0 a/a3420 PRANKLIN MAGNET 357 4 1.1% 58 0 0.0% 27 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0% 30 2 6.7%4200 JENNER 507 43 8.5% 56 0 0.0% 49 8 16.3% 72 10 13.9% 71 6 8.5%4580 MANIERRE 434 14 3.2% 26 1 3.8% 60 5 8.3% 66 8 12.% 58 0 0.0%5150 OGDEN 484 7 1.4% 39 0 0.0% 44 2 4.5% 46 3 6.5% 42 1 2.4%5760 SCHILLER 247 17 6.9% 0 0 WA 0 0 rila 0 0 ids 0 0 &'a7900 TRUTH PRIMARY 451 19 4.2% 73 0 0.0% 101 5 5.0% 97 7 7.2% 82 3 3.7%
9 Edison Park 3150 EBINGER 290 9 3.1% 46 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0% 31 2 6.5% 30 1 3.3%10 Norwood Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,571 21 1.8% 151 0 0.0% 190 13 6.11/4-1 1115 3 1.6% 172 2 1.2%
2220 EDISON COMP GIFT 232 0 0.0% 27 0 0.0% 29 0 0.0% 26 0 0.0% 28 0 0.0%3510 GARVY JOHN 319 12 3.8% 32 0 0.0% 44 5 11:4% 34 0 0.0% 38 1 2.6%
14 18
§.
X
.4
41,
R.'
O. (."
I) 1
gg
4gPo§0 8
K
gg2grig.yig
IAti
ml4
g 8g..c
guisogg&E
l'il.iqg. .15 va ;KA.-.. F
A
Di
ggigggg§g10 la Ca >iiiii iE
. P.4 tu 1;1oR o0
§z
0
g§in105
RIz
10 0 E
0
1E1E1 1110 1:21/11 g
'4 XI too..1g0 5
XI
grillli§1/§E g 1 8 A
Z P.0 zcxa
E 8to
Ilig0
2li
nc
k
1
4
1.401"...40.000N001.4,00.01.400001.4.....0.4.4.40.4.4000.41.44.-4;14....11.404..O.N,o b inat at at
:1188408ILIT.glasd&tig2rtse.%$.anuSter.s;:degi::
;a 44 , 0 sO .14 0 44 1444 4. w... b b b k, r., Lt ...)at at r. * * at at at al
.
.4o p <A o p o P 44 :-4 1.4 0 ... ... .. 0 t.4..- p 14:. 0 4. b . 1. 0 . .0.0 b ;, :,. CA, b- is> b o *acatat at at at * At IR at at at Vtat at as at
2 ;-.4) z.i.1.-.2a.,gtuaga:sauttatgOi2.%lisacvmaziigse4&44S82ga84- I.(." 0 IA c. isa 0 0 lg 0 0 to 0 0 1.4 0 La 0 ... 4...... ........4 ..... .....-. p * . t o p 4 s r e s o p r ) o o 8' o o 4 . 0 o c i i , 0 4 . %4) o in 44 .1A, b o o o o a o o o o ).. o u.:a at at sat, st * at at * at at -Z@ aft at at at A * *
AO gttriaautr.tt u elat%asuguzi.t&r,V%4--t600giosgorsIS;stsgir.es---g
..... .
os /4 of..) A. 4.4 o 44 tA, es ,I.4 to o os to p o . r.at at act at lit at * at at at as as IA it IR,IR at at IR
4 a88S:§411S1448:E.4t38.-0 0 N 0 N N O .. 1.4 4. 0 0 1.4 W 0 0 N
. . . . . . . .
b b o b b i4 .- .4.; b o ... ta b 0 :t o o b f.at. at at , at IR
. .. . ..
p w tt ' P 4..o i4 ta L. 44. 44Wats* * at it
0 0 1.4 0 0 1.4. .......
0 0'. 4 . 6 P oo o n. o ot ...)as * * *,*
...a ... o o to oIR 24>IR at as *
1.4 0 N 4. 0 ti.. . . .
.... b L4 La o bIR sWt
a u
44. . .
fh ti, 'A 6 .P.t4 14 b b. Lsat * * 14, *
4.4 N 4. 0 .0
4 . . .'4 Of p - 4.4Les :4 4 o bat IR *.* we
4. o 14 p A.at. at at at *_
EtusI00008,710gde.§...EzaArIltqgs.4.4 . 0 0 .0.
. . ...
:0,$),091",t-I ot 0 014at
A T,4g&iRogiSE`4?.4ug44 0 0 cop 1.4 0 11.. ... . .
F4 to P 0-6, 0Gil i.. o b :4 oo:V. IAat * * at * 41 At " .1.1
0 0 4.4 0 0 14 .4 0 12..
O' !..), o o .... ...,t,,a b cn-b b La 1.1 -..... ;O.'A at IR at at 24 as w vat
0 N 1.4 0 0 0 Os 0.. ., .
e>,00%0 P 9 't rb - 44 to b o o esat at at at .at* 0
Is4 0 4. 0 N 0 4. IA..... ......40 0 N. p fr. .,0 4.. I.4i0 ,b Y... 0 4... b ..b -4
at 'A at at altsal at
.... ....Ir. .. la 0 0 .. ta ,...
at at at at a% at
0 0 4. 0 0 0 1.4 Os
P 0 4k \F.' co 1.4 s'0 b b e. o b v) 14
O aEU1E
N 14 .... %A 3
''''g C"' 'fol"41) ;blt :4iorat'at at at
IStb
4s. 0 4.4 43 t3..... ....
tit: :i N r..1 IA:av Cpa- 1,3 A.at at at at *
tS
.-. ..
4 O. 0 pi, 1,0
at at' at at at
1.4 .. In so g
SO r :41 tA. 04. LA o F4 L4*,
P 0*
la
t g;i4t ov
at ta
JeCA
It tri
111
0IR gti
V U &
c. ..... ..
4 . o pit b --.)at at at
Is)
4i..oA
V.traZionVt4$...... .0 .... 0 0 1.4 ,... 0 ... Os
...4 4 0 ° 4 4 . 44 4* J.:-.I b O- n ; es i0 4Dii- *1#1.14 A as " At *R,
o 24gteine44
04.00.414104.N4.1.40:4.404.0001.400.4.40...0004.1.40...04.00001.114.00s.1:4....1.4004.1.401.1.40s.-.01IA et o o la as I..
g. t.-. at IR at IR VI at at
- stEt0 0.,..)....0sa 0 pib b 44,at act at
IAksa
..... p IA to As /.3
r..-... ...e..."r '-- at', vo at - sat **cat
0 0 0 0 O- 0 as N. . . .. .. . .
0 $:> 13 "e. e. It. la. b -4,./t -t ;1%I. I. 0 0
8
0-.-0.-.00000,1490:0*24 0 ,a.
11....
8 4 c 1 4 8 4 o t .
t.
:-40P,P0 (:)04,P!'46`td-ifc:;-i."-10P1.1,...!AP0'14Y":".''''..:*G Os 0 o * b -le. b '44.1,1 ..
O vit,i,
1.40t4000...o7Zoo1/1 Ft.....4 osi4IR to IR
& 8aseotOs
o _ is,b b J. b o bsg, O. b* * 4'4 IR at ataft -- at at
duz.i.4 s: n st 4 s, 4-. 4 4 .. ' T ti
00000.40N4.14.000000060...00inC7140001400000001.41.41.400000...".0.4.414.4. .. . . .. ,. . .. .. ., ..... . .
$.4,13 ple% L4 b o b ,cs, b b b z-1, ea az b> o bo o c' b b o ,4.-os ea Ist,14* Waft,* * at at at at alt,atsat< at: Vt tA:* Vt 'Wilt * * * Ifk* *a
-'a: LS- 8 2 I o o o o g ` J. o -gest&eRis$SesEt4F.V.1
. , ...
p:N.0 0 b -2r, S. 0. e.....t, 0,0 e..., ;.. :.2***,**k -. - - '- ,-
. - - ... ..... ...*
en o, o .43- o 4A .4t)** :k '',' *.* * *
Sig
2...
p ... ... p 1.4o kA. b .ws Ls* * *.* *
tv
10
43 E0:1r
Canmuaitr Area Mgt/ Se boo/ anonWROTH SCHOOL
End Mt. %Rel.
KINDERGARTEN
End filet. %Rd.FIRST GRADE
End net. %Ret.SECOND GRADE
Ead net. %Ret.THIRD GRADE
End Rd. %Ret.10 Norwood Part
(e.oatinned)
4010 HITCH5120 NORWOOD PARK5190 ONAHAN5200 ORIOLE PARK
354
In269
225
6 :'f.v7,4 i' 23 %3 Li%
. ,
3 13%
397
21
25
0 ;0.0%0 0.0%0 .0.6i0 0.0%
50242023
3 ; 6.0%1 4 iii.
1 : 5.0%3 -.1i.ei
46
13
3234
01 :
2
0
0,0%, 7:7%
6.3%
.0.0%
33
17
32
24
01
00
.0.0%5.9%
. .; 0.0%-- 0.0%
11 Jefferson Park COMMUNITY 'TOTALS
2240 BEAUBIEN3280 FARNSWORTH
819
465
354
30 : 3.7%26 -, 5.6%4' 1.1%
$1
4833
21
1
2.5%,2.1%
- 1.0%
102
6339
7 i' 6.9%7' 113%0 0.0%
86
50
36
22o
2.3%:4.0%
.0.0%
109
63
46
10 .9.2%10 I5.9%o . iloi
12 Forest Gina coalman TOTALS3170 EDOEBROOK6470 WILDWOOD
354
219
135
16' 4.5%12 : 3,5%4 i 3:0%
4617
29
2 '43%2 :ILO%0 - .0.0%
3221
11
3 . .4%3 :14.3%0 : 0.0%
392613
7.5
2
17.9%
19;2%
15.4%
31
229
1
1
0
: 32%'43%
; 0.0%
13 North Park COMMUNTIY TOTALS
5410 PETERSON5690 SAUOANASH5980 SOLOMON
1,180
652
270
258
45 3.1%20 . 3.1%
15' ..,3,6%10 : 3.9%
9550
27
18
0000
0.0%.00%0.0%0.0%
125
683027
17
75
5
13.6%
10.3%
16018.5%
r4683
29
34
6
1
41
4.1%1.2%
12,8%
2.9%
144
87
31
26
0000
0.0%= 0.0%
0.0%0.0%
14 Albany Past COMMUNITY TOTALS
3810 HAUOAN4000 HIBBARD5260 PALMER6270 VOLTA6290 VON STEUBEN U C
3,481
1,424
706
478
696
177
91
4018 '
6
12
15
2.6%2.2%
2 %Ls%1.7%
'8.5%
462174
179
37
720
000000
.0.0%. 00%: 0.0%
q..cdk
0.0%12 ilt
461192
115
45109
0
22 4.8%7 3.6%3 '.. ..c.,%
1 c--2.2%
6 ' 3.5%0 nhe
440166
116
62
960
19
58 -.
3 :
30 :
4.3%3.0%6,9%4.816
3.1%n/a
391
173
9655
67
0
2020
00
0.5%. 0.0%
. 23%. 0.0%
' '6;0%, aht
15 Portage Pant C010.IUNITY TOTALS3620 GRAY5490 PORTAGE PARK5510 PRUSS1NG5600 REINBERO5960 SMYSER
2217628
397
401
292
369
137 6.0%
64 10:2%52 : 8.7%
15 . 3.7%
3 1,0%3 0:8%
204
59
31
61
24
29
000000
0.0%.0.0%
' 0.0%c.di0.0%0.0%
23658664827
37
16 8,8%9 13.5%3 . 4.5%2 : 4.2%0 0.0%2 .3.4%
260
63
7052
3243
18
12 :19.0%4 :1
1
0
6.9%
5.7%.9%3.1%0.0%
270
72764234
46
14
11
3
000
5.2%:13.3%
3.9%, 0.o4; 0.0%
0.0%
16 Irving Park COMMUNTTY TOTALS
2190 BATEMAN2260 BELDING2800 CLEVELAND3940 HENRY4150 IRVING PARK5020 MURPHY5590 REILLY5730 SCAMMON
4,119970
496466
700
474
423
723
567
169
38
3013
41
1
28
018
.3.5%3.9%
6,0%2.8%
5.9%
0.2%, .,'6 .6%
0.0%
3.2%
433108
44
45
82
033
65
56
601
05
000
0
1.4%: 0.0%: 2.3%
: 0.0%i 63%' 'els. '0.0%
6.0%o.ols
605113
6958
944448
118
61
65 10.7%19 =16.8%11 '13.9%8 13.1%
14 ;34.9%1 2.3%
. .
10 ; 20.0%o
.
: 0.0%
2 = 3.2%
576124
6644
73
69
4783
70
28 :7
11 ;
0 :200 '08
4.9%5.6%
16,7%0.0%
2:2%
0.0%0.0%
0.0%11,4%
593
120
61
64
94
54
55
86
59
23
4
24
703
o3
'3.9%; 3.3%
; 33%; 6.3%
7,4%; 0.0%
53%. 6.0%
= 5,1%
17 Dunning COMMUNITY TOTALS2380 BRIDGE2620 CANTY3020 DEVER6190 THORP 0 A SCHOL ACA
1,939
439
288
527
685
48 2.5%3 0,7%
16 1 5.6%
6 :- la%23 3.4%
230
46
4853
83
00000
,0.0%,..
'OM%
0.6%'0.6%.0.0%
22349296085
7 3.1%0 0.0%4 13.8%
2 33%1 1.2%
216
4031
59
86
8
0 :22 :
4
3.7% 229
0,0% 53
6.5% 28
3.4% 57
4.7% 91
5
03
02
.2.2%
0.0%, 10.7%
'0.0%2.2%
18 Montclare 4510 LOCKE 577 20 ' 3,5% 26 0 ,0.0% 59 12 20.3% 51 1 2.0% 60 0 - 0.0%
19 Belmont Cragin COMMUNITY TOTALS
2450 BURBANK3270 FALCONER4770 HANSOM PARK4500 LLOYD4560 LYON5800 SCHUBERT
3,639756
679
509
662
499534
74 2.0%
7 . '0.9%5 ;'; 07%4 : 6.8%14' 2.1%20 1.0%
24 4.5%
332
64
60
34
92
31
51
00000
00
0.0%
0.0%; 0,051
! 0.6%, 0.0%
0.0%0.0%
410909345
92
4050
21 1.1%3 3.3%0 , 1.0%2 4,4%
4 ; 4.3%6 13,0%
6 12.0%
356
7671
46
74
37
52
3
0 .1 ,
01
0 :1
0.8% 421
0.0% 105
1.4% 72
0,0% 68
1.4% 69
0.0% 51
1.9% 56
13
1
1
03
5
3
. 33%1,0%
; 4.4%' 0.6%
43%; 9,8%
5.4%
20 Hermosa COMMUNTIY TOTALS
2160 BARRY5100 NIXON
1,584
635
949
37 2.3%
11 1.1%
26 2,7%
201
62
139
000
0.0%0.0%
. 0.0%
20566
139
17 3.3%
6 9.1%
11 7.9%
174
701(14
8
2 .6
4.6% 198
2.9% 70
5,3% 128
33
0
1.3%
4.3%
'0.0%
21 Avondale COMMUNITY TOTALS
2140 AVONDALE4490 LINNE
1,677
1,030
647
20 1.2%
6 -, 0.6%
14 2.2%
136
93
43
000
0.0%0.0%0.0%
126109
77
6 3.2%3 2.0%3 3.9%
192
126
66
21
1
P1.0% 196
. 0,8% 115
1.5% 81
2
02
'1;0%
0.0%2.5%
22 Logan Square COMIvIUN1TY TOTALS
2370 BRENTANO2760 CHASE2960 DARWIN3120 DRUMMOND3460 FUNSTON3560 GOETHE4850 MONROE5000 MOZART5520 PULASKI6510 YATES
9,265
1,114
7481,349
408831
958
921
676
1,196
1.064
209 2.3%22 : 2.0%
31 : 43%40 3.0%
24 5.9%
0 : 0.0%
0 i 0.0%16 ; 1.7%
5 0.7%40 3,3%
31 = 2,9%
966
73
78131
33
147
91
94
132
93
27
0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%
0 . 6.0%0 . 0.0%
o . 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 ; 0.0%0 0.45%.
1117
112
100
173
44115
106
111
92148
116
53 4,7%8 - 1.1%
10 10.0%
9 5.2%
4 9.1%0 0.0%
0 , 0.0%5 4.5%
5 5;415
5 3.4%7 6.6%
1090
141
91
157
5688
101
104
82150
12D
754
5
5 .0 '002
03
7
2.4% 1154
'2.2% 144
5,5% 73
3.2% 194
0.0% 51
0.0% 100
0,0% 123
1.9% 128
, 0.0% 75
2.0% 145
Si% 121
255
1
8
20
02
02
5
2.2%:.3:554
1.4%4.1%
'3,9%= 0.6%
0,0%1.6%
. 0.0'%
2.4%
43%
16 20
Community Area 'Unit/ School samePOURTH GRADE
End /Rd. %RatFIFTH GRADE
Part Met. %Ret.SIXTH GRADE
End /Rd. %Rd.SEVENTH GRADEEarl Met. %Rea.
EIGHTH GRADEEarl net. %Rd.
10 Nonmod Park 4010 HITCH 52 2 3,8% 27 0 0.0% 35 1 2.9% 35 0 0,0% 37 0 .0.0%(continued) 5120 NORWOOD PARK 22 1 ; 43% 18 0 ; '0.0% 29 0 0.0% 23 0 0.0% 19 0 . 0.0
5190 ONAHAN 32 0 : 0.0% 74 0 0.6% 41 0 0.0% 30 0 - it:o% 37 0 ; 6.05200 ORIOLE PARK 23 0' OD% 28 0 0.0% 24 0 0:0% 23 0 '0.0% 21 0 0.0%
11 Ieffenon Park C01.4MUNITY TOTALS 84 5 ; .4,0% 84 1 :, 1.2% e6 1 1.2% 91 2 2.2% 96 0 , 0.02240 BEKUBIEN 52 4 , 7.7% 47 0 , 0.0% 48 1 . 2:1% 45 1 . 2.2% 49 0 . 0.03280 FARNSWORTH 32 1 3.1% 37 1 2s3% 38 0 0,0% 46 1 2.2% 47 0 0.0
12 Forest Glen COMMUNITY TOTALS 37 0 0.0% 39 0 ; 0.0% 43 2 - 4.7% 44 1 2.3%1 43 0 , 0.03170 EDOEBROOK 24 0 0.0% 25 0 0.0% 29 0 ' 0.0% 29 1 : 3,4%1 26 0 ; 'OA%6470 WILDWOOD 13 0 0.0% 14 0 0.0% 14 2 14.3% 15 0 0.0% 17 0 0.0
13 North Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 133 6 4.5% 130 7 54% 127 3 24% 144 4 23% 136 2 ; 1.55410 PETERSON 74 2 : 2.7% 67 2 2'0% 68 21 2:9% 81 4 4:9% 74 2 : 22%5690 SAUGANASH 29 I : 3,4% 31 5 16.1% 30 0 0.0% 30 0 0,0% 33 0 6.0%5980 SOLOMON 30 3 :10.0% 32 0 0.0% 29 1 3.4% 33 0 0,0 29 0 0.0%
14 Albany Park COM:MUNITY TOTALS 359 4 1.1% 323 4 . 1.2% 319 12 34% 334 $ - 2.4%. 392 20 5.13810 HAUGAN 165 2 '1.2% 128 3 2.3% 131 12 9.2% 137 0 0.0% 158 11 .7.44000 HIBBARD 73 0 0.0% 68 o : 0.0% 59 0 ' 0.0% 0 o Wes" 0 0 -Wa5260 PALMER 44 0 : 0.0% 52 0', 0.6% 62 0 0.0% 59 0 0,0% 62 2 3.26270 VOLTA 77 2 : 2.6% 75 1 I 67 0 6,6% 62 0 ! 0.0% 71 0 0.0%6290 VON STEUBEN U C 0 0 nta 0 0 lila 0 0 n/a 76 8 10.5% 101 7 6.9f
15 Portage Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 270 21 7.8% 262 8 :. 34% 251 15 6.0% 277 24 8.7% 257 21 .. LI%3620 GRAY 82 13 13.9% 70 2 : 2.9% 66 8 12:1% 88 7 8,0% 70 2 : 2.95490 PORTAGE PARK 77 5 . 6.5% 69 0 0.0% 59 5 8,5% 74 16 21.6% 75 16 .21,35510 PRUSSING 35 2 .- 5.7% 45 5 : MI% 49 2 4.1% 35 0 0.0% 34 3' <8.8%5600 REINBERG 34 1 ; 29% 33 1 3.0% 36 0 ; 0,0% 37 0 0.0% 35 0 1 0.65960 SMYSER 42 0 0.0% 45 0 0.0% 41 0 0.0% 43 1 23% 43 0 .6
16 Irving Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 537 8 1:5% 323 16 3.1% 530 8 1.S 503 7 1.4% 519 8 '1.5 '2190 BATEMAN 101 2 1.0% 108 1 : 0.9% 109 1 0,9% 102 2 2.0% 85 3 . 33%2260 BELDING 57 0 0.0% 54 2 3,7% 58 1 17% 36 2 5:6% 51 0 -0.0%2800 CLEVELAND 50 0 0.0% 42 0 6.0% 64 0 0.0% 55 1 1:11% 44 0 rs%0.0%3940 HENRY 64 4 -. 6.3% 69 5 '7.2% 71 3 4.2s 67 1 1.5% 86 0 ''0.04150 DIVING PARK 64 0 0.0% 58 0 i 0.0% 60 0 0,0% 61 0 0.0% 64 0 ; 6.0%5020 MURPHY 37 3 1,1% 48 6 : 12.5% 46 2 4.3% 55 1 1.8% 54 3 5.65590 REILLY 100 0 ; 0.0% 74 0 ' 0.0% 59 3 . 0.0% 66 0 0.0% 72 0 ; .0.135730 SCAMMON 64 0 0,0% 70 2 2.9% 63 1 1.6% 61 0 0.0% 63 2 3.2%
17 Dunning COMMUNITY TOTALS 221 7 32% 201 10 3.0% 207 7 3.4% 207 2 1.3% 205 2 1.02380 BRIDGE 51 0 : 0.0% 41 1 : 2.4% 51 0 0.0% 57 1 1,8% 51 1 2.02620 CANTY 32 3 9.4% 28 2 : 7.1% 36 2 5.6% 23 0 0,6% 33 0 0.0%3020 DEVER 57 0 : '0.0% 48 0 ' 0.0% 63 0 0.0% 65 1 '*, 1:3% 65 1 : .36190 THORP 0 A SCHOL ACA 81 4 4.9% 84 7 8.3% 57 5 8.8% 62 0 0.0% 56 0 6.0%
18 Mootclare 4510 LOCKE 62 0 0.0% 67 0 0.0% 64 0 0.0% 92 5 5.4% 96 2 7.119 BelmoM.Cragin COMMUNITY TOTALS 401 15 3.7% 403 13 3,2% 457 1 0.2% 423 3 0.7% 436 5 1.1
2450 BURBANK 72 0 6.6% SO 0 . 0.0% 114 0 , '0,6% 70 0 , 0,0% 85 3 , '3.5%3270 FALCONER 65 0 : .14.0% 79 2 2.3% 84 0 0.0% 76 0 0.0% 79 1 ; 1.3%4770 HANSON PARK 67 1 1.5% 61 0 0.0% 64 0 0.0% 60 0 0,0% 64 1 ; 1.6%4500 LLOYD 79 3 3.8% 62 2 . 3.2% 50 1 2.0% 79 0 0.0% 65 0 0.0%4560 LYON 58 6 10.3% 59 2 : 3.4% 78 0 0,61$ 70 1 1.4% 75 0 ; 6.6 -
5800 SCHUBERT 60 5 8.396 62 7 11.3% 67 0 0.0% 68 2 2.9% 68 0 0.0%20 Hermosa commuNnT TOTALS 177 0 0.0% 135 0 0,0% 162 0 0.0% 163 2 1.2% 169 7 4.1%
2160 BARRY 74 0 0.0% 54 0 0.0% 67 0 0.0% 87 0 0,0% 85 0 0.0%5100 NDCON 103 0 0.0% 81 0 0.0% 95 0 0.0% 76 2 2.6% 84 7 8.3%
21 Avondale COMMUNITY TOTALS 213 2 0.9% 189 4 : 2.1% 181 3 1.7% 185 1 - 0.5% 199 0 0.02140 AVONDALE 146 0 : 0.0% 112 0 '0.0% 104 1 1.0% 115 1 0,9% 110 0 ; 0.0%4490 LINNE 67 2 3.0% 77 4 '5.2% 77 2 2.6% 70 0 0.0% 89 0 0.0%
22 Logan Square COMMUNITY TOTALS 1098 20 1.8% 979 20 '2.0% 942 10 : 1.1% 932 6 0.6% 987 49 : '5.02370 BRENTANO 146 0 i 0.0% 113 1 '0.9% 136 0 0.0% 132 0 - 0.0% 117 4 3.4%2760 CHASE 02 8 ' 87% 71 2 : 1.5% 85 1 1.2% 74 4 5,4% 84 0 , 0.0%2960 DARWIN In 5 2.9% 143 0 0.0% 129 3 2.3% 114 1 0,9% 131 9 i 6,9%3120 DRUMMOND 57 2 3.5% 44 2 44% 44 2 4,5% 41 1 2.4% 38 11 ,28.9%3460 FUNSTON 84 0 ; .13.0% 74 0 0.0% 70 0 0.0% 60 0 i 0.0% 93 0 ; 0.0%3560 GOETHE 111 o 0.0% 125 0 -0.0 107 0 0.0% 88 0 ; 00% 99 1 0.0%4850 MONROE 123 1 ; 0.8% 118 4 34% 83 0 0.0% 85 0 1 0,01$ 75 2 : 2.75000 MOZART 62 0 0.6% 59 0 0.6% 55 0 40% 64 0 ; 0.0% 55 0 ;: 6.65520 PULASKI 137 1 j 0.7% 140 5 3.6% 135 1 ' 0.7% 113 0 ; OD% 135 23 VD%6510 YATES 114 3 2.6% 87 6 6,9% 98 3 3.1% 161 0 0,0% 160 0 0.0%
1721
Community Area UMW Se lanol assno
WHOLE SCHOOL
End Ret. %Ret.
KINDERGARTEN
Earl IRet. %Rd.FIRST GRADE
Bad Met. Wet.SECOND GRADE
Earl /Ret. %Rd.THIRD GRADE
End Met. %Ret.23 Humboldt Park commuziny TOTALS 9,773 198 2.0% 1039 0 0.0% 1172 56 4.6% 1154 21 1,8% 1254 30 2.4%
2610 CAMERON 1,569 22 1.4% 176 0 : 0.0% 181 4 : 2.2% 201 11 1.3% 256 7 2.7%
4540 LOWELL 1,381 40 2.9% 150 0 . 0,0% 161 20 . 12.4% 156 3 '1,9% 163 6 70776
4900 MORSE 606 0 0.0% 96 U . 00% 93 0 ' 0.0% 110 0 :, 0.0% 110 0 0.0%
6800 MORTON U C 476 15 3,2% 0 0 .0/4i.
0 0: /IA 0 o., .viii 0 o : ya.,
7410 MORTON EVGC BR 115 0 0.0% 0 0 . Art.: 0 o III' 0 o! tila 3 0 . in/ft
5110 NOBEL 866 22 2,5X' 153 0 ; 0.0% 157 10 64% 132 4 3,0% 114 4 , 3,5%
5210 PICCOLO II EM 1,564 2 01% 121 0 : 0.0% 149 0 0.0% 151 0 0.0% 212 2 : 0.9%5680 RYERSON 626 20 4.5% 71 0 0.0% 94 10 10.6% U 0 0.0% 58 0 : OM%
6080 STOWE 1,425 55 ; 3.9% 145 0 D .0% 175 7 4.0% 174 3 : 1.7% 184 7 > 3.8%
5470 WARD LAURA 728 o. 0.0% 88 o o.o, 100 o mos 90 o, .0.0% 99 0 ; o,e):%.
7500 WRIGHT 415 14 *.: i4% 39 0 ' ..' 0.0% 62 5 8.1% 52 0 " 0.0% 58 4 6.9%
24 West Town CMIMUNITY '.A7TALS 12,476 472 3,8% 1350 7 0.5% 1665 169 : 10,2% 1576 82 5,2% 1612 38 2.4%
2060 ANDERSEN 730 38 : 5.2% 73 0 0.0% 79 4 5.1% 105 7 :.. 6.7% 103 9 11.7%
7310 ANDERSEN EVGC BR 67 3 4,5% 0 0 ; an 0 0 tlia 0 0 BA 0 0 : tila
2530 BURR 505 28 f. i.% 61 0 '04% 57 5 : 4.8% 72 8 111% 68 0 0.0%
2640 CARPENTER 702 21 ''3.014. 83 0 ; 6.01 81 5 , 62% 88 9 ,. 10,2% 85 1 1.2%
2770 CHOPIN 757 51 `6.7% 48 3 : 6.3% 67 10 14.9% 51 3 . 5.9% 52 1 1.9%2850 COLUMBUS 367 12 : 3.3% 45 0 ; 0.0% 76 9 '. 11.6% 62 2 i 3.2% 52 1 ' 1'.9%
7420 DIEGO COMM ACAD 1,286 35 21% 156 0 : 0.0% 180 7 , ,3.9% 137 0 '', 0.0% 140 5 3:6%
4380 KOSCIUSZKO 1,094 49 4.5% 123 0 : 0.0% 157 29 : 18,5% 138 9 ' 6.5% 135 0 0,0%
4400 LAFAYETTE 1,064 38 . la% 145 0 .0.0% 189 23 , 12.2% 137 7 5.1% 165 0 . 0.0%
4840 MITCHELL 591 17 2,9% 65 0 0.0% 71 10 ; 14.1% 87 0 0.0% 68 1 : 1,5%
4870 MOOS 828 29 , 3.5% 87 0 . 0.0": 129 13 ;10.1% 140 8 5.7% 132 3 - 2.3%
5220 OTIS 694 31 4.5% 66 I Li% 91 13 1443Se 78 4 ", 5,1% 100 4 4,0%
5330 PEABODY 652 33 ; 5.1% 84 0 0,0% 91 16 17.6% 86 6 is 7.0% 81 3 3;7%
6460 PRITZKER 555 30 54% 31 0 0.0% 81 11 . 13.6% 80 10 12,5% 74 4 ' 5,4%
7790 SABIN MAGNET 484 9 ': 1.9% 51 1; 2.0% 62 2 . 3.2% 54 0 " 0.0% 73 0 0.0%
6140 TALCOTI 879 26 : 3.0% 105 2 1.9% 116 2 'L7% 122 3 : 2.5% 125 4 3,2%
6280 VON HUMBOLDT 1,178 22 1.9% 84 0 0.0% 138 10 7.2% 139 6 4.3% 159 2 ; '1.3%6282 VON HUMBOLDT CPC 43 0 , 0,06 43 0 0.0% 0 0 rita 0 0 " 134 0 0 n/a
25 Austin COMMUNITY TOTALS 13,053 947 6.8% 1492 5 0.3% 1833 212 11.6% 1716 141 8.2% 1874 138 7.4%
5700 ARMSTRONG LOUIS 217 13 6.0% 0 0 uln, 0 0 : n/a 0 0 viit 89 13 14.6%
7320 ARMSTRONG LOUIS BR 226 11 , 4.9% 75 0 0.0%......
84 11 ',13.1% 67 0 0.0% 0 0 .nin
2550 BYFORD 624 39 ' 6,3% 78 0 0.0% 112 11 9.8% 91 8 : 8.8% 128 12 9,4%
6620 CLARK MIDDLE SCIIOO 477 23 ; 4 :8% 0 0 n/a 0 0 Blii 0 0 . n/a 0 0 ",,n/a8050 DEPRIF.ST 469 17 ; 3.6% 69 0 : .0,0% 89 9 10,1% 76 6 : 7,9% 68 2 2.9%
6630 DOUGLASS MIDDLE 691 114 16.5% 0 0 Dia 0 0 nig 0 0 : lila 0 0 ,n/a3220 ELLINGTON 428 16 . 3.7% 62 0 . 0.0% 0 0 ' 'oh 28 1 ; 3.6% 106 5 . '4,ii3221 ELUNGTON BR 228 22 9.6% 24 0 ,, 9.0% 120 17 14.2% 84 5 ; 6.0% 0 0 idi3230 EMMET 641 33 '5.1% 66 0 : 0.0% 77 7 9.1% 51 1 2,0% 75 8 10.7%
7040 HAY BRANCH 380 23 6.1% 0 0 n/a 59 5 8.5% 119 12' 10.1% 104 5 4.8%
3840 HAY COMM ACADEMY 1,031 69 6.7% 156 5 3.2% 128 10 7,8% 65 2 3.1% 98 7 7.1%
3910 HEFFERAN 680 45 6.6% 65 9 0.0% 87 19 .21.8% 81 15 18.5% 86 4 . 4.7%
4060 HOWE 1,201 66 : 5.5% 125 0 '0.0% 150 22 143% 164 6 3.7% 147 13 '8,5%
4280 KEY 876 0 0.0% 118 0 0.0% 140 0 0.0% 141 0 0.0% 149 0 ' 0.0%
4450 LEWIS 643 46 7.2% 93 0 '0,015 89 15 :16.9% 101 10 ' 9.9% 112 12 ,10,7%
4530 LOVETT 461 13 2,8% 37 0 . 0.0% 63 6 9.5% 48 0' 0.0% 59 0 : 0.0%
6590 MARCONI COMM ACAD 536 38 , 7,1% 58 0 0.0% 86 15 17.4% 53 3 5.7% 67 13 19,4%
4670 MAY 854 95 , 11.1% 64 0 0.0% 109 0 0.0% 112 21 18.8% 124 15 121%5050 NASH 1,055 36 : 3,4% 100 0 0.0% 109 17 . 15.6% 133 8 6.0% 138 4 . 2,9%
5720 SAYRE LANG ACADEMY 399 9 ! 2.3% 49 0 0.0% 59 1 1.7% 52 3 5.8% 48 0 0.0%
6000 SPENCER 859 143 , 16.6% 131 0 .. OA% 146 22 15.1% M8 34 23,0% 153 24 ,I5.7%6520 YOUNG 877 76 8.7% 122 o. 0.0% 126 25 19.8% 102 6 .3.9% 123 1 . 0.8%
26 W. Garfield park COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,731 184 4,9 340 0 0,0% 488 65 13.3% 454 23 5.1% 459 27 4,9%3000 DELANO 622 14 '2,3% 45 0 0.0% 80 5 6.3% 75 2 2.7% 88 0 ,0.0%7840 GOLDBLATT 663 53 6,0% 64 0 ',.. 0.09E 15 16.5% 76 9: 11,5% 92 12 13.0%
7190 MELODY 607 47 7.7% 87 0 ' 0.0% 88 25 28.4% 71 4 5.6% 65 3 4.6%
6110 SUMNER 548 21 ' 3.6% 41 0 0.0% 76 11 y 5 59 1 1,7% 67 6 9,0%
6210 TILTON 731 15 2.1% 79 0 ; 0.0% 83 4 '. 4.69i 89 0 0.0% 81 0 0.0%
5380 WEBSTER 560 34' 6.1% 24 0 0.0% 70 5 1.176 84 7 , $.3% 66 6 9.1%
27 E Jr...14141N* COW WNITY TOTALS 6,037 446. 7.3 738 19 . .2.5% 779 114 :.14.6% 703 57 6.1% 775 62 '1.0%
2250 BEIDLER 398 3 i. 0.11% 58 0 ..-0.0% 71 3 : 4.2% 83 0 0,096 69 0 0,0%
8020 BETHUNE 694 81 ; 10% 74 0 : 0.0 99 37 37.4% 83 10, 12.o% 91 10 11.0%6610 CALHOUN NORTH 675 35 5:2% 95 1 1.1 105 14 13,3% 95 1 : 1,1% 79 9 11,4%
18
22
Community Area nit/ School macFOURTH GRADE
End Met %Rdt.FIFTH GRADE
Earl MM. %Ret.SIXTH GRADE
End Met %Rot.SEVENTH GRADE
Earl Ott. %Rd.EIGHTH GRADE
Burl iiRct %Ret.23 Humboldt Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 1015 18 ::' L ' 1053 3 0.3% 1079 25 , 2,6% 921 5 0.5% 1016 37 3,6%
2610 CAMERON 20C 0 ;'0.0 214 0 0.0% 148 0 ; 0.0% 101 0 0.0% VI 0 0.0%4540 LOWELL 155 4 2.3 140 1 '0:7% 134 5: 3.7% 142 1 ! 0.7% 150 0 0.0%4900 MORSE 89 0 0.0 ' 110 0 : 0.0% 0 0 , Ida 0 0 : nit 0 0 ista,.woo MORTON U C 0 0 AIR 0 0 nig' 180 13 7.2% 149 2 ; 1,3% 147 0 ; 0.0%7410 MORTON EVOC BR 0 0 ea% 0 0 nit 0 0 nit 15 0 0.0% 100 0 0.0%5110 NOBEL 100 4 40% 89 0 ; 0,0% 60 0 0.0% 36 0 0.0% 25 0 , 0.0%5210 PICCOLO ELEM 174 0 0.0 1. .
157 0 ; 0.0% 186 0 i 0.0% 215 0 11.0% 199 0 0.0%5680 RYERSON 74 6 '2.1 4 66 0 0.0% 77 0 0.0% 30 0 ' 0.0% 68 12 . 17.6%6050 STOWE 140 2 .4 165 1 0.6% 158 10 ,6.3% 148 0 : 0.0% 136 25 ; 18 .4%5470 WARD LAURA 78 0 0.0 70 0 0,0% 83 0 : to% 56 0 : (1.6% 64 0 0.0%7500 WRIGHT 41 2 49 , 42 1 2.4% 53 0 0.0% 29 2 6.9% 39 0 0.0%
24 West Town COMMUNITY TOTALS 1477 30 2.0 ' 1276 32 2.5% 1284 34 2,6% 1109 58 5,2% 1127 22 : 2.0%2060 ANDERSEN 87 4 4.6 67 4 : 6.0% 84 1 1.2% 73 0 ; 0.0% 59 9 . 15.3%7310 ANDERSEN HVGC BR 0 0 nit 0 0 . nit'- 0 0 Mt 29 0 : 0.0% 38 3 ; 7.9%2530 BURR 52 3 18 I 60 1 : .1.7% 44 1 ; 2.3% 49 10 20,4% 42 0 .0.0%2640 CARPENTER 71 3 4.2% 65 0; 0.0% 82 3: 3,7% 81 0 0,0% 66 0 0.0%2770 CHOPIN 56 1 .1,11% 47 1 . 2.1% 60 0 ,"0.0% 189 30 : 15.9% 187 2 : 1.1%2850 COLUMBUS 62 0 ''" 00% 36 0 . 0,0% 34 0 0.0% 0 0 n/a. 0 0 , t?it7420 DIEGO COMM ACAD 123 0 : 0.0% 119 1 0.5% 133 13 9.8% 133 9 ; itti.. 160 0 i 0.0%4380 KOSCIUSZKO 128 1 . .0.8% 100 1 ; 1.0% 117 7 6.0% 92 0 0,0. 104 2 : 1.9%4400 LAFAYETTE 161 0 ; 0.0% 145 8 I' 5:5% 122 0 ; 0.0% 0 0 : nia: 0 0 : A,4340 MITCHELL 74
.,0 ; Op% 66 0 00% 64 0 . 0.0% 57 3 ; 5,3' 39 3 7,7%
4870 MOOS 123 0 '' 0.0% 107 4 . 3.7% 110 1 0.9% 0 0 : di 0 0 i snit5220 OTIS 89 2 ; 2.2% 80 4 ' 5,0% 69 3 4.3% 47 0 0,0 74 0 04%5330 PEABODY 63 2 3.214 59 2 ; 3.4% 61 1 1.6% 59 0 : 0.0 68 3 : 4,4%6460 PRITZKER 68 4 . 5.9% 55 1 1.8% 62 0 i 0.0% 40 0 . 0.0% 64 0 ' 0,0%7790 SABIN MAGNET 70 4 5.7% 58 0 00% 45 0 ; 0.0% 43 2 ; 4.1' 28 0 '0.0%6140 TALCOIT 88 3 ,4% 79 5 6:3% 73 4 : 5.5% 94 3 3,2: 77 0 0.0%6280 VON HUMBOLDT 157 3 : .9% 133 0 ', 0.0% 124 0 : 0.0% 123 1 ; 0.5 121 0 0.0%6282 VON HUMBOLDT CPC 0 0 Ara. 0 0 .,,4* 0 0 nit' 0 0 n/a 0 0' A25 Aruba COMMUN/TY TOTALS 1600 82 .5.1% 1496 80 5.3% 1356 91 6.7% 12E7 65 5.1 1199 133 : 1111%5700 ARMSTRONG LOUIS 66 0 : 0.0% 62 0 0.0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 ,. Ali 0 0 : at7320 ARMSTRONG LOUIS BR 0 0 sishi, 0 0 : nI4 0 0 id* 0 0 ; ids 0 0 ', Alst2550 BYFORD 90 6 6.7% 86 2 ; 2.3% 39 o o.6% o o : 11/a 0 0: nit6620 CLARIC MIDDLE SCHOO 0 0 ; nit 0 0 : nix 104 1 1.0% 187 11 . 5.9% 186 11 ; 5.9%8050 DEPRIEST 88 A 0.0% 79 0 0.0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 : nit 0 0 nix6630 DOUGLASS MIDDLE 0 0 : nit 0 0 , nit 203 9 4.4% 243 22 9.1 245 83 :33.9%3220 ELLINOTON 90 4 4.4% 86 1 ; ta% 56 5 5,9% 0 0 : W. 0 0 at3221 ELLINGTON BR 0 0 ' nit 0 0 nisi 0 0: tda 0 0 nit 0 0 . nit3230 EMMET 60 1 1,7% 72 3 : 4,2% 84 6 7.1% 92 7 7,6 64 0 ' 0.0%7040 HAY BRANCH 98 1 1.0% 0 0 nla 0 0 nit 0 0 di 0 0 , nit3840 HAY COMM ACADEMY 66 3 4.5% 144 0 0.014' 136 24 , 174% 118 3 : 2.5% 120 15 12.5%3910 HEFFERAN 90 7 : 7.8% 88 0 0.0% 66 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0 61 0 0.0%4060 HOWE 145 2 1,4% 126 6 4.5% 115 4 3.5% 123 3 2,4 106 10 9.4%4280 KEY 140 0 0.0% 136 0 0.0% 18 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0 12 0 0.0%4450 LEWIS ' 70 0 0.0% 5? 0: 00% 57 7 12.3% 36 2 5,6% 33 0 0,0%4530 LOVETT 64 0 0.O 46 0 ; 0.0% 41 1 2.4% 51 1 2.0% 52 5 9.6%6590 MARCONI COMM ACAD 70 4 3.7% 55 0 0.0% 49 3 6.1% 50 0 . 0,0 48 0 0.0%4670 MAY 96 7 7.3% 106 28 : 26.4% 96 18 18.8% 74 1 1.4 73 5 6.8%5050 NASD 131 3 2,3% 116 4 34% 119 0 ; 0.0% 107 0 ; 0.0% 102 0 ; 0.0%5720 SAYRE LANG ACADEMY 51 1 .2.0% 44 0 '0.0% 27 2 7.4% 33 2 6.1% 36 0 0.0%6000 SPENCER 118 36 . 30,5% 105 19 18.1% 58 8 134% 0 0 nit 0 0 : nit6520 YOUNG 67 7 10.4% 93 17 18.3% 88 3 3.4% 95 13 13.7 61 4 &di26 W. Garlick! Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 449 26 5.8% 395 14 .3.5% 418 8 1.9% 376 11 2,9 349 10 2.9%3000 DELANO 68 1 1.5% 64 3 4.7% 62 0 0.0% 74 0 0.0% 66 3 4.5%7840 OOLDBLATT 75 4 5.3% 69 3 4.3% 63 4 6,3% 69 6 , 0,7 64 0 , 0.0%7190 MELODY 81 6 7.4% 62 4 : 6.5% 66 0 0.0% 45 5 ;11.1 42 0 0.0%6110 SUMNER 69 3 4.3% 43 0 0.0% 80 0 .0.0% 55 0 0.0' 58 0 0.0%6210 TILTON 87 6 6.9% 93 3 : 3.2% 82 2 2.4% 74 0 0.0% 63 0 , 0.0%6380 WEBSTER 69 6 5,7% 67 1 1.5% 65 2 3.1% 59 0 0,0 56 7 12.5%27 E. Garfield Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 726 44 6.1% 662 46 6.9% 573 28 4.9% 500 22 4.4 611 54 &II%2250 SEIDLER 62 0 0.0% 55 0 00% 0 0 n/lt 0 0 nit 0 0 , nta8020 BETHUNE 77 7 ; 9.1% 75 7 : 9.3% 78 8 , 10.3% 62 1 1.6 55 1 ; LS%6610 CALHOUN NORTH 83 1 1.2% 67 6 9.0% 54 2 3.7% 49 1 2.0 48 0 0.0%
Community Area Unit/ School aimsWHOLE SCHOOL I KINDERGARTEN
Earl net. %Rel. End /Reit. %Rd.FIRST GRADE
Fart /Rm. %RetSECOND GRADEad fRet %RM.
THIRD GRADEEnd /RM. %Rd.
27 H. Garfield Park 6730 CATHER 491 12 2.4% 76 0 0.0% 46 0 0.0% 60 3 5.0% 63 3 4.8%(continued) 4311 DICKENS CPC S7 5 ' 11.5% 57 5 LS% 0 0 nit 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
3050 DODGE 399 49 : 12.3% 44 C 0.0% 43 5 11.6% 54 15 27.8% 50 9 11.0%3240 ERICSON 634 42 6,6% 81 7 8.6% 89 7 7.9% 85 9 10.6% 74 4 5.4%4640 FARADAY 721 60 ,1.3% 68 0 ; 0.0% 99 14 14,1% 62 7 : 11.3% 91 10 11.013660 GREGORY 658 37 3.6% 72 0 ' no% 89 20 22.5% 67 7 i 10.4% 95 3 .34..6920 JENSEN SCHOL ACADE 683 34 ' .54% 51 0 . 0.0% 75 5 6.7% 72 1 1,4% 98 10 10.2%4310 KING ELEM 480 37 , 7.7% 57 5 : 8.8% 63 9 14.3% 42 4 9.5% 65 4 6.2%6921 MILLER CPC 25 1 : 44% 25 1 : 4.0% 0, 0 . at 0 0 &a 0 0 Wt.7140 ROENTGEN EV(3C 172 50 : 29.1% 0 0 i 51: o o lila o o nia o o oh'
28 Near West Side COMMUNITY TOTALS 6,881 465 63 523 17 : 2.1% 363 70 8.1% 137 54 6.5% 905 69 7,62400 BROWN 450 47 10.4% 54 1 1.9% 57 2 3.5% 51 6 ' 113% 68 10 14.76740 DEIT 458 20 4.4 54 1 ; 1.9% 62 3 4.8% 53 5 . 9.4% 47 2 4.3%3540 GLADSTONE 435 47 10.8% 45 1 2.2% 57 6 10.5% 57 7: 12.3% 68 6 8.83610 GRANT 966 106 11.0% 128 2 ' 1.6% 138 40 : 29.0% 130 13 : 10.0% 146 24 16.43950 HERBERT 348 51 14.7% 59 6 10-2% 35 6 17.1% 47 6 12.8% 40 12 30.05350 IRVING 332 8 2.4% 21 6 , 28.6% 34 1 2,9% 41 1 2.4% 41 0 0.0%4690 JACKSON LANG ACAD 522 15 2.9% 50 0 ; 0.0% 59 2 3.4% 61 2 3.3% 60 0 0.0%4190 JEFFERSON 382 28 '.- 7.3% 35 0 '.. AO% 42 1 2.4% 31 6 19.4% 57 0 0.05971 JOYNER CPC 40 0 0.0% 40 0 0.0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 nit 0 0 . oh4820 MEDII.L INT UPPER 385 35 9.4 0 0 Wa 0 0 AA 0 0 ala 0 0 Wa4810 MED1LL PRIMARY 554 13 2.3% 107 0 0.0% 113 2. 1.8% 118 3 2.5% 141 0 0.0%5620 RES 469 29 . 6.2% 62 0 0.0% 51 2 3.9% 56 0 0.0% 58 3 ' 5.25940 SKINNER CLASSICAL 190 o : 0.0% 24 0 0,0% 28 o no% 3o 0 0.0% 29 0 , Ao%5970 SMYTH 796 35: 4.4% 71 0 0.0% 104 0 0.0% 99 2 2.0% 86 8 9.3%5990 SPALDING ELEM PHY 31 0 0.0% 0 0 ;ifa 0 0 at 0 0 Wa 0 0 : n/a6090 SUDER 523 31 ' 5.9%, 73 0 00% 83 5 6.0% 63 3 4.8% 64 4 6.3%
29 NorthlAwndale COMMUNITY TOTALS 8,482 499 5.9%1 959 5 0.5% 1115 126 11.3% 1077 96 1.9% 1029 45 '4.4%2740 CHALMERS 496 28 : 5.6% 42 0 ,, OX% 79 11 13.9% 70 7 10,0% 64 5 ,9.4%6760 DVORAK 594 17 ; 2.9% 71 0 0.0% 87 12 13.8% 71 3 4.2% 73 0 0.0%7780 FRAZIER 533 52: 9.8% 50 0. 0.0% 70 8 11.4% 77 1 1.3% 53 0. 0.0%6381 HANSBERRY CPC 43 0 i 0.0% 43 0 OA% 0 0 Ain 0 0 nit 0 0 WE6570 HENSON 357 11 2.1% 20 0 0,0% 63 5 . 7.9% 50 3 6.0% 45 0 0,0%3970 HERZL 688 47 64% 64 0 0.0% 95 16 16.8% 85 12 - 14.1% 74 2 2.7%4070 HOWLAND 484 17 3,5% 57 0 0,0% 58 5 3.6% 61 6 9,8% 72 3 4.2%4110 HUGHES CHARLES 469 46 9.8% 53 2 3.8% 64 6 9.4% 77 10 S 13.0% 57 10 17.5%6940 JOHNSON 302 15 5.0% 27 0 0.6% 45 7 15.6% 47 5 10.6% 39 2 5.1%6941 JOHNSON CPC 26 0 0.0% 26 0 : 0.0% 0 0 de 0 0 oh 0 0 Wa6750 LATHROP 557 35 6.3% 54 0 0.0% 59 9 15.3% 73 10 13.7% 64 3 4.7%4430 IAWNDALE COMM ACA 963 23 2.4% 88 0 0.0% 107 8 7.5% 118 10 8.5% 130 0 0.0%4650 MASON 1,470 48 3.3% 123 0 0.0% 190 10 5.3% 179 7 3,9% 203 6 3.0%4651 MASON CPC 37 0 0.0% 37 0 0.0% 0 0 at 0 0 Wa 0 0 n/a6571 OLIVE CPC 39 0 0,0% 39 0 . 0.0% 0 0 via 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a5370 PENN 643 87. 133% 70 0 0.0% 82 9 I1.0 78 9 11.5% 70 6 8.6%5450 PLAMONDON 268 15 5.6% 26 0 0.0% 43 7 16.3% 33 5 15.2% 25 0 0.05480 POPE 513 58 11.3% 69 3 4.3% 73 13 17.8% 58 8 13.8% 60 7 11.7%
30 South Lawndsle COMMUNLTY TOTALS 12,650 399 3.2% 1297 16 1.2% 1484 162 10.9% 1454 69 4.7% 1452 64 4.4%2510 BURNS 985 17 1.7% 0 0 nia 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 al44320 CARDENAS 937 61 6.5% 234 0 0.0% 242 41 16.9% 235 14 6.0% 226 6 2.7%2910 CORKERY 929 27 2.9% 86 0 0.0% 109 5 4.6% 115 3 2.6% 108 12 11.1%2940 CROWN COMM ACAD 700 28 4,0% 50 0 0.0% 69 2 2.9% 64 3 4,7% 91 7 7.7%3520 GARY 1,885 69 3.7% 202 0 0.0% 235 38 16.2% 228 14 : 6.1% 226 10 4.4%3750 HAMMOND 905 24 2,7% 123 0 : 0.0% 158 16 10,1% .....1 2 1.3% 145 5 3.4%3370 KANOON MAGNET 773 10 1.3% 61 0 0.0% 89 3 3.4% 84 1 1.2% 88 5 5.7%4720 MCCORMICK 1,480 54 3.6% 169 0 ! 0.0% 203 29 14.3% 182 8 4.4% 182 9 4.9%6930 PADEREWSKI 475 26 5.3% 63 0 0.0% 58 8 13.8% 61 8 13.1% 72 4 5.6%4250 SAUCEDO MAGNET 1,043 10 1.0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 WA' 0 0 Wa 0 0 Ws.6010 SPRY 1,471 60 4.1% 185 9 4.9% 204 17 8.3% 200 13 6.5% 178 6 3.4%6440 WHITNEY 1,067 13 1.2% 124 7 5.6% 117 3 2.6% 130 3 2.3% 136 0 0.0%
31 Lower West Side COMMUNITY TOTALS 6,058 3/3 5.2% 716 21 2.9% 835 44 5.3% 797 33 4.1% 720 21 3.9%2890 COOPER PRIM INTER 968 35 3.6% 122 8 6.6% 131 4 3.1% 135 3 2.2% 137 1 0.7%4231 COSTILLA BR JUNOMAN 77 5 i 63% 0 0 nit 0 0 ' ttia 13 1 7.7% 15 0 0.0%4230 JUNGMAN 461 16 : 3.5% 82 1 1,2% 98 3 3.1% 91 3 3.3% 83 2 2.4%4232 JUNGMAN BR 87 0 : 0.0% 0 0 : dm 0 0 n/a 0 0 . nit 0 0 nix4370 KOMENSKY 489 39 84% 69 0 0,0% 91 11 12.1% 68 8 11.8% 64 8 12.5%
20 24
FOURTH GRADE FIFTH v./RADE SIXTH GRADE SEVENTH GRADE EIGHTH GRADECommunity Area Us:// %...s....x4 no _dill_Flai Met. %Rd. FM Met. %Rd. End Met. %RrA. Ear! Mt. %Rct. Pad Met. %Rct.27 E. Garfield Park 6730 CA'rHER 58 0 0.0 4 46 0 0.0% 35 3 5.5% 51 2 3.9% 36 1 2.8%
(eactinued) 4311 DICKEN7, CPC 0 0- da 0 0 es 0 0 n/1 0 0 asi 0 0 n/a3050 DODGE 66 6 9.1 47 13 27.7% 32 1 3.1% 30 0 0.0% 33 0 ' 0.0%3210 ERICSON 80 4 : SAS 62 3 4.8% 57 2 3.5 50 4 80% 56 2 3.6%4.6mI FARADAY 93 9 . 9.7 87 10 11.5% 84 8 . 9.5% 67 2 ', 3.0% 70 0 0.0 %3660 GREGORY 60 2 :
.!
3.3 33 2 . 2.4% 68 I . 1.5% 63 2 2.9% 56 0 0.0%6920 JENSEN SCHOL ACADE 76 11 j 14.5 19 2 2.2% 84 0 0.0% 73 3 i 6.8% 65 0 0.0%.4310 KING ELEM 71 4 SA 51 3 3.9% 61 3 4.9 34 5 14.7% 36 0 0.0%6921 MILLER CPC 0 0 , -nisi 0 0 da 0 0 ; pis 0 0 : di. 0 0 di7140 ROENTGEN EVOC 0 0 : as 0 0 n/a 0 0 nit 16 0 0.0% 156 50 321%
28 Near West Side COMMUNTIY TOTALS 876 63 7.2 777 44 : 5.7% 757 75 9 9 581 41 7.1% 462 32 : 6.9%2400 BROWN 67 5 -7.5 41 10 : 24.4% 60 13 21.7 22 0 0.0% 24 0 , 0.0%6740 DETT 57 1 ; El 43 3 '- 6.3% 51 5 9:11% 47 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0%3540 GLADSTONE 52 9 17.3% 53 4 7.5% ,:', 10 : 18.9% 23 3 10.7% 22 1 ;LS%3610 GRANT 116 10 8.6 90 5 5.6% 85 5 . S.9% 81 7 8.6% 52 0 0.0%3950 HERBERT 42 11 26.2% 41 0 0.0% 38 8 : 21.1% 21 2: 9.5% 25 0 0.0%5350 IRVING 33 0 0.0% 45 0 : 0.0% 41 0 : 0.0% 40 0 i 0.0% 36 0 0.0%4690 JACKSON LANG ACAD 62 4 6A 63 4 : 6.3% 63 3 . 4.8% 53 0 ' 0.0% 46 0 , 0.0%4190 JEFFERSON 59 3 5.1 47 4 ; 8.5% 51 7 : 13.7% 27 2 7.4% 33 5 15.2%.59/1 JOYNER CPC 0 0 tea 0 0' da 0 0 da 0 0 ; di 0 0- di4820 MEDILL INT UPPER 42 5 11.9 112 3 " 2.7% 90 9 -10.0% 74 12 16.2% 67 6 9.0%4810 MEDILL PRIMARY 75 8 10.7% 0 0 n/a 0 0 tali 0 0 da 0 0 . di5620 RIIS 63 1 1.6% SO 6' 170% 55 3 5.5% 52 9 17.3% 22 5 " 227%5940 SKINNER CLASSICAL 28 0 9.0% 28 0 ; 0,0% 23 0 0.0% 0 0 oh 0 0 n/i5970 SMYTH 110 4 3.6% 89 0 0.0% 95 7 7,4% 82 4 4.9% 60 10 ' 16.7%5990 SPALDING ELEM PHY 6 0 0.0% S 0: 0.0% 4 0 0.075 5 0 co% 8 0. 0.0%6090 SUDER 64 2 3.1% 62 5 8.1% 43 5 10.4% 38 2 5.3% 28 5 17:9%
29 North Lawadalc COMMUNITY TOTALS 1012 48 4.7% 861 50 5.3% 107 29 33 781 15 I. 811 85 10'2740 CHALMERS 59 0 '0.0% 46 2 . 4.3% 51 0 0.071 34 0 0.07E 51 2 . 3.9:i,6760 DVORAK 55 0 0.0% 61 2 3.3% 60 0 0.0% 59 0 0.0% 57 0 6.6_7780 FRAZIER 62 15 , 24.2% 54 4 7.4% 63 3 4.8% 49 0 C )% 55 21 31.2.6381 HANSBERRY CPC 0 0 di 0 0 i da 0 0 da 0 0 n/a 0 0, Ws6570 HENSON 36 2 ' 5,6% 37 1 : 2.7% 27 0 0.0% 33 0 0.0 46 0 0.0%3970 HERZL 91 5 AA% 73 5 .6.8% 72 5 6.9% 12 0 0.0 62 2 3.2%4070 HOWLAND 45 0 0.0% 44 0 0.0% 50 3 6.0% 43 0 0.05 54 0 C.0%4110 HUGHES CHARLES 50 4 8.0% 37 7 18.9% 45 0 0.0% 44 0 0.0% 42 7 16,7%6940 JOHNSON 32 0 0.0% 41 0 0.0% 21 0 0.0% 24 0 0.0 26 1 3.8%6941 JOHNSON CPC 0 0 Ws 0 0, Ala 0 0 n/a 0 0 oh 0 0 di6750 LATHROP 88 0 0.0% 57 4 7.0% 50 0 0.0% 46 2 4.3% 66 7 10.64430 LAWNDALE COMM ACA 131 1 0.8% 102 1 1.0% 104 3 2.9% 92 0 0.0% 91 0 0.0%4650 MASON 187 9 4.8% 157 16 10.2% 144 0 0.0% 155 0 0.0% 132 0 0-0%4651 MASON CPC 0 0 Ws 0 0 n/a 0 0 di 0 0 Mt 0 0 di6571 OLIVE CPC 0 0 n/a 0 0 Ws 0 0 nix 0 0 Iva 0 0 di5370 PENN 82 6 7.3% 79 7 8,9% 68 13 19.1% 45 4 t...?% 69 33 47.8%5450 PLAMONDON 33 1 3.0% 22 1 4.5% 30 1 3.3% 31 0 a.p 25 0 0.0%5480 POPE 61 5 8.2% 51 0 0.0% 52 1 1.9% 54 9 I6,1 35 12 343%
30 South LAwndsle COMMUNITY TOTALS 1508 40 2.7% 1407 16 1.1% 1404 72 1.6 1367 4 9.3 1277 6 0.5251C BURNS 2?5 10 4.3% 180 5 2.8% 192 2 1.0% 182 0 0.0% 196 0 0.0%4320 CARDENAS 0 0 n/a 0 0 de 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 via2910 CORKERY 120 2 1.7% 104 1 1.0% 111 3 2.7% 89 1 1.1 87 0 0.0%2940 CROWN COMM ACAD 86 6 7.0% 82 1 1.2% 83 3 3.6% 88 0 0.0% 87 6 6.9%3520 GARY 233 1 0.4% 198 4 2.0% 195 2 1.0% 194 0 , 0.0% 174 0 U.0%3750 HAMMOND 117 1 0.9% 120 0 0.0% 87 0 0.0% 0 0 WA 0 0 da3370 KANOON MAGNET 33 1 1.5% 85 0 0.0% 95 0 0.0% 92 0 0.0 111 0 0.04720 MCCORMICK 172 2 1.2% 171 2 1.2% 152 4 2.6% 131 0 0.0 118 0 0.06930 PADEREWSKI 59 2 3.4% 43 2 4.7% 44 1 2.3% 39 1 2.6% 36 0 0.0%4250 SAUCEDO MAGNET 158 6 3,8% 1E9 0 '0.0% 202 4 2.0% 258 0 0,0 236 0 0.06010 SPRY 136 9 6.6% 132 1 0.8% 134 3 2.2% 169 2 1.2 133 0 0.0%6440 WHITNEY 124 0 0.0% 103 0 0.0% 109 0 0.0% 125 0 0.0 99 0 0,0%
31 Lower West Side COMMUNITY TOTALS 684 37 5.4% 693 22 4.0% 583 4 0.7 568 114 20.1 462 6 1.3%2890 COOPER FruiA INTER 131 4 3.1% 174 13 7.5% 138 2 1.4% 0 0 . tils 0 0 di4231 COSTILLA BR JUNOMAN 49 4 8.2% 0 0, n/a 0 0 nisi 0 0 da 0 0 di4230 JUNGMAN 35 4 11.4 63 3 4.8% 9 0 0.0% 0 0 Ws 0 0 nix4232 JUNGMAN BR 0 0 n/a 24 0 0,0% 63 0 0.0% 0 0 ids 0 0 n/s.4370 KOMENSKY 1 96 6 6.3% 62 4 6.5% 39 2 5.1% 0 0 IA 0 0 ale
212 5
Coomnoity Arca WO School areWHOLE SC3100L
Eat /Rot. %Rd.KINDERDARTENEnd Md. %Ret
mar C...11):1311
Earl STA. %Rot.SECOND GRADE
Thor1 act. %Rd.TIBRD GRADE
Berl /Met -Oct31 Lower Wcat Side 7610 OROZCO UPP ER CYCLE 154 120 14,1% 0 0 :, Alik 0 0 ',.::, 0 0 ifs 0 0 Ida
(cootie,' aed) 5430 PICKARD 113 0 'i 0,0% 107 o! 04 97 0 s10.% 90 0 co 95 0 0.0%
4210 PILSEN COMM ACAD 864 65 , 7.3% 125 II i 6.4 137 13 '.95; 142 17 ;420% 121 S *3%6720 SALAZAR BILINGUAL C 772 II - 4.0% 50 0 ! tio 91 5 i 5.3% Si 0 : 0.6% 50 6 ' 120%6320 WALSH 451 14 3.1% 59 0 0.0 10 7 ; 8.8% 74 0 i 0.0% 59 2 3.4%
6450 WIETTIVZ 404 7 ."1,7% 102 4 3.9 110 1 . 0.9% 103 I , 1.0% 89 1 ; 1.1
7330 WHITTIER BRANCH 248 3 1.2% 0 0 :.... ithe 0 0 : AN 0 0 sia. 0 0 . Aga
33 Near South Side COMMUNITY Trit41.3 563 22 i 3.9% '70 0 ; 0.0 104 4 : 3.1,4 13 6 , 7.2% 117 3 3.43961 SOUTH LOOP BR 156 9 !'%.:5.1131 42 0 0.0 66 4 : 6.1 4£ 5 : 10.4% 0 0 04,3960 SOUTH LOOP SCHOOL 407 13 i 12% 21 0 0.0 38 0 0,0% 35 1 2.9% 17 3 .3.4%
34 Armour Swart COMMUNITY TOTALS 757 15 : 2.0% 70 0 ; 0.0 SO 0 *. 0.0 65 0 0.0% 105 3 . 2.92010 ABBOTT 315 3 : 1.0% 31 0 '0.0 46 0 ; 0.0% 21 0 i 0.05 39 0 0.03700 HAINES 442 12 : '17% 22 0 . '0.0 34 0' 0.0% 37 0 0.0% 66 3 4.51
35 Dou14a COMMUNITY TOTALS 6,265 403 6.4% 673 13 1.9 936 90 9.6 815 107 .13.1% 711 41 5.2,6
2100 MUCKS 554 24 4.32-C 79 0 ' 0.0 87 4 -, 4.6% 70 9 129% 74 3 , 4.43070 DOOLITTLE INT UPPER 463 6 1.3% 0 0 : ;fa 0 0 : nia 0 0 sik 0 0 da'7620 DOOLITTLE PRIMARY 814 103 12.7% 114 3 2.6 213 28 13.1% 185 46 .24,9% :86 15 /1.1
3090 DOUOLAS COMM ACAD 524 35 6.7% 65 0 0.0 67 6' 9.0% 63 5 ' 7.9% 37 0 '0.03100 DRAKE 331 10 . 3.0% 35 1 , 2.9 ' 54 4 ; 74% 37 0 : 0,0% 35 0 . 0,07340 DRAKE EVOC BR 67 36 53.7% 0 0 . di 0 0 , .da 0 0 .' n/a. 0 0 via
3790 HARTIGAN 655 3 47.5% 70 0; 0.0 10 1 : 1.3% 79 2 2,511 81 0 0.0%
4700 MAYO 610 41 6,7% 73 9 ; 12.3 85 5 : 5.9% 76 4' 5.3% 85 2 , 2.45400 PERSHING MAGNET 217 5 1:7i 27 0 ,, OA " 28 1 3.6% 32 3 , 9.4% 31 1 1.25570 RAYMOND 693 A.- '-. 7.0% 103 0 ; 0.0% 137 I:.; : 13.1% 100 22 22.0% 107 9 "t.44
6330 WARD JAMES 226 15 6.6% 13 0 ': oir 21 2 ,, 9.5% 18 2 . 11.1% 15 2 13,3
6490 WILLIAMS 1.036 76 7.3% 89 0 mil 164 21 12.8% 155 14 9.0% 133 9 6.1%
36 Oakland COMMUNT1Y TOTALS 1,071 61 3.7% 87 2 2.3 A 131 11 ; IRO% 142 13 i 9.2 153 16 10.5
6790 DONOGHUE 455 21 6.2% 32 2 ' 4,3% 54 3 : .5.6% 65 4 ; 4.2% 73 9 , 12.3'3210 EINSTEIN 428 27 45.3% 29 0 ; 0.0% 62 8 , 12.9% 54 0 11:1% 56 5 : 329',,,
6780 ROBINION BR OAKENW 195 6 . 3.1% 26 0 ! 0.0% 22 0 ' 0.0% 23 3 13:0% 24 2 8.3%37 Fuller Park COMMIMITY TOTALS 1,156 227 19,6% 127 0 0.0 A 133 kr374% 193 45 23.3 154 33 21.4
6540 BEETHOVEN 754 183 24.3% 92 0 0.0% 81 26 32.1% 131 41 29.7% 104 29 27.9'3930 HENDRICKS 402 44 10.9% 35 0 0.0% 52 24 :46.2% 55 4' 7.3% 50 4 1.0%
38 Grand Dockyard 008 ,4UNITY TOTALS 4,109 291 6.1% .90 5 1.0 655 87 13.3% 611 52 7.6 657 29 4,42840 COLMAN 699 76 10.9% 77 0 . 0.0% 117 36 ; 30.8% 84 4 4.1% 84 6 . 7.1i.330e FARRE11 890 57 6.4% SI 0 : OA 121 25 . 20.7% III 2 ; LS% 106 4 : 3:/l%
3440 FULLER 512 20 3.9% 53 0 : 0,Q 53 1 . 1,9% 69 5 7.2% 87 4 45%6 8 2 0 M C C O R K L E 496 17 3.4% 55 0 ; 0.0% 49 0 : 0.0% 67 8 ' 11.9% 61 2 :34%6950 MOLLISON 447 62 13.9% 49 5 10.2 60 12 20.0% 64 5' 7.8% 51 6 '.1116960 OVERTON 816 38 4.1% 70 0 ' "4,0% 125 0 0.0% 154 21 13,6% 160 6 3.87750 WOODSON N 358 0; 0.0% 0 0, Ala 0 0 .nI U 0 n/* 0 0 %.. oh7820 WOODSON S 591 21 3.6% 99 0 0.0 130 13 10.0% 132 7 5.3 108 1 '0.9
39 Kenwood COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,938 84 4.3% 131 1 0.6 221 18 1.1% 231 24 10.1 256 17 6.66110 PRICE 607 53 8.1% 62 0 0.0% 63 7 10.3% 84 15 119% 85 15 17.6
5580 REAVIS 513 13 2.5% 49 0 0.0% 61 5 1.2% 63 2 ; 2.9% 63 2 3.2%5850 SFAKESPEARE 349 14 1.0% .00 I . 2.5 45 2 4.4% 46 7 15.2 48 0 P.0%'920 SHOESMITH 289 4 1.4% 3. 0 0.0 47 4 8.5% 40 0. 0.0% 60 0 0.04260 WIRTH EXP BR KENWO 180 0 0.0% 0 0 da 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a, 0 0 di
40 Washington Park commuter/ TOTALS 4,976 244 4.9% 383 0 , 0.0 511 SO 9.1% 522 33 6,3 583 33 6.66660 BEASLEY ACAD CTR 1,172 24 : 2.0% 0 0 nit 125 7 , 5.6% 130 8 . 6.2% 154 2 . .1.3%2460 nuRic,,r 546 50 9.2% 96 0 0.0 99 :7 17.2% 92 ID 10.0% 101 14 13:9
2670 CARTER 772 49 6.3% 68 0 0.0% 95 19 20.0% 89 8 9.0% 105 9 8,68070 DYETT MIDDLE 798 l'i .1.4% 0 0 di 0 0 da 0 0 : ;VIC 0 0 Wa
6661 FARRE11 CPC BR BEASL 61 r :. 0.0% 61 0 0.0 0 0 da 0 0 ' di. 0 0 eapap FARM AN 333 I 0.3% 36 0 ' 0.0 38 0 OA% 42 0 : o.c.f.,.. 36 0 0.05650 ROSS 666 52 . 7.1% 46 0 , 0.0 00 5 , 6.3% 83 1 1.2% 91 6 6,6,6140 TERRELL 628 57 9.1% 76 0 0.0 74 2 21% 86 6 7.0% 93 7 7.5%
41 Hyde Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,871 41 2.2 162 0 0.0 191 15 7.9% 215 10 4,7 221 1 0.43710 HARTE 325 4 1,2% 23 0 0,0 33 2 ', 6.1% 34 1 ' 2.9% 44 1 2.34390 KOZMINSICI 03MM ACA 543 14 2.6% 69 0 0.0 59 8 13.6% 62 4 6.5% 81 0 0,0
15030 MURRAY LANG ACADE 319 I 0.3% 3%. 0 0.0% 31 0 0,0% 30 0 CO 29 0 3.05560 RAY 691 22' 3.2% 38 0 0.0 68 5 7.4% 89 5 5.6% 74 0 0.0
22 26
G
1 pseo°°°°°°V:A
_at', - . ,
.' 11 i 1 1,0000000000000g4vJoNoAo400000000mmo......0000000wlo.....pooz..o..40...g4....000....
-ei
..4 471
Nt et *- -
000NonN000000000m...,ommo...o,0000000cl00000400mmN000N
it * *2:2.a
* it *t... -...,,,
V4A3142A°ZMn°4
VOA:* t,.* tott. at fit -* .*- * *;;,» 1N1 sgg ,7t1.12gl:g g..,
aRvogil%0AIA. * A- , %bit * 4 7A* * Al at bst
0 .. * 0 \ 0 A 0 : * 0
Itt.0 00004444m.4,mmt.vmvrtno,Roo
A4A0*A0P4PUnV
05...cvt4o,om..4-144$.cia*
1G1.1°,%;°PPAVRAA4
tf,ivtvtp ,...,,,.% 0,0, ,,,,,,a,4 g ..,, .9,,, ,..,. g.2 .1,6
IA.* * *22:2 2
2AA
* ak ic sit41- 0 Ot 0
8A4Alt$PZ2A;ggn2
AQA
<el,:eig
* * tit:ie .11,3-;
Pz2R347M402°,4,;t4PA0$Rog,i°A3
I" ast tic
7:04 er
R
*,:x*oit %* tot * .* etg'is2.22's: 16.:5,
,
A alt Vt. tit ,* aft b * et
, s SC! * 0 0., p 'I' ,e,
VErV.AV4V
tit- * s* 1* ets tit
Z.2,2 7s'a g,
* 'A at * 4 V<1.1 * 0 0 o
GRRP°W°Pn°A2.54R4A
1$cloo o
...:i°
As* -els *s*s , A a t Vtt'a ',11 2114 '14 sc'A it
. ..... . .........
it lilt di Vt bk ,4 bk *A*v. o - 1.. t ,--.
:
VLsbk ,V'sVC,"V
n q `"sq 41°°°°-... .. ....
Ii1M.714%
IV* * igit, at
..* o-o o A.%2Xaty414
01z000000mlown....00r..000.nooNo.o.,..0.4-4.0,2,**000.00NN0000g...0..,m00,0t-mccom
]542°°°°°*°
ak ;g 4, it ,,, te
0t.'qv-ita-lvvIcl.n,q.a.t44..aseocrct-tn-anet71.c!.0qtla-aviqsci-a.qs%9%-an-1.a410.1pq0:
1--
VV,,A41**.1WAICIA*C*1EtAiV4AIIVIOCI..-WIAWIAWs**W.Vi***W'WWWW7,794WATA,471WWW0 00,0004.,0
.......
44millea.:qR"a'lli4P:AlqnvI'V,"4RyR:441.0:nc":"4"2.....2,4,q4,...aesccl.a.0q..ag.,.11:.
iSec,R0PA0M]
VtAli4,MIKAltW*WWIR0 o.-, ovl0000stsi
°2ii°2533tflAW
gl,tttgi41t4A1A11111,g-,riAlFrIMITTfffiT:V41:4!'g'g'gglt141111t:Igtr:1111".:IrttlA'g.g.;-dl: 4. .1,
arowilo....oNNoNriloNn000mmooNoom4NNoono,,ov4mmoom00000000vJo40000r-wlmoo..o
1] E8°A°114°
w oveto4D
PA
tt,,,04 ii btl0-÷1 r: g ..
SMAr4Z4.1AA°RXRUAr41135t
ti,licid ocredd.. . ...
AP Fila8M443%°AGS;
,I.prt 0 te :14 tit, tor 0*41 --oz 4: rz. 04:es To ta 41:a .4S vis41.;c3 d : .a
., .., .... . . .
4aPn3gMA°ApirIMM°U7.1g2e°4FAVRAY.
*O,40 OcArt-ocirst4...... .... ............ . ... .....
$,42Vaatig*3m$V49
' to w 0 avyts tilt *,afk .vt ..t% ot:11,111 Is .0.ra "a : : -.t.! rt.:-74 : fol
..:
i tsAt ..,,,,r,, ii,,t,A.A -d -6444-4 )r,
smoM0Xgo
o
00
liggiigai°110..No
P11110i1114MRIelnq
0nNN§§
" 422
f4 Qu
at 01:4
0
8 80
H111141$Mon ..g3
N
ipO
z 08 Nno i
III
oe,
14ggRg1 CAi J21100088 il 4a 203.?. a coV)
1§IIIM 11§"M ........m.
CO
0,
<
Ng F 80
.4mq
Nhh 0wouomag itil )i
Illligli ""14.1.5t
.11z...1
14
1
1
1
I
of ' g`ft 0 01 Vf1,0 'I«. 0,, 'd, . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .% en 010 0 . It's .-. ;I 0 0
g8A°I.A'figg.''A
, 4`n g
tm"tst,
,1 :0g
% V40i :00.4e
. : 0 .. . .... ".., . . .
8 .-. en 0 0 ts 0 t w's .
DALC,14°*4F.1134
s
vl ,vb V g 10 g ".t.o:0 0 0r. en en 0 0 ,0 0 N
-4 6., zsnm2sci%mERttE.;.0v41:30i.:1;;;?
''ltg ts N 21
bkgrse "f '0' 'm444 C4 1 I.,
rit. . 01 ws ci 0 vp
bk. Vt. g bt Vt , IRg:.-: ,..! 4::sr: a ni,.,W0 40. 7., .g. . ..... . .
*Es. sag30nmg4Avs' APC llk. lit lit .s IRz: : 4 ',111 ; '4
R V CI M g °
!ftMI;
.
g41o...
kit
.1
V
' 4,`f.a0 :*v. 0 b 0 .11.
N 0 0 0 0 N
g , Vt g Vt, *TR.1---d;o ,.t ..1 orAt 0 r.,1 t9 p
.... . .....
' s** *Aft.,*.*%*,..*1'g 1? g 0 o 0.'0 o0.gsV (.4 el` * `40, 0.. . .. . . . .. .
r4 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0
§ 63::..VMAnr.IF.AR.A.NIC121.1A
*R.* Ks* * *sacs* tots**tqs.-: o o CI 4:1"R 4: CI C..! q#1,s- .- o p c>. r,t, 9. 4) co o.cyr...... .... ... ... . ... ....Or-ONN
4M4C1g1 F.' P. taglagg.4:,,,,
* * likataot0 *I g01 0% 0 1.4 0
, .. .
V I 0 ,0 0
* WI* g VI1 q 1'1 n vls: g vi
.......... ...en
.., sfv.-tit bk slot a Vt.,1(a ,.. ,R,v4 a: :a ,::: 0. Lei el 'Ira
,
ARMS:eRreig:PDED11., evt,vt v t vt, vt v t v t vt . i
p2 A it.t,"11'1;r: -4 a ;,1%;.! tst,g; 'a
]5/134MCDEIAVICD
11 C2 tn ci -0 ": ,cr,c! 'ft sfft*-,..ir %.%, 4, o r s ,,,s
Remgiugtit. vt vt , v t lot vt vt. we
a ti: r-i-g 'A ri 'il 741 2
ise:VEHReFt«, LI A 4
Vt. Vt VI g VI bk AI g"1 g 0 g oft -V or hel 0 o o tn r tfk Li
z).134t3AER4
.*,.* wove * *.slottri t:i1;:r5s5 fo' z:. A
63 4 PI A 4 4 4
g WAR, VCt:11 'Asir: .;11P
04,h.. . .
F121:1%4
Vt.ltt. Wit
n ): ,T, .4
n R A A
W 7, a.,:. gt, r wt.4:4 .A 1.1 Id 4; g
° PI 4 4)
tot.% IA tt'lit WItt:bit' iPq WA IA Atei ;41.41: 2; Tjs5s2
A A 4 3 4 4 4 4 r: n 4
tits lit yie, rts:
iit, ICI 4 A 4
41>*'r. t:44,11 g* 900X 24 osec;ga a ct g 0geo0000000000000000000000000001notnem000eto.-.0%.0.4
ipF144MAEA6333
* * t . t * tet **' 2 c:s."4 cl,g'so so 5
&-01 s. .. 0 3g4VrlitAAtIg4EIM.2.A%%4
*I t *.* tt *2 f..; 5:2 a 4'2
.
*44 ,4% trttn'd.f.g.-c4
t *-44* 2.,*tco.e, 5 t4::-4
rtSSEit0MM0F4ARFIVIggUrs-srAvir.f.1
5 t *s* *s* 00 * tit: A% tq.' :11.1% g E.; `a `..1 g..ONNO..0000000000000
Pi' a
tst* * isg.ci
n t.-. A n ss.
x ttt,141.*I't,ttl.,4t,' ; 0,f et,*-0.1$ ei ml-44, 46 . m sc.
.. ... . . . .
it: a isi e X 47 V X r. e
I IG § :41' 163 g n E'lt g grii a 14pri 4 4
tIztitr tlp..!.v.i e.fl t$ ii,:," v:t 4
. . .. . ,. ,.. . . . ., .. ...
A ". 4 4 ch 3 V. 4 4! A
Fil 13. "cci .4-14 Iti i il
1114 a-g gn o Iti o't? el 41 eS. . . , ....
M ''' V ° ' A PI Si
?.tit E r3 §, F. FA ... @gPF,§§tn
tr,;11!a .,........ . .
A A A 4
et
t gst,;:ts:1h h el-h 4tntsx t)
. . .. . . . .. ...g n n v :a .61
-
o.,
10 10 t>t tt.t. t r: ; ts; n ;t r. tritet -.4 en viii -' ot el on -. * d we,* 0 0Q 4"
... . ..... .. .
A '''' 'n C:.' " th 4 ;I C.1 'n ° A ° ''' "r ''' "
10 0'0 : r,In 0 s73% t te
A ° 'n V.. A
-
0 0le 0 0
11111Ri§t/O:cz cz cz xac.DiI liiSltiiii
;i li 0
161;
141qQNsi0 %M x0,42iII1H Ill
0..e 80
64 pa0
Filipidi2 a 2 2 re.
MIIIII10
g
ae 6
Eli
pah 8r4
g81011digi8 ..RR.IRilill
...,
@ Pc 4 6al o o
alxi
illfIrIlm';1 a r.- ..4BOn'oigi1;111 111110,13ill
g M
gill
RalE
1
Ir.I!
r J13
A8
"a><
114
1
4
i3
A
.1
3 0. .../.
piXatt,at
214._.._
i i 1
..f.at w at Wt.* at at2431.-:: vt-n,r1,1 0. g I
g a
R Z ? ° A 0 g Et 4 v U1 .,
Vt, -ak,b4, :at,art,Vt *satri 4,-g , 1 2,g z-s z\c%
, .....,
Ei ., sz i l l ., m 4 :8 ta A
Waft tit--, w at atA g-g .11 -eg al.
$ i ! 5 ., ., ., r i g 4
at at,at atgg -1,11 g.7. r4'
l e t: g:
g As$71
at,at ak at at at atgsg.g -4, g. =1.41..44_: . .. 4 .4
t i g g ; g t ! m -
4 All 41111
atg..,
:8
g
at,at w Asiltzt.,,r.z ivt.
1 : 4 0 c, 0 :8
4 g 1 IA g
.
IA VC V4 VC at vot at-at sks w at at
g 11 :R g 4 g A Eg 0 'A g
4 g g ',I.: g g. g t1.1 g !!
.. ....
at wat:at bb
1 0
trl 1
. . . .
113 X
li
!! g 1 g 1 tt tt-ig tt tt. I
. .. . .......... .
g 101 II 411 g. gl! ti
,
4 Ill.* gst
1 1 3 X
E
bb IIR se se, AR VC CA bt VC ,4
:1,2 : : 4 i :I t i 00 0
..... ..
4 CD cD Ch C) vl e 4 0 0 0 0
bt Visa at at, at lit, vt at0Ci g :4 :: :1 :1 a :
...... . , ... . .
C) e 4 C) t . 4 . en .4 w4 t. V )
at VC klt it at at atsat
;4 : :.::- g:: g 2. .. .. .. ... . . .
,...,
;3 O N CD 0 0 0 :::
st.at am at
:341 :1':. .....
2 1 Ch en t...
at at at at.wt tit IR
:; 1,4 g .t1,,4 :';1
. . . ... . ..
r 1 41. CP Ch 0 1 C) c 4
VC
2
0
it vt AR at at
g g 5 : -a g..... . .
0 0 0 0 0 0
IA V2 VC it bt VC lb at at at IIR Vt
:;T:0000
:7 :: g P 2 :... . ...
41 e 4 0 0 0 0 .. 00 e 4 00
bt VC VC VC at
:4 g g.: *.t:
V D 0 0 0 VD
A n,I114; IA :111 gl n 1.., c) cD,40. Ch C) C) tl .N,
CP-C7'WcD 4 ..4 C$ iCi. '..41'CD
c) 41 °.."g V, 4 ZS 0
t; 4 1., 4 .4 !IgI; !; .1 g tl.rg t; VI 4,54 ." 5", '57.0,CNs01 9 4P CP tft., CA 5).0 ea ;44
ii 0 9 A c) :C. VI § F2 ta R g 8; A A g g re,
4 17, 4 IIC., MA WUP
A g A :73
g g 1.5 V. 1 4Mt ci CD ol '.4
if g Fa fi g 0 SE
g
1
!.' g g g g ttc4 C) Cp c)..4.0
ilil 4 Et1 A fl :1
tt g. gIt r; g tl
It: g gsg!
.4.0 gp gp gp gp ..g. 0 0 m m
li 4 fg cl a :8 18 g ii T. St Ea
g Wiltg g
0 c, 0. gp,gp
F. A :8 A g
PI X2
g lirl %Ili 14.4 r..,ci 1,ci C5 Nil CI CP 6.. , . . . . .... .. .
1 g A g 4) U; n m s i..t. c.
g I't 1,4 g. !Illstt t11111 : g !I 4I,pi 4 ri pl'4) ai 0 t4 ci 0 vl co (5 A 4.. >4)
..... . .. . . ... . . . .. ...
p 4) LI fi 4) :R g g g Et ii Eg r, A A Ea G s
It Alova) 44svi
.
i5 t; G ii
g.A.gt1 A i gti co-pi .. cl or:
. ..... ,
il gi Et Ei Eg 0 :a
Aeh
G
g It gg,g It.. ci ci .4:i 4 c)
... , . ... .
El cl g sa Fl 4'
g-gsgg 1 11g ..1 g g Itci ... 4$ 4) c) a pi ci ... 6.4)sci
CI ER 4 fi :I Ft A g C3 A Fi
!I I., tr It
4 6' 46 else,.., .
Fi gR g g Ea
Rg
,64.0N1111r ,,..q410i i A dll
] IIIIRR 1511
1oa
lioac4
6
q2uoiliNiA"12§"121a10
0 0
1 0
8,41f:A '0110
11-6r41
g
a
Ei"
g §g
AmmrC) a 6
in115,,,,,..
1§51.-1."
1 8_ ccPa
06,11,6gE
'5=181
g
oa
pi c49malig Al ,A0
oglpil 0
115"a121
el59113 1 i 1
RaIE
1 1
1:
I 1J I
1 d,.....r 4 vt
+r
I14
.1
ia4
1 1
CD
1O
a.ot'
I
coili
4
q
SC el
A
1
gg
I
4
i
IggIgn§ MI.tz z
. R
veall
g
41ro
Ig
4
III
5 P 8c
i 4>0
glig
1
gg
K
IRta
glIg-2
roog.
..<
gagNEral
t. .3
1 i> @>0 qg
It5II,.,,,t,g0.1i
4 i 4
MM.
r 1
..t § U 1i tl g N N g A 3.1
00 A M ER ZS 4 :8 3 4 r. te § a.... ...... ... . . .... ,
t*, ....1b. 9..4. 1.4 >4 ef. 14 tl -4 r to-'" la,4 Za i4 4) au. i io b Li at 4 a: b oA it AAR ilt OA it it A VI it Nt A it
4 ..4 :1 li i li
02 8 00 8 44 tt
o ss, 11. 1.1 4.4. 4. a 7s. to ...A A it A A it
4 a §
12 8 !R
4,4. 4.IAA.* 4**it A it
g i: Fl ii
2! 0 II 4 R14 - us .4. ptw 14.L ...Vt'Ift,Vt VF
W
e:
Po
4 El CI ii
41 r. it
4.- 4. 4$ 4.Lk- *..-.:*,. O.it litAtIt Vt
:1
. LI M
otsv1*. w wwitt %a
a 2 ii 1 ii
o .o o M .4 4pia p 14 1.4 40.0 *4 0; 9. Lot totsit * A A A A
g a a i1 g a § i2 R
ch t; $: . 4. 171 IA :-.1 1.4 IS
14 ta$ L. 0 p 24 0 ..t..> 0 11.tais :4 t..vol. 744 to- 1..r w iktit Wit it A 'A toVit Vt lit Vt
.14
g a a ii g
ta Zi; 13 ta 4
g. 9,, b. pnoO. ta Lt to 4:ht tig At Vt Vt
In IllCI g 12 8 ii R3
1.4 Ws ta cr, t; ... 4
p.1.4 ,*4, lit 1.4,01,4ot,oa- io, weia +4 ir#til it V 1 1.k 11( A. it
il
p P?'
g . 1E m el. 42 4, 'a le ER 4, 6 8.5 E8 14 IR n tp, N
..5..........0......................,......................e......tg........................ . .. .... .. ... . ......
L+ P. g.:- g p k gt- P P. p.g- rt gP p,g g p* _ la.; wg . lok 7(-2 .,. 2 *4; s 2%2 aola.g
t: ii
...
p p gf11.;,10,
8: 4 Z4 LI ;.:
...........
:-PP,g p'ia,2 2 s A
8 R4 6
P ik,,g,t421i >it.;
8 O. Et
si, g-t32 14 1,4
§ .48 48 4, It g
P'Fig.PPgPPPgPP141t.,C:44Pglg; 114 t4:.! fk;
12 tt E2 ED E 12 (i 44 4, SI
* 2 2 A ss2j* ;7,1',' *
:t 8 4 11
e:4 t; 104-4cii
: f2 Ef. :4 11
o o o M. .
Lt »t ::!..g tt* *91R WIft
t :4 O. 8 8R RI ei
i,1),g.g.g; g,g,pal*14 *,111,4(.14,*
:2 12 gi s ER t3 g;
to tt) to .. to o *. .. .. ..,. ..
ttl: f>,&'41;j:41t.bitlit * * WY(
t 11
>1!
It il
bit
g t°
el <, El g 14 R2 cp Et Eli 8 cp El I; O. a ti 4. a e: Sri
to 0 a Z.: a oc 0 a tr. o o ti Cr; a o ta as 'a :::.... I.+
g V+Lt
g C 2 V+ I! t C V+ li 2 t girt! E t: E i'..:* 1* Vis%4 IA It 06 wtt yt "'- yt It tt 4 11RIR le IA *
ER Rt :3
ca .4 M
t4 t! t!A at.tt
Q. Et :3 It
a a. 13 Ola.3w3oZ.cr, 30000.w.P..o..wwou,04.*.
tist-f2 t! cA.A-A,stApt
$
12A
4; 8: tt 6
.. ......
t ...r. fr,o.":!
114-*,la 1ft
8 42 41
.....
t: E!4;waa *
O 41 6 4, 5
............ .
ktli P, tg :1.Vt hk 4, ),VIIR
8 41 Et St 'a 48 RI 8 4, P.
.. .. . .. ........ ..... .
h, .I- 1*C.111:1.1 tIllsgt P...i:ittItIslt it.* 14,* WR61111
ra.'.. o a c:Eso&g&efsEEsttE%K
: . 2 : 4... cr 0 .4 4 4 4, ft 0. . ..... . .. .. . . .
;.. 1..) *4
C. S. :-.> .7.3 ch b S.. rot La 1. S.. la of :a.O0.A litta A ift it' A it A
4 CD IA a ti
P vi * V tita sra. 0 "4- to .p.let it A A A t,
4 IS el V
0 . 0 w to 4,
g 'LI o. '414 : 03"VtVt VC >Pt s* it
ti§...ra&4.4 03 0
5*!4: sg00 V. aAA!
4 .15 §
03 03 .0....
10W 1.60 t* IX*
tn 4D ta at
Ii. 0 14'0 atca b uA A it
la 8: § 0
03 0 00 0 3....tAL4o5oowtaowoowtAot.u.o..o...... , .... .
is;* g .4.:4 ,OP ."*** *. 4* * *
th
LotA
.
to"*
C
L.) CI
:4"0 INto ca b 0A it%
4 18 ii
... ...
J. s04 tock'td4i* 'IA WI *
8 .u.: r.
,P Psto a eit
t; & 4
... ....
5150 &tVl W *
c-.1.eillgtz..,nklt.e..
... 1,)
111
14 0Te.... stob, e4.. '0 toP.
1rAEAxte...._r...r
_..........._r_._._.t._._.r..._.x.....r_._._rt'It.
r2 i o &
. ... . .. ,
E. :' g St t;" *'*e"% '41140C
.... ....
1,) 0 4, ... 0 4, 4, 4, 174
.
14 P P. P ' P-'0 P. 1'4t.,)%at, ea "0 00 a- o a
P.utAllt A A ' : ift A 0
43 el IA 4 ri r, .41 n . I
03 0 11... . . .. .,.. . .,
gl:6`4,1g :1: grAS CVV VV Va Vrtft * * * '' 101
tath$822.EAmto IA t0 03 1.3
.11% ao 0,,to to .Liltit, 3*
el Es et ti
0 0 0. 0 4.*. .. .
g g' LI .g "*.°l V( Vt tit Walt
0. 4 .. 4.6 03 0 2:
9,IA -to ia 1.3 ;C:o , 0 4,*A A' it A AA .
t lg ts 7:
0 0) 0) 0 . . 471. . .. . .
Pot tx ''c':.'.t11. 44Vt'VE *mot 44,10,*
R c5
* Ito
t 1
Cil
*g ti3
pill0 E Eg t 4' o t Zo' a 7.7 2 3 g
4.. 0 ch Ir.) 1,3 4,1 0 P. 03 0 rot rs cm &. .. ,.. .
Crigk ...PI,. et t..1 1.04' :I. ...1-0,t4 g ..4: :f3''L : gK -.v. Vt' IR Vt s'''s Vt * ;Wit Vt VI% it
Coon/malty Area Unit/ School sew.. FOURTH GRADE
End fReL %Rd.FIFTH GRADE
Ed Met ARet.SO nt GRADE
Bad /Rd. %Rd.SEVENTH GRADEEnd fRet. %Rd.
EIGHTH GRADEEarl Mt. %Rd.
51 South Deering COMMUNITY TOTALS 184 7 3.8% 180 4 2.2% 169 5 3.0% 179 1 0.6% 146 6 4.1%2431 ANTHONY BR BURNHA 18 0 0.0% 24 0 : 0.0% 21 0 0.0% 0 0 rda 0 0 eta2390 BRIGHT 54 0 0.011 57 0 0.076 50 0 0.0% 73 0 0.0% 47 0 o.4%,2480 BURNHAM 21 3 14.3% 17 1 3.9% 6 0 0.0% 0 0 iila 0 0 nit4551 GOLDSMITH BR LUELLA 25 0 , 0.0% 26 0 0.0% 0 0 iila 0 0 el* 0 0 n/a4550 LUELLA 26 4 1.5..4% 26 3 11.5% 55 4 7.3% 73 1 1.4% 59 6 10.2%4630 MARSH 40 0 '0.0% 30 0' 0.0% 37 1 2.7% 33 0 0.0% 40 0 0.0%
52 East Side COMMUNITY TOTALS 255 3 1.2% 223 3 1.3% 229 0 0.0% 243 3 1.2% 231 0 0.0%2020 ADDAMS 46 0 04% 40 0 : 0.0% 41 0 0.0% 58 1 1,7% 38 0 0.0%3450 GALLISTEL LANG ACRD U 0 0.0% 76 0 . 0.0% 66 0 0.0% 77 0 0.0% 67 0 0.0%6150 TAYLOR 66 3 4.5% 57 3 5.3% 55 0 0,0% 53 2 3.3% 64 0 0.0%6360 WASHINGTON ELEM 55 o 0.0% 50 0 0.0% 67 0 0.0% 55 0 0.0% 62 0 0.0
53 West Pullman COMMUNITY TOTALS 621 11 1.8% 539 8 1.5% 546 3 0.5% 527 3 . .0.6% 546 0 : 0.03570 GOMPERS 111 2 1.8% 110 0 0.0% 116 0 . 0.0% 94 0 0.0%, 118 0 ; 0.07210 HIGGINS COMM ACRD 70 3 4.3% 50 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 45 0 0.03190 METCALFE MAGNET 103 1 I0% 110 1 0.9% 91 0 . 0.0% 103 1 '1.0% 72 0 0.05040 NANSEN 60 3 : 5.0% 49 3 6.1% 52 3 5.3% 52 0 0.0% 70 0 0.9i3470 OWENS COMM ACRD 0 0 de 0 0 n/a 0 0 eta 0 0 via 0 0 Hier .5740 SCANLAN 102 o . o.b% 83 o 0.0% so 0 0.0% 65 0 0.0% 87 0 0.0%6400 WEST PULLMAN 87 0 0.0% 76 4 . 3.3% 65 0 0.0% 82 0 0.0% 82 0 : 0.0%6420 WHISTLER 50 1 2.0% 44 0 13.0% 54 0 0.0% 43 2 4,7% 46 0 0.0%7440 WHITE BR 38 1 2.6% 17 0 0.0% 32 0 0.0% 36 0 0,0% 26 0 0.0%
54 Riverdale COMMUNITY TOTALS 234 1 0.4% 223 4 1.8%. 230 3 1.3% 179 1 0.6% 209 14 61%2710 ALDRIDGE 55 0 0.0% 52 2 3.8% 69 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0% 48 0. 0.0%2700 CARVER MIDDLE 127 0 0.0% 122 0 0.0% 118 1 0.8% 108 0 0.0% 113 14 12.4%2690 CARVER PRIMARY 0 0 n/a' 0 0' IA 0 0 : nit 0 0- rila 0 0 n/a8010 DU BOIS 52 1 1.9% 46 2 : 4.3% 43 2 . 4.7% 32 1 ' 3.1% 48 0 . 0.0%2691 WHEATLEY CPC 0 0 n/a 0 0' di 0 0' eta 0 0 eta 0 0 der
55 Hegewisch COMMUNITY TOTALS 77 2 2.6% 67 0 0.0% 75 0 0.0% 74 0 0.0% 91 0 : OA%2790 CLAY 44 2 4.5% 50 0 0.0% 46 0 0.0% 47 0 0.0% 64 0 0.0%3580 GRISSOM 33 0 0.0% 17 0 0.0% 29 0 0.0% 27 0 0.0% 77 0 0.0%
56 Garfield Ridge COMMUNITY TOTALS 197 3 1.5% 163 10 6.0% 148 11 7.4% 155 12 : 7.7%. 164 0 0.0%2570 BYRNE 49 1 2.0% 26 1 3.3% 40 3 7.5% 31 6 19,4% 53 0 0.0%3890 HEARST 95 2 21% 79 3 3.8% 56 5 8.9% 77 6 7.3% 72 0 : 0.0%6240 TWAIN 53 0 0.0% 63 6 -9.5% 52 3 5.8% 47 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0%
57 Archer Heights 3200 EDWARDS 83 1 1.2% 86 1 1.2% 84 0 0.0% 97 2 2-1% 63 11 12.7%58 Brighton Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 339 14 4.1% 313 12 3.8% 311 4 '1.3% 278 5 8.8% 228 .I . 0.4%
2540 BURROUGHS 37 5 13.3% 40 0 0.0% 49 0 0.0% 36 0 0.0% 34 0 0.0%2970 DAVIS 95 4 4.2% 90 8 8.9% 91 3 3,3% 14 4 4.8% 76 0 0.0%3690 GUNSAULUS SCHOL AC 95 1 1.1% 87 2 2.3% 85 1 1.2% 65 0 0.0% 57 0 0.015910 SHIELDS 112 4 3.6% 96 2 2.1% 86 0 0.0% 93 1 1.1% 61 1 1.6%
59 Mcraley Park commuNnY TOTALS 107 10 9.3% 98 6 6.1% 100 0 0.0% 114 0. 0.0% 84 0 0.0.;3260 EVERETT 49 4 1.2% 39 2 5.1% 45 0 0.0% 49 0 . 0.0% 38 0 0.0%3650 GREENE NATHANAEL 58 6 10,3% 59 4 6.8% 55 0 0.0% 65 0 0.0% 46 0 0.0%
60 Bridgeport COIOAUNITY TOTALS 302 71 2.6% 309 9 2.9% 300 4 1.3% 267 1 0.4% 218 1 0.4%2070 ARMOUR 50 1 2.0% 64 0 0.0% 58 0 0.0% 43 0 0.0% 41 1 2.4%3810 HEALY 117 2 1.7% 103 4 3.7% 98 1 1.0% 104 0 0.0% 74 0 0.0%4020 HOLDEN 42 0 0.0% 44 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 44 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0%4710 MCCLELLAN 31 5 16.1% 33 3 9.1% 36 3 8.355 27 1 3,7% Z5 0 0.0%4920 SHERIDAN M MAGNET 62 0 0.0% 60 2 3.3% 56 0 0.0% 49 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0%61 New City COMMUNITY TOTALS 911 42 4.6% 818 64 7.3% 690 18 2.6 665 24 3.6% 586 15 . 2.6%3030 DEWEY 79 13 16.5% 68 14 20.6% 0 0 via 0 0 eta 0 0 tilit3453 FULTON 16 2 12.5% 146 19 13.0% 135 3 2.2% 105 4 3.8% 105 2 1.9%7150 FULTON BRANCH 144 4 2.8% 14 4 28.6% 0 0 DA 0 0 via 0 0 n/a3600 GRAHAM 78 2 2.6% 58 0 0.0% 65 1 1.5% 58 2 3.4% 46 0 0.0%3740 HAMLINE 106 7 6.6% 96 6 6.3% 76 1 1.3% 92 10 10.9% 72 1 1.4%3900 HEDGES 39 0 0.0% 36 3 8.3% 63 1 1.6% 0 0 st/4 0 0 Ata,6561 HEDGES CENTRAL BR 0 0 ria 21 3 14.3% 47 2 4.3% 95 3 3.2% 99 11 11.1%6560 HEDGES E.A.ST BR 59 2 3.4% 26 0 0.0% 0 0 da 0 0 via 0 0 els3902 HEDGES WEST BR 32 0 0.0% 37 1 2.7% 0 0 via 0 0 eta 0 0 de,4470 LIBBY 126 1 0.8% 116 10 8.6% 105 2 1.9% 107 1 0,9% 83 0 ).0%5820 SEWARD 30 3 10.0% 18 2 11.1% 123 8 6.5% 135 4 3.0% 117 1 0.9%5821 SEWARD BR 113 2 1.8% 96 2 2.1% 0 0 c/a 0 0 pia 0 0 ea5890 SHERMAN 89 6 6.7% 86 0 0.0% 76 0 0.0% 73 0 0.0% 64 0 0.0%
273
Commmity Arca Usk If Salmi roseWHOLE SCHOOL
End Md. %RatKINDERGARTEN
End /Rd. %Rd.FIRST GRADE
End art %Ret.SECOND GRADE
End Mt. %Rct.THIRD GRADE
End Mt. %Rd.62 West Eska C01.04UNITY TOTALS 918 14 "r.5% 75 1 ''.1.3% 118 3: 6.8% 106 1 0.9% 124 3 '. 2:4,
5310 PASTEUR 435 7 1.6% 40 0 : 0.0% 43 4 . 3.3% 51 0 : '0.0% 68 3 4.45340 PECK 483 7' 1,4% 35 1 ' .2.9% 70 4 sas 55 1 "II% 56 0 '0.0
63 Gage Park COMMUNIIY TOTALS 2,236 50 '22% 220 0 ; 0.0% 271 15 . 5.5% 254 8 3.1% 263 2 '0.32780 CHRLSTOPHER PHY HAN 65 3 : 44% 0 0 Via 0 0 0.0% 0 0 ! p4.' 5 0 0,05090 NIGHTINGALE 966 7: 0.7% 102 0 . '0.0% 120 2 1.7% 120 1 .0.8% 129 0 : 0.05710 SAWYER 501 31 6,2% 49 0 :. '0,0% 65 7 104% 61 7 ; 11,5% 57 0 0.06220 TONTI 704 9 1.3% 69 0 0.0% 56 6 : 7.0% 73 0 0.0% 72 2 ZS
64 Clearing COMMUNITY TOTALS 816 29 3,6% 61 0 '0.0% 90 6 6.7% V 3 ; 3.4% 99 3 341
3080 DORE 95 4 ; .4.2% 6 0 I lib% 8 1 . 12.5% 16 1 : 6.3% 19 1 "5.3%3631 FLEMING BR 146 6. 4,1% 9 0 0.0% 20 1 ,5.0% 12 0 : 0.0% 20 1 : 5.63680 G R I M E S 188 6 i 1.2% 8 0 ; i x o f , 2 2 3 : 13.6% 17 0 ' '0.0% 24 0 . 6.6,..3710 HALE 337 13' 3,4% 38 0 : 0.0% 40 1 2.5% 42 2 4.8% 36 1 2.3
65 West lawn COMMUNITY TOTALS 730 30 ,4.1% 60 3 : .3.0% 83 7 11.4% 90 7 7.3% 92 3 3.3 14120 HURLEY 411 19 4'.6% 30 3 'AO% 50 3 6.0% 54 4 7,4% 54 3 ; 5.67170 LEE 319 11 3.4% 30 0 . 0.0% 33 4 12:1% 36 3 ' Li% 38 0 ' 0.0
66 Chicago Lawn COIAMUNITY TOTALS 4,142 169 4,1% 392 1 :' 0.3% 523 58 11'.1% 433 19, 4.3% 519 24 4.63140 EBERHART 610 31 .5.1% 65 1 , 1.5% 75 10 13.3% 65 1 1.5% 77 2 -. 2.6.7370 HANCOCK BR 302 3 ; 1.0% 0 0 : eta . 0 0 . 'GA 0 0 .nla. 0 0 via4330 KINZIE 246 2 0.3% 17 0 0.0% 26 0 0.0% 29 0 : 0.0% 37 0 0.0
20 MARQUETTE 1,023 59 54% 122 0 :- 0.0% 183 26 142% 153 8: 5.2% 161 14 : Si. 74 7 6 0 M C K A Y 8 9 3 48'. 5.4% 7 7 0 : 0.03E 123 16 13.0% 98 8 :,,.,3.2% 113 3 '2.74 8 8 0 M O R R I L L 1.068 26: 2.4% II 1 0 0 . 0 1 6 1 1 6 6 5.2% 9 3 2 ' .2.2% 131 5 i.$
67 West Eoglcwood COMMUNITY TOTALS 8,773 369 4.2% 907 12 ; 1.1% 1114 63 6.1% 1075 54 : 5.0% 1189 71 6.02050 ALTGELD 974 23 ; 2.4% 94 0 0.0% 129 0 0.0% 113 4 -' 3.5% 130 10 7.7%!: fs() BONTEMPS 706 53 11.2% 99 7 : '7.1% 82 13 15.9% 84 3 ' '3.6% 86 8 ; 9.36830 BUNCHE 775 41 5.3% 84 0 0.0% RV 10 11341% 97 10 10,3% 111 9 . 8.12900 COPERNICUS 499 8 1.6% 33 0 003 49 0 0.0% 60 0 : 0.0% 94 4 ; 4.33130 EARLE 306 54 6.7% 59 2 3.4%1 115 8 7.0% 89 7: 7,9% 114 16 . 14.07080 GERSHWIN 651 16 2.5% 78 3 3.3111 37 II 9.2% 39 4 4:5% 84 0 0.0%3290 GOODLOW MAGNET 790 20 2.3% 120 0 0.0% 103 1 La% 110 4 3.6% 98 5 5.13920 HENDERSON 900 43 4.8% 109 0 itas 115 3 2.6% 107 10 : 9.3% 124 10 ' LI5230 OTOOLE 1,080 53 4.9% 95 0 0.0% 127 13 10.2% 117 10* 8.5% 141 7 : 5.03550 RANDOLPH MAGNET 805 24 3.0% 113 0 . 0.0% 100 5 5.0% 102 0 0.0% 103 2 1.9%5540 RASTER 451 20. 4,4% 0 0 via 0 0 via 0 0 n/a 0 0: era7180 RASTER BR 341 9 2.6% 23 0 ' via 107 7 6.5% 107 2 1.9% 104 0 ' 0.0
68 Englewood COMMUNITY TOTALS 9,520 595; 6.3% 947 3 0.3% 1129 123 10.9% 1111 110. 9.4% 1131 87: 7.76:.30 BANNEKER 640 63 9.8% 56 0 , 0.0% 81 6 7.4% 85 7 8.2% 82 8 : 9.8%2180 BASS 673 22 3.3% 65 1 ', 1.5% 96 12 12.5% 31 3 3.7% 89 0 ; 0.02200 BEALE 714 70 9.8% 77 0 0.0% 90 20 22.2% 85 20 ' 23.5% 93 11 11.15
6550 BOND 426 33 7.7% 41 0 -, 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 52 9 ' 17.3% 67 18 26,95160 OOETHALS EVGC 242 23 9.5% 0 0 nh 0 0 n/a 0 0 - nfa 0 0 : ,vii7050 GUGGENHEIM 417 22 5.3% 38 2 5.3% 46 2 4.3% 50 7 14.0% 62 3 ; 4.3%7250 HINTON 611 60 9.8% 55 0 0.0% 75 11 14.7% 95 16 16.3% 70 0 0.04030 HOLMES 917 71 17% 131 0 0.0% 153 30 19.6% 163 15 9.2% 166 10: 6.0%4130 HOPE COMM ACADEMY 984 47 . 4.3% 0 0 nia ' 0 0 n/a 0 0 , tills 0 0 ' eta
. . , ,4270 KERSHAW 467 13 2.8% 63 0 0.0% 77 4 , 5.2% 53 5 6.0% 66 2 3.0%5270 PARKER COMM ACAD 790 40 3.1% 110 0 0.0% 119 9 7.6% 102 4 3.9% 99 3 3.15271 PARKER CPC 24 0 0.0% 24 0 0.0% 0 0 . via 0 0 ell 0
,0 Will
6870 REED 625 15 2.4% 53 0 . 0.0% 77 4 5.2% 60 2 , 3.3% 75 3 4.0%5900 SHERWOOD 378 12 3.2% 64 0 0.0% 58 4 6.9% 55 2: 3.6% 61 6 9.41%
7760 STAGG 743 47 6.3% 74 0 0.0% 95 17 17.9% 99 12 12.1% 84 5 ; 6.06390 WETTWORTH 869 57 6.6% 96 0 0.0% 110 4 3.6% 101 8 7.9% 117 13 11.1%
69 Greater Grand COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,720 196 .5.3% 346 0 0.0% 332 45 11.8% 445 23 5.2% 523 42 L0Crossing 2410 BROWNELL 277 28 10.1% 42 0 0.0% 38 4 10.5% 33 7 ' 11.4% 42 3 : 7.1'
3010 DENEEN 498 36 7.2% 16 0 ' 0.0% 39 1 2.6% 47 3 . 6.4% 66 11 16.73800 HARVARD 724 26 . 3.6% 62 0 0.0% 72 7 4.1% 83 0 . 0.0% 95 6 , 6.35610 REVERE 537 28 5.2% 65 0 , 0.0% 64 12 18.3% 73 6 3.2% 77 3 10.45660 RUGGLES 531 21 4,0% 38 0 0.0% 49 4 8.2% 62 3 44% 75 0 . 0.06970 TANNER 509 11 2.2% 53 0 0.0% 46 4 8.7% 66 0 : 0.0% 69 0 ; 0.06500 TALE 644 46 7.1% 70 0 0.0% 74 13 17.6% 76 4 5.3% 99 14 14.1'
3228
[
I
II E
li4
g§1111Eii ig Zg ?g 1 Ni il
ii 11 il il il il
g
1g1§.11§tIggnlitil'5 g! 11 11 X 11 11 ig Pg g 8 11 1! li li
" 'e i fj E li `' 88 z 1 i§ p 8
r> g 6 0g
iitTilIggli 1li li 11 11 8 li g a il 1g li
ti, mitill@ig. .R
1 p
litigggg g 15 5. 11 El
VigilM 133
g
'atg
sill1! F.4 11
.
IVg §
a 11
..i
1
"14 I
%sze411..fsil'irAct
.. .. . .. .
1.! ,.... 14st ithr Itoorb ;a . :D. GO ..t* sVA
44'ziggIto4 r.,i2i.m5
7...i5 .0% sg i4 ppt r4 ti p tps5 ptLa ot. b 4. .1 0 Am ,41.;., e.. es so. .4 ot* WIRs*'!":. bt *s*,*;W* s! VA,* * * s
E2EritEA48g4 iii§
, p+ 4. .4 14 4 r> $+4,p, a )4 sp.so, 3. Or 4. b ch e,
t', s* V( VA14* IR *-VOR iRsVA *
sEtteat.iti. 4WW4:344
t.fsp 14 o . 4,,war g <AttoW.* *' a" * VA SAP
rat,:..2etist;
,., so tr.T4sv. .4 4 In tr. o jot
bs in ter 3. 3.No b-4Vi,w*-* %4 *WS *At-.4 o 4
to- b b* VAllti
k
0at EtaF to
a! g D t A 8 it 01
o CD oo CD CD Ch tA ti
or o 0 b o o 3. isDR DR A A A A Dirt%*
g 4 &R 8 0 a tt. ii II ft 0 :1 IR 4 Zi a
Ch u.) CD ... 0 Au CD 0 oo 1:1 Au cD cD 4, bp to t
4-tO 0 a to0 tA,b -1.4 to s2)sb i4 to tit 0 '1$ oscosb,DR WC IRlfts,' Dik DRs'DR.,D4 DR wo at\lok * * *
2: 2: a * IR :3 a ft A 4 12 a
0 46 4. b.) Ch 0 0 to U4 to to U4 b
ri i.istAs 0+,1.4 b,b No 10 Ait IA Nt3 I0IR lotsats*.* Iva A A -Am A
ii li ts ts t. & 2 - a
la Oh hi uP CD CS tA 1.4 CD 1.4.
..1% V. th .C3 14 U. br b.* 1" at.* %ft VI Nit W*
4 ta tt 5. a A f II 1: ti
1.4 CD CD CD U. CT .4 CD tl .4)
ii.00so' * 0 0 ol at at b -14tWe rA * 144.44 *AR lot at,*
& ti
CD CD CD
-0 CD Frb b o* * 44
il
R 11
A..1 paW
tgtigte?/41§M120%0%
0 la u4 0 CD CD to Z5. .... . ....
pc o p Ca<1'u No o ot b 4avvi u * vvve a we
8 .3 oetetil.i%claCD 0 C) u4 0 4. C) T. CD 1:5 IA CT tl Oa C) Ott 8o o }4 p. sOstsr. u ept 4.4%0 0 0 toto 0 . o la. 0.-4* uv e. o . ,,,,, ... i.,,i..,* ve- ' we IR IR Vi. P V U n' 'A tit * we *
sz.)%itsa&&a:Dzi&E
c) c, 0, b., 0. 4t. CD Ab. CD CD u..) tl tg
,f:7 :ds% t t st4 -th.,0 ik 0 0 fli 0,7. 1'4e.s. IA trt,i..r O.0 to, b bo '0 .4"t sla Wt * at * * A VI' * s**1 *
4 ii .1 4 8 S 1:11 ta 8
tl IA to CD CD IA t: t.) IA to
,t4 1144% ih 0 <0 tb; .1,4 (4, :4 PvCf. ,:e ;,k b 1Zt Ott it* 41. . 4.- totWI* * Ait * IA'S *..**
: I: ri; 4 t: 2 r. f.3 * LI
oo CD C) CD o. C) w. CD oo 1.4..
:Al co, peo,. rip,,,o-44.5,ts3 33 0 b ;4 04 b :4 orA' Ve WI* * IR e*:* *
IS 8 §
CD CD CD
fz; fr 0o * b
iR 11
to pa
zitte2i..1%..0
. 6 . oo as .. O S O Z A
$h o il t. 0.14 4.0 ih. 14 01/4 0 .4 Q. ho..*,* * 'VA sslot s. ss*
F.," 0 0 11: 0 0 O. 8 LI. LI its.,tvi0
C h C) C) oo c D oo C) A CD h i 00 .-O .. : : . 1 L I
:447 p. .., .4 - 1,3 tit p x.4 00.A.htsAh,:h 0 sZ. .. *CO %It. tA. el ,ts bis o%b b 1. t" '4>VA *,* * * IR *,,* st*-* * VA ** * W*
4aReestiaiactliii*GtustttC) '00 a I A la 0 0 0 0 0 t . ) ti
O'CD $O AosetO Fr p 6-0 0 4.44-tf., to '&4.4 ial lo 0- o b b kr s4. Y.-''' '*'* * *.IP vv.vt 1",* IA wit
I A - 0 0 to C) .4
44,b.4 P:44,0imsb e., 4:Pi4% 'es:.v,.4.0* vt. r *e*
u. IA C) C) 0 oa to,
0 .6.: it,t,i'D :>, b. Z*.lts!.. * IR14 *
C) Po w.
0.14 I.,o *4.14ws* vt
CD CD CD,
0 Az* 041, b' 6VI *-*
tut. 44.i'MVA*1:I
t . ) C) ... CT to C) I A oo CD 5
lagi, 4,. *-50, 0 AA 0 $1) .4rfot *04* P..., o b ios 1:84,o tris sAit .. bt *'S-s* *
48§8'igilAb. CD w. CT V.0 14 CD CD u.)
...
tm..,i4. 1o., - ci)
to '0 t,t... g g',3* g 13'4'WA- IP-4C- . on*%*'*,* im
0 0 0
':!* 040blz. krVI* *
CD CD 0
0b,gtA4104'*
hig
ICI
g Di
t4 ti:i, r at og4&o8o4ogoC) .. ts) C) :: Z5 0 5!
al.
g,r,..t4 r. tit ilt:P*0:.
s.
ft. r ..2 4840.
cm 0 0 0 0 UT 0 O.0 oo C) tg IA C) IA tl &
Cslt -.. & i..1.411's,lkstil' PC4:;g1 tvg:tat, .. ... .1. .. ' , IR,*
41:1"i444Z448*gE*0:-./E12124taCtiZog4t)0 0 b.* CT 14 .. C) .. 0 0 0 CD to
- fg- -1;:gst :4:Et f:',1 kg.:_. 'VCNIC.*'*.* Wt.* 1111 VC WV.**
Cemmunity Ara Usk/ Mod 1101110
WHOLE SCHOOLBid iTtet. %Rot.
KINDERGARTENEad SM. %Rot.
FIRST GRADE
Pad IRet. %Rd.SECOND GRADE
Bid Met. %Rat.THIRD GRADE
End Met. %Rd.
TO Milburn COliMUNITY TOTALS 1,904 37 1.9% 155 1 04% 175 15 $.6% 199 7 "3.5% 221 2 .0.9%
2650 CARROLL 271 6 : 2.2% 20 0 0.0% 14 1 7.1% 19 0 0.0% 23 0 .0.9%
2980 DAWES 563 10 ; 1.11% 50 1 *0% 59 6 10.2% 52 0 9.0% 64 0 0.0%7240 LENART BR 227 1 '.40.4.. 0 0 . ,nlit 26 1 ; 3.11% 29 0 .. ii.o% 32 0 ..:, .o.O%
52,40 OWEN SCHOL ACAD 276 0 ; 110% 29 0 : ILO% 30 0 0,0% 30 0 :. coi; 34 0 : 0.0%
2651 ROSENWALD BR 165 7 , 4.2% 10 0 Ma% 16 3 ; 18.8% 30 1 3.3% 22 0 0.056
6030 STEVENSON 402 13 3,2% 46 0 0.0% 30 4 43.3% 39 6 '15.4% 46 2 : .4,3%
71 Auburn Gresham COMI4UNIIY TOTALS 6,012 326 '3.4% 573 13 '2.3% 708 71 11.0% 709 76 10.7% 737 32 43%2170 BARTON 952 77 '83% 72 0 0.9% 106 22 20,8% 113 20' 17.7% 115 4 . 3.5%,
2860 COON 900 107 '41.9% 109 9 : 8.3% 108 16 14.8% 104 22 *; 21.2% 116 12 '4/.3%
4090 CUFFS 306 23 1.5% 38 4 10.5% 54 11 :20.4% 40 2 5.0% 42 0 1 04%
3430 FOSTER PARK 499 13 26% 36 0 0.0% 56 5 11.0 57 4 7.0% 68 1 ; 1.5%
3670 GRESHAM 515 19 : 3.7% 45 0 0.0% 68 4 59% 66 4 '6.1% 54 6 - 11A%
8090 JACKSON MAHALIA 446 24 ;" 3.4% 52 0 0.0% 41 1 : 2.4% 58 8 13.8% 39 3 7.7%
2330 JOPLIN 763 16 , 2,1% 59 0 -, .0.0% 77 6 7,8% 15 2 2.4% 108 1 0.9%
4830 MORGAN 449 13 : 2:9% 32 0 i kois 46 3:6.5% 56 6 -10.1% 44 2 , 4-5i5170 OGLESBY 837 20 : 2.4% 102 0 ; 0.0% 112 3 ; 2.7% 95 2 2.1% 108 3 7.3%
5670 RYDER 345 14 4.1% 28 0 0.0% 40 7 17.5% 35 6 17.1% 43 0 0.095
72 Bcvcrly COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,5C5 31 23% 219 3 1,49E 10 '6.3% 160 5 3.1% 153 4 2.67E
2150 BARNARD 358 1 . 03% 60 0 ; 0.0% 40 1 2.5% 37 0 0.0% 40 0 '0.0%
4240 KELLOGG 285 5 14% 34 1 2.9% 33 3 9,1% 30 0 i 0.0% 29 0 : 0.0%
6120 SUTHERLAND 554 17: 3.1% 97 2 2.1% 58 2 i -3.4% 63 5 ; . 7.9% 54 4 :.7.466250 VANDERPOEL MAGNET 308 8 2.6% 28 0 0.0% 28 4 14.3% 30 0' 0.0% 30 0 : 40%
73 Washington Hts. COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,541 85 2.4% 292 5 1.7% 391 26 '6.6% 392 9 2.3% 476 10 2.1%
7990 EVERS 287 10 3,5% 18 0 0.0% 31 5 45.1% 27 4 14.8% 40 0 ', is:Oi.
3330 PERNWOCID 421 7 .1.7% 47 0 0.91 49 5 ' 10.2% 52 0 . 04% 54 0 ; 0.0%
3400 FORT DEARBORN 890 29 3.3% 82 5 61% 89 5 5.6% 105 o O.oi 127 0:'0.0%5420 GARVEY MARCUS 465 1 ' 0.2% 31 0 0.0% 46 0 .0.9% 58 0 ; 0.0% 54 1 1.9%
4410 GREEN WENDELL 346 14 4.0% 25 0 0.0% 39 2 ; .5.1% 36 0 9.0% 47 5 10.6%
4350 KIPLING 287 10: 3.35 29 0 .0.0% 34 4 11.8% 25 0 : 00% 43 2 ', 4:7%
4910 MT VERNON 537 13 ; 2,4% 37 0, 0.0% 75 4 : 5.3% 59 5 '. -84% 66 2 3.0%
8030 WACKER 308 1 03% 22 0 0.0% 28 1 3:6% 30 0 ; 0.0% 45 0 0.0%
74 Mt. Greenwood COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,477 26 Li% 110 2 1.8% 148 11 7,4% 173 2 1;2% 224 4 1.8%
2720 CASSELL 209 8 3.8% 31 0 0.9% 28 0 0.0% 28 1 3.6% 36 3. 8.3%4960 KELLER MAGNET 166 0 0.0% 0 0 %Wit' 25 0 0.0% 28 0 . 0,0% 29 0 * 0,0%
4940 MT GREENWOOD 493 7 1.4% 32 2 : 6.3% 52 4 7.7% 54 0 0.0% 78 1 ' 1.3%
5930 SHOOP 609 11 4.8% 47 0. 0,0% 43 7 16.3% 63 1 1.6% 81 0 0.0%75 Morgan Park COMMUNITY TOTALS 1,129 47 .4.2% 116 4 3.4% 138 15 10.9% 135 5 3.7% 152 6 1,9%
2820 CLISSOLD 611 18 2.9% 68 4 ' '5.9% 71 1 1.4% 82 2 2,4% 83 2 : 2,4%-
3250 ESMOND 518 29 5.6% 48 0 0.9% 67 14 20.9% 53 3 '5.7% 69 4 5.8%
76 O'Hare 2950 DIRKSEN 556 24 4.3% 64 3 7.8% 78 2 2.6% 58 1 1.7% 60 3 5.0%
77 Edgewater COMMUNITY TOTALS 3,201 81 2.5% 326 3 0.9% 407 23 5.7% 360 16 4.4% 405 10 23%
3850 HAY z 715 26 , 3.6% 60 0 : 0.0% 104 9 8.7% 72 7 9.7% 99 2 2,0%
5360 PEIRCE 871 27 3.1% 85 0 0.0% 104 11 U46% 98 3 3.1% 103 4 3.9%
6130 SWIFT 752 13 1,7% 93 0 0.0% 87 3 3,4% 98 2 2.0% 101 4 4.0%
6230 TRUMBULL 863 15 1.7% 88 3 3.4% 112 0 0.0% 92 4 4.3% 102 0 0.0%
34
30
Community Area Ural &boa sawnFOURTH GRADE
Fad /Rd %RdFIFTH GRADE
Pad net. %Rd.SIXTH GRADE
Bad Mt. %Rd.SEVENTH GRADEFa l net. %Rd
EIGHTH GRADEEarl fRet. %Rd.
70 Ashburn COMMUNITY TOTALS 218 7 H9.2% 248 1 f'. 0.4% 243 0 .0,0% 221 0 ; 0,0, , 224 4 .1.112650 CARROLL 29 I ' 3.4% 32 0 : .09% 35 o'0.0% 47 0 ;.0.0% 52 4 7.7 .42980 DAWES 63 3 ' 4.8% 62 0 6.4 73 0: b4% 70 0 ' 0.0% 70 0 ; 0.0 47240 I.ENART BR 33 0 0.0% 22 0 . 0.0% 30 0 : 0.0% 29 0 0.0% 26 0 : 6,65240 OWPN SCHOL ACAD 32 0 ikaX 32 0 0.0% 28 0 : 0.0% 32 0 0.0% 29 0 ; 0L0 i2651 ROSENWALD BR 30 3 i 16.0% 29 0 04% 24 0 : 0.0% 0 0 alt 0 0 ' tiia6030 STEVENSON 31 0 0.0% 71 1 T.4% 49 0 0,0% 43 0 0.0% 47 0 OA
71 Auburn Grcaham C030IUN11'Y TOTALS 718 31 4.3% 650 25 3.1% 673 40 .5.9% 640 11 1.7% 604 20 ; 3.32170 BARTON 129 2 '. 1.6% 100 10 ' 0.0% 107 19 '17:11% 114 0 i 0.0% 96 0 ; -.0.6,2860 COOK 85 9 16.6% 100 9 :. 9.0% 87 10: ILO 104 2 i.:45x, 87 18 , 20.7 '4090 CUFFS 52 1 : 19% 39 3: 77% 41 2' 4.9% 0 0 a/a,, 0 0. Wit3430 FOSTER PARK 57 0 : 0.0% 57 0 0.0% 64 1 -1.6% 60 2 : 3.3% 44 0 . 6.63670 GRESHAM 55 3 5.5% 59 0 0.0% 56 0 "..0.0% 47 0 :. ,.6.:1% 65 2 : .3.38090 JACKSON MAHALIA 57 5 *1% 41 2 . 4.41% 52 5 0.6% 58 0 0.0% 48 0 : 0.0'330 JOPLIN 96 3 3.1% 85 0 04% 85 2 : 2.4% 84 2 2.4% 84 0 ; .0 44830 MORGAN 52 1 . 1.9% 58 0 : 0,0% 45 I 2.2% 53 0 .0.0% 63 0 '' 045170 OGLESBY 105 7 ' 4.7% 77 I . 1,3% 82 0 ' .0.6% 81 4 - 4.9% 75 0 i 0.65670 RYDER 30 0 ofii 34 0 .0.0% 54 0 ' 0.0% 39 I 2.6% 42 0 *'00
72 Beverly COIOdUNTTY TOTALS 154 0 0.0% 163 2 1,2% 147 2H1.45 181 4 ,..' 24% 169 1 :': 0.6 '2150 BARNARD 45 0 0.0% 35 0: 0.0% 31 0 0.0% 32 0 0.0% 38 0: 0.04240 KELLOGG 29 0 0.0% 38 1 . 2.6% 34 0 : .0.0% 31 0 6,61 27 0 0.06120 SUTHERLAND 51 0 ' 0.0% 62 0 0.0% 51 2 , .3.9% 63 2 ., 31% 55 0 ; 0.06250 VANDFIIPOEL MAGNET 29 0 .0.0% 28 1 ". 3.6% 31 0 0.0% 55 2 3.6% 49 1 2,0 '
73 Washiegton Hta. COMMUNITY TOTALS 409 6 1.5% 396 9 ; 2.3% 395 9 .24% 369 4 '1.1% 421 7 : 1.77990 EVERS 24 0 : 0.o% 33 0 JO% 40 0 40% 29 I ' y3,4% 45 (1 15.6,3330 PERNWOOD 44 U : 0.0% 0 ; 0.0% 43 I 2.3% 33 1 3.0% 44 0 ' 0.0 i3400 FORT DEARBORN 122 4 : .3.0 85 4 , 4.7% 95 5 13% 86 0 0.0% 99 6 64 45420 GARVEY MARCUS 50 0 0.0% 53 0 0.0% 50 0 0.0% . 57 0 0.0% 66 0 , 604410 GREEN WENDELL 44 0 ' .6,4* 46 2 4.3% 34 3 , 8.4% 38 1 2.6.: 36 I 2:3 14350 KIPLING 31 0 0.0% 40 3 IS% 23 0 ' 00% 35 1.2.9% 27 0 : 0.0 ,4980 MTV irEINON 55 2 3.6% 58 0 . 0.0% 72
.
0 41.9s 54 0 60% 61 0 -, .o.o 48030 WACKER 39 0 .0% 26 0 0.0% 38 0' 0.0% 37 0 0.0% 43 0 0.0
74 Mt. Greenwood COMMUNITY TOTALS 183 3 . ..1.6% 205 2 1.0% 175 2 LI X 124 0 0.0% 130 0 ' , 0.02720 CASSELL 34 0 0.0% 23 2 '8.7% 29 2 6.9% 0 0 nit; 0 0 'ea.,4960 KELLER MAGNET za 0 0.0% 30 0 ; 0,0% 26 0 0.0% 0 0 e. 0 0 : ,ilk4940 MT GREENWOOD 42 0 '0.0% 53 0' 0.0% 63 0; 0.0% 58 0. 00% 61 0, 0.05930 SHOOP 84 3 '3.6% 99 0 0.0% 57 0 ' 0.0% 66 0 0 6% 69 0 0.0 .
75 Morgan Park commuNnvrarms 133 6 :. 43%, 120 2 1.7% 131 6 4.6% 104 3 2.9% 100 0 0.02820 CLISSOLD 76 1 1.354 60 0 6.0% 70 5 7.1% 56 3 : 5.4% 45 0 . 0.0 43250 ESMOND 57 5 8.8% 60 2 33% 61 1 1.6% 48 0 0.3% 55 0 6.0
76 O'Hare 2950 DIRKSEN 60 5 3.3% 62 3 4.8% 61 3 4.9% 45 2 4,4% 68 0 0.0%77 Edgewater COMMUNITY TOTALS 334 9 2.3% 336 5
:1.5% 325 11 3.4% 329 3 i 0.9% 329 1 0.3 '
3850 HAYT 82 2 2.4% 76 3 3,9% 73 2 ; .7% 74 I ' 1.4% 75 0 0.0 45360 PEIRCE 99 3 3.0% 103 2 : 1.9% 97 1 1.0% 89 2 : 2.2% 93 1 1.1%6130 SWIFT 86 3 3.5% 74 0 0.0% 72 1 14% 66 0 0.0% 73 0 i 00%6230 TRUMBULL 117 1 0.t% 83 0 0.0% 83 7 8.4% 100 0 0.0% 86 0 0.0 1
gi5
INDEX OF SCHOOLS EY COMMUNITY AREA
This index lists each school alphabetically, followed by its unit number andcommunity area. The schools are listed in alphabetical order. Once you find out whatcommunity area a school is in you can find the school's retention data on the table on pages13 to 31.
32
school isms
INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY COIVIlviUNITY AREA
Unit/ Community Area
ABBOTT
ADDAMS
AGASSIZ
ALCOTTALDRIDGE
2010
20202030
2040
2710ALTGELD 2050ANDERSEN 2060ANDERSEN EVGC BR 7310ANTHONY BR BURNH 2481ARAI MIDDLE 4590ARMOUR 2070ARMSTRONG GEORGE 2080ARMSTRONG LOUIS 5700ARMSTRONG LOUIS B 7320ATTUCKS 2100AUDUBON 2110AVALON PARK 2130AVONDALE 2140BAN NEUR 6880BARNARD 2150BARRY 2160BARTON 2170BASS 2180BATEMAN 2190BEALE 2200BEASLEY ACAD CfR 6660BEAUBIEN 2240BEETHOVEN 6540BEIDLER 2250BELDING 2260BELL 2270BENNETT 2280BETHUNE 8020BLACK MAGNET 7860BLACK MAGNET BRA 7861BLAINEBOND
BONTEMPS
BOONE
BRADWELL
BRENAN
BRENNEMANN
BRENTANO
BRIDGE
BRIGHT
BROWN
BROWNELL
BRYN MAWR
BRYN MAWR BRBUDLONOBUNCHE
BURBANK
BURKE
BURLEY
2300
6550
5750
23202340
2360
6600
2370
2380
23902400
2410
2430
73802440
683024502460
2470
34 Armour Square52 East Side
6 Lake View7 Lincoln Park
54 Riverdale67 West Englewood2A- West Town24 West Town51 South Deering3 Uptown
60 Bridgeport2 Wert Ridge
25 Austin25 Austin35 Douglas5 North Center
45 Avalon Park21 Avondale68 Englewood72 Beverly20 Hermosa71 Auburn Gresham68 Englewood16 Irving Park68 Englewood40 Washington Park11 Jefferson Park37 Fuller Park27 East Garfield Park16 Irving Park5 North Center
49 Roseland27 East (Infield Park48 Calumet Heights43 South Shore6 Lake View
68 Englewood67 West Englewood2 West Ridge
43 South Shore49 Roseland3 Uptown
22 Logan Square17 Dunning51 South Deering28 Near West Side69 Greater Grand Crossing43 South Shore43 South Shore4 Lincoln Square
67 West Englewood19 Belmont Cragin40 Washington Park6 Lake View
School name Unit/ Community Area
BURNHAM 2480BURNS 2510
BURNSIDE SCHOL AC 2520BURR 2530
BURROUGHS 2540BYFORD 2550
BYRD COMM ACADE 2560BYRNE 2570CALDWELL 2580CALHOUN NORTH 6610CAMERON 2610CANTY 2620
CARDENAS 4320CARNEGIE 2630
CARPENTER 2640
CARROLL 2650CARTER 2670
CARVER MIDDLE 2700
CARVER PRIMARY 2690
CASSELL 2720C ATHER 6730
CHALMERS 2740CHAPPELL 2750
CHASE 2760
CHOPIN 2770
CHRISTOPHER PHY H 2780CLARK MIDDLE SCHO 6620CLAY 2790
CLEVELAND 2800
CLINTON 2810CLISSOLD 2820COLES 2830COLMAN 2840COLUMBUS 2850COOK 2860COONLEY 2880COOPER PRIM INTER 2890COPERNICUS 2900CORKERY 2910
COSTILLA BR JUNGM 4231CROWN COMM ACAD 2940CUFFE 4090CULLEN 4100CURTIS 3160
DARWIN 2960DAVIS 2970DAWES 2980
DECATUR CLASSICAL 2990DELANO 3000DENEEN 3010DEPRIEST 8050DETT 6740DEVER 3020DEWEY 3030
33 37
51 South Deering30 South Lawndale44 Chatham24 West Town58 Brighton Park25 Austin8 Near North Side
56 Garfield Ridge45 Avalon Park27 East Garfield Park23 Humboldt Park17 Dunning30 South Lawndale42 Woodlawn24 West Town70 Ashburn40 Washington Park54 Riverdale54 Riverdale74 Mount Greenwood27 East Garfield Park29 North Lawndale4 Lincoln Square
22 Logan Square24 West Town63 Gage Park25 Austin55 Hegewisch16 Irving Park2 West Ridge
75 Morgan Park46 South Chicago38 Grand Boulevard24 West Town71 Auburn Gresham5 North Center
31 Lower West Side6? West Englewood30 South Lawndale31 Lower West Side30 South Lawndale71 Auburn Gresham49 Roseland49 Roseland22 Logan Square58 Brighton Park70 Ashburn
2 West Ridge26 West Garfield Park69 Greater Grand Crossing25 Austin28 Near West Side17 Dunning61 New City
School name
INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY COMMUNITY ARE!.
Unit/ Community Area
DICKENS CPC 4311DIEGO COMM ACAD 7420DIRKSEN 2950
DISNEY MAGNET 8000DIXON 3040DODGE 3050DONOGHUE 6790DOOLITTLE INT UPPE 3070DOOLITTLE PRIMARY 7620DORE 3080DOUGLAS COMM ACA 3090DOUGLASS MIDDLE 6630DRAKE 3100DRAKE EVGC BR 7340DRUMMOND 3120DU BOIS 8010DULLES 6860DUMAS 6890DUMAS CPC 6891
DUNNE al50DVORAK 6760DYETT MIDDLE 8070EARHART BR HOYNE 7450EARLE 3130EBE RHART 3140EBINGER 3150EDGEBROOK 3170EDISON COMP GIFT 2220EDWARD S 3200EINSTEIN 3210ELLINGTON 3220ELLINGTON BR 3221
EMMET 3230ERICSON 3240ESMOND 3250EVERETT 3260EVERS 7990FALCONER 3270FARADAY 4640FARNSWORTH 3280BARREN 3300FARREN CPC BR BEAS 6661
FERGUSON CPC 4581FERMI 3320
FERNWOOD 3330FIELD 3350FISKE 3360FLE MING BR 3681
FORT DEARBORN 3400FOSTER PARK 3430FRANKLIN MAGNET 3420FRAZIER 7780FULLER 3440FULTON 3450
27 East Garfield Park24 West Town76 O'Hare3 Uptown
44 Chatham27 East Garfield Park36 Oakland35 Douglas35 Douglas64 Clearing35 Douglas25 Austin35 Douglas35 Douglas22 Logan Square54 Riverdale42 Woodlawn42 Woodlawn42 Woodlawn49 Roseland
North Lawndale.10 Washington Park48 Calumet Heights67 West Englewood66 Chicago Lawn9 Edison Park
12 Forest Glen10 Norwood Park57 Archer Heights36 Oakland25 Austin25 Austin25 Austin27 East Garfield Park75 Morgan Park59 McKinley Park73 Washington Heights19 Belmont Cragiri27 East Garfield Park11 Jefferson Park38 Grar:6 Boulevard40 Washington Park
8 Near North Side43 South Shore73 Washington Heights
1 Rogers Park42 Woodlawn64 Clearing73 Washington Heights71 Auburn Gresham8 Near North Side
29 North Lawndale38 Grand Boulevard61 New City
1.9
34
School nano Unit/ Community Area
FULTON BRANCH 7150
FUNSTON 3460
GALE COMM ACADE 3480(3ALLISTEL LANG AC 3490!JARVEY MARCUS 5420
GARVY JOHN 3510
GARY 3520
GERSHWIN 7080
GILLESPIE 3530
GLADSTONE 3540
GOETHALS EVGC 5160
GOETHE 3560
GOLDBLATT 7840
GOLDSMITH BR LUEL 4551GOMPERS 3570
GOODLOW MAGNET 3290
GOUDY 3590
GRAHAM 3600
GRANT 3610
GRAY 3620
GREELEY 2730
GREEN WENDELL 4410GREENE NATHANAEL 3650GREGORY 3660
GRESHAM 3670
GRIMES 3680
tiRISSOM 3580
GUGGENHEIM 700GUNSAULUS SCHOL A 3690HAINES
HALE
HAMILTONHAMLINE
HAMMOND
HANCOCK BR
HANSBERRY CPCHANSON PARK
HARTE
HARTIGAN
HARVARD
HAUGAN
37003710
3730
3740
3750
7370
6381
4770
3780
3790
3800
3810
HAWTHORNE SCHOL 3830HAY BRANCH 7040
HAY COMM ACADEM 3840HAYT 3850
HEALY 3880
HEARST 3890
HEDGES 3900
HEDGES CENTRAL BR 6561HEDGES EAST BR 6560
HEDGES WEST BR 3902
HEFFERAN 3910
HENDERSON 3920
HENDRICKS 3930
38
61 New City22 Logan Square
1 Rogers Perk
52 East Side73 Washington Heights10 Norwood Park30 South Lawndale67 West Engle wood49 Roseland28 Near West Side68 Englewood22 Logan Square26 West Garfield Park51 South Deering53 West Pullman67 West Englewood3 Uptown
61 New City28 Near West Side15 Portage Park6 Lake View
73 Washington Heights59 McKinley Park27 East Garfield Park71 Auburn Gresham64 Clearing55 Hegewisch68 Englewood58 Brighton Park34 Armour Square64 Clearing6 Lake View
61 New City30 South Lawndale66 Chicago Lawn29 North Lawndale19 Belmont Cragin41 Hyde Park35 Douglas69 Greater Grand Crossing14 Albany Park6 Lake "iew
25 Austin25 Austin77 Edgewater60 Bridgeport56 Garfield Ridge61 New City61 New City61 New City61 New City25 Austin67 West Englewood37 Fuller Park
INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY COMMUNITY AREA
School names Unit! Communky Area School name Unit/ Community AreaHENRY 3940 16 Irving Park LIBBY '.470 61 New CityHENSON 6570 29 North Lawndale LINCOLN 4480 7 Lincoln ParkHERBERT 3950 28 Near West Side LINNE 4490 21 AvondaleHERZL 3000 29 North Lewndale LLOYD 4500 19 Belmont CraginHIBBARD 4000 14 Albany Park LOCKE 4510 18 MontclareHIGGINS COMM ACM) 7210 53 West Pullman LOVETT 4530 25 AustinHINTON 7250 68 Englewood LOWELL 4540 23 Humboldt ParkHITCH 4010 10 Norwood Paik LUELLA 4550 51 South DeeringHOLDEN 4020 60 Bridgeport LYON 4560 19 Belmont CraginHOLMES 4030 68 Englewood MADISON 4570 43 South ShoreHOPE COMM ACADEM 4130 68 Englewood MANIERRE 4580 8 Near North SideHOWE 4060 25 Austin MANN 4610 45 Avalon ParkHOWLAND 4070 29 North Lawndale MARCONI COMM ACA 6590 25 AustinHOME 4080 48 Calumet Heights MARQUETTE 4620 66 Chicago LawnHUGHES CHARLES 4110 29 North Lawndale MARSH 4630 51 South DeeringHUGHES LANGSTON 8060 49 Roseland MARTI BILINGUAL BR 6340 3 UptownHURLEY 4120 65 West Lawn MASON 4650 29 North LawndaleINTER-AMERICAN MA 4890 6 Lake View MASON CPC 4651 29 North LawndaloIRVING '350 28 Near West Side MAY 46;0 25 AustinIRVING PARK 4150 16 Irving Park MAYER 4680 7 Lincoln ParkJACKSON LANG ACAD 4690 28 Near West Side MAYO 4700 35 DouglasJACKSON MAHALIA 8090 71 Auburn Gresham MCCLELLAN 4710 60 BridgeportJAHN 4170 5 North Center MCCORKLE 6820 38 Grand BoulevardJAMIESON 4180 2 West Ridge MCCORM!CK 4720 30 South LawndaleJEFFERSON 4190 28 Near West Side MCCOSH 4740 42 WoodlawnJENNER 4200 8 Near North Side MCCUTCHEON 6910 3 Uptown,JENSEN SCHOL ACM) 6920 27 East Garfield Park MCDADE CLASSICAL 4750 44 ChathamJOHNSON 6940 29 North Lawndale MCDOWELL BR CALD 7390 48 Calumet HeightsJOHNSON CPC 6941 29 North Lawndalo MCKAY 4760 66 Chicago LawnJOPLIN 2330 71 Auburn Gresham MCPHERSON 4800 4 Lincoln SquareJOYNER CPC 5971 28 Near West Side MEIULL INT UPPER 4820 28 Near West SideJUNGMAN 4230 31 Lower West Side MEDILL PRIMARY 4810 28 Near West SideJUNGMAN BR 4232 31 Lower West Side MELODY 7190 26 West Garfield ParkKANOON MAGNET 3370 30 South Lawndale METCALFE MAGNET 3190 53 West PullmanKELLER MAGNET 4960 74' Mount Greenwood MILLER CPC 6921 27 East Garfield ParkKELLOGG 4240 72 Beverly MITCHELL 4840 24 West TownKERSHAW 4270 6S Englewood MOLLISON 6950 38 Grand BoulevardKEY 4280 25 Austin MONROE 4850 22 Logan SquareKILMER 4300 1 Rogers Park MOOS 4870 24 West TownKING ELEM 4310 27 East Garfield Park MORGAN 4830 71 Auburn GreshamKINZIE 4330 66 Chicago I awn MORRILL 4880 66 Chicago LawnKIPLING 4350 73 Washington Heights MORSE 4900 23 Humboldt ParkKOHN 4360 49 Rosela^.1 MORTON U C 6800 23 Humboldt ParkKOMENSKY 4370 31 Lower. West Side MORTON EVGC BR 7410 23 Humboldt PackKOSCIUSZKO 4380 24 West Town MOZART 5000 22 Logan SquareKOZMINSKI COMM AC 4390 41 Hyde Park MT GREENWOOD 4940 74 Mount GreenwoodLAFAYETTE 4400 24 West Town MT VERNON 4980 73 Washington HeightsLASALLE LANG ACM) 4420 7 Lincoln Park MULLIGAN 5010 7 Lincoln ParkLATHROP 6750 29 North Lawndale MURPHY 5020 16 Irving ParkLAWNDALE COMM A 4430 29 North Lawndale MURRAY LANG ACM) 5030 41 Hyde ParkLEE 7170 65 West Lawn NANSEN 5040 53 West PullmanLEMOYNE 4440 6 Lake View NASH 5050 25 AustinLENART BR 7240 70 Ashburn NEIL 5060 44 ChathamLEWIS 4450 25 Austin NETTELHORST 5070 6 Lake View
3539
INDEX OF SCIP"^LS BY COMMUNITY AREA
School name Unit/ Community Area "S..1001 name Unit" Community Arca
NEWBERRY MAGNET 5080 7 Lincoln Park REAVIS 5580 39 KenwoodNIGHTINGALE 5090 63 Gage Park REED 6870 68 EnglewoodNINOS HEROES MAGN 3720 46 South Chicago REILLY 5590 16 Irving ParkNIXON 5100 20 Hermosa REINBERG 5600 15 Portage ParkNOBEL 5110 23 Humboldt Park REVERE 5610 69 Greater Grand CrossingNORWOOD PARK 5120 10 Norwood Park RIIS 21620 28 Near West SideOGDEN 5150 8 Near North Side ROBINSON BR OAKEN 6780 36 Oakland.OGLESBY 5170 71 Auburn Graham ROENTGEN EVGC 7140 27 East Garfield ParkOKEEFFE 5180 43 South Shore ROGERS 5630 2 West RidgeOLIVE CPC 6571 29 North Lawndale ROSENWALD BR 2651 70 AshburnONAHAN 5190 10 Norwood Park ROSS 5650 40 Washington ParkORIOLE PARK 5200 10 Norwood Park RUGGLES 5660 69 Grmter Grand CrossingOROZCO UPPER CYCL 7610 31 Lower West Side RYDER 5670 71 Auburn GreshamOTIS 5220 24 West Town RYERSON 5680 23 Humboldt ParkOTOOLE 5230 ti/ West Englewood SABIN MAGNET 7790 24 Weet TownOVERTON 6960 38 Grand Boulevard SALAZAR BILINGUAL 6720 31 Lower West SideOWEN SCHOL ACAD 5240 70 Ashburn SAUCEDO MAGNET 4250 30 South LawndaleOWENS COMM ACM) 3470 53 Wat Pullman SAUGANASH 5690 13 North ParkPADEREWSKI 6930 30 South Lawndale SAWYER 5710 63 Cr- 't ParkPALMER 5260 14 Albany Park SAYRE LAY:3 ACADE 5720 25 AustinPARK MANOR 5290 42 Woodlawn SBARB/ 6900 44 ChathamPARKER COMM ACM) 5270 68 Englewood SCAMMuN 5730 16 Irving ParkPARKER CPC 5271 68 Englewood SCANLA N 5740 53 West PullmanPARKMAN 5280 40 Washington Park SCHILLER 5760 8 Near North SidePARKSIDE COMM ACA 5300 43 South Shore SCHMID 5950 50 PullmanPASTEUR 53t) 62 West Eladon SCHNEIDER 5790 5 North CenterPEABODY 5330 24 West Town SCHUBERT 5800 19 Belmont CraginPECK 5340 62 West Elsdon SEWARD 5820 61 New CityPEIRCE 5360 77 Edgewater SEWARD BR 5821 61 New CityPENN 5370 29 North Lawndale SEXTON A 0 500 42 WoodlawnPERRY 5380 47 Burnside SHAKESPEARE 5850 39 KenwoodPERSHING MAGNET 5400 35 Douglas SHEDD BR BENNETT 2281 49 RemindPETERSON 5410 13 North Park SHERIDAN M MAGNE 4920 60 BridgeportPICCOLO ELEM 5210 23 Humboldt Park SHERIDAN PHIL 5880 46 South ChicagoPICKARD 5430 31 Lower West Side SHERMAN 5890 61 New CityPILSEN COMM ACM) 4210 31 Lower West Side SHERWOOD 5900 68 EnglewoodPIRIE 5440 44 Chatham SHIELDS 3910 58 Brighton ParkPLAMONDON 5450 29 North Lawndale SHOESMITH 5920 39 KenwoodPOE CLASSICAL 5460 50 Pullman SHOOP 5930 74 Mount GreenwoodPOPE 5480 29 North Lawndale SKINNER CLASSICAL 5940 28 Near West SidePORTAGE PARK 5490 15 Portage "ark SMITH WENDELL 3870 50 PullmanPOWEI,L 7010 43 South Shore SMYSER 5960 15 Portage ParkPRESCOTT 5500 7 Lincoln Park SMYTH 5970 28 Near West SidePRICE 6810 39 Kenwood SOLOMON 5980 13 North ParkPRTTZKER 6460 24 West Town SOUTH LOOP BR 3961 33 Near South SidePRUSSING 5510 15 Portage Park SOUTH LOOP SCHOOL 3960 33 Near South SidePULASKI 5520 22 Logan Square SPALDING ELEM PHY 5990 28 Near West SidePULLMAN 5530 50 Pullman SPENCER 6000 25 AustinRANDOLPH MAGNFT 3550 67 West Englewood SPRY 6010 30 South LawndaleRASTER 5540 67 West Englewood STAGG 7760 68 EnglewoodRASTER BR 7180 67 West Englewood STEVENSON 6030 70 AshburnRAVENSWOOD 5550 6 Lake View STEWART 6040 3 UptownRAY 5560 41 Hyde Park STOCKTON 6050 3 UptownRAYMOND 5570 35 Douglas STONE SCHOL ACADE 6070 2 West Ridge
3640
INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY COMMUNITY AREA
School name Unit/ Community Area School moo Unit/ Community AreaSTOWE 6080 23 Humboldt Park WESTCOTT 7260 44 ChathamSUDER 6090 28 Near West Side WHEATLEY CPC 2691 54 RiverdaleSULLIVAN ELEM 6100 46 South Chicago WHISTLER 6420 53 Wed PullmanSUMNER 6110 26 West Garfield Park WHITE BR 7440 53 West PullmanSUTHERLAND 6120 72 Beverly WHITNEY 6440 30 South LawndaleSWIFT 6130 77 Edgewater WHITTIER 6450 31 Lower West SideTALCOTT 6140 24 West Town WHITTIER BRANCH 7330 31 Lower West SideTANNER 6970 69 Greater Grand Crossing WILDWOOD 6470 12 Forest GlenTAYLOR 6150 52 East Side WILLIAMS 6490 35 DouglasTERRELL 6840 40 Washington Park WIRTH EXP BR KENW 4260 39 KenwoodTHORP EVGC BR 6181 46 South Chicago WOODSON N 7750 38 Grand BoulevardTHORP J N 6180 46 South Chicago WOODSON S 7820 38 Grand BoulevardTHORP 0 A SCHOL AC 6190 17 Dunning WRIGHT 7500 23 Humboldt ParkTILTON 6210 26 West Garfield Park YALE 6500 69 Greater Grand CrossingTONTI 6220 63 Gage Park YATES 6510 22 Logan SquareTRUMBULL 6230 77 Edgewater YOUNG 6520 25 AustinTRUTH PRIMARY 7900 8 Near North SideTURNER-DREW LANG 3110TWAIN 6240VAN VLISSINGEN 6260VANDERPOEL MAGNE 6250VOLTA 6270VON HUMBOLDT 6280VON HUMBOLDT CPC 6282VON STEUBEN U C 6290WACKER 8030WADSWORTH 6300WADSWORTH CPC 6301
WALSH 6320WARD JAMES 6330WARD LAURA 5470WARREN 6350WASHINGTON ELEM 6360WATERS 6370WEBSTER 6380WENTWORTH 6390WEST PULLMAN 6400
49 Roseland56 Garfield Ridge49 Roseland72 Beverly14 Albany Park24 West Town24 West Town14 Albany Park73 Washington Heights42 Woodlawn42 Woodlawn31 ...ower West Side
',.> Douglas
23 Humboldt Park48 Calumet Heights52 East Side4 Lincoln Square
26 Wed Garfield Park68 Englewood53 West Pullman
REFERENCES
1. The Chicago School Reform Law, Public Act 85-1418, section 34-1.02 (page 27 of thebound version, September 1989 Update.)
2. An interesting study of this trend was done by Thomas Toch in 'The Dark Side of theExcellence Movement," Phi Delta Kappan, 66, (November 1984) pp. 173-76.
3. This policy is in effect at the time of writing this report. However, the Chicago Boardof Education is in the process of revising the official policy on grade retention.
4. Elementary School - Criteria for Promotion, (Chicago: Chicago Public Schools, 1985),p. 2. [italics added]
5. Ibid., p. 3.
6. Ibid, p. 8.
7. David F. Labaree, "Setting the Standard: Alternative Policies for Student Promotion,"Harvard Educational Review, 54 (February 1984), pp.76-77.
8. Ibid., p. 77.
9. Gregg B. Jackson, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, "The Research Evidence on theEffects of Grade Retention," Review of Educational Research, 45 (Fall 1975), pp. 613-635.
10. Ibid., p. 627.
11. Ibid.
12. Labaree, p. 78. The studies he cites here are Gregg Jackson (above); Steven Selden,"Promotion Policy," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Harold E. Mitzel, III (NewYork: Free Press, 1982), pp. 1467-1474; 'The Literature on Social Promotion VersusRetention" Unpublished Paper, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Sept. 1981;Robert G. Reiter, The Promotion/Retention Dilemma: What the Research Tells Us, ReportNo. 7416 (Philadelphia: Office of Research Evaluation, School District of Philadelphia,1973); Sydney Thompson, Grade Retention and Promotion (Burlingame, Calif.: Associationof California School Administrators, 1980); Wadi D. Haddad, Educational and EconomicEffects of Promotion and Repetition Practices, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 319.(Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1979).
13. C. Thomas Holmes, "Tne Fourth R: Retention," Journal of Research and Developmentin Education, 17 ( 1983), p. 4.
14. C. Thomas Holmes and Kenneth M. Matthews, 'The Effects of Nonpromotion onElemer..ary and Junior High School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis," Review of EducationalResearch, 54 (Summer 1984), p. 232.
15. Monica Overman, "Student Promotion and Retention," Phi Delta Kappan, 67 (April1986), p. 612.
38 42
16. G. Alfred Hess, Jr. and Diana Lauber, Dropouts From the Chicago Public Schools.(Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, April 1985), p. 27.
17. E. M. Schulz, R. Toles, W. K. Rice, I. Brauer and J. Harvey, "Association of dropoutrates with student attributes," paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association,. San Francisco (April 1986). This paper is discussed indetail in an article by James B. Grissom and Lorrie A. Shepard, "Repeating and DroppingOut of School," in Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention, ed. Lorrie A.Shepard and Mary Lee Smith (London: Falmer Press; 1989), pp. 39-43.
18. W. K. Rice, R. Toles, E. M. Schulz, J. Harvey and D. L Foster, "A longitudinalinvestigation of effectiveness of increased promotion standards at eighth grade on highschool gradEation," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Washington, D.C. (April 1987). This was also discussed in"Repeating and Dropping Out of School."
19. Joseph Berger, "Schools May Promote Those With Poor Results on Tests," New YorkTimes, May 3, 1990, p. Al2.
20. David Sklarz, Deputy Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction for CharlestonCounty School District, "Keep at-risk students in school by keeping them up to grade level,"American School Board Journa4 176 (September 1989), p. 33-34.
21. Berger, New York Times., p. Al2.
22. "Repeating Grades in School: Current Practice and Research Evidence." (NewBrunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education, Eagleton Institute of Politics,Rutgers University, April 1990) contains a good discussion of alternatives to retention.
23. Ibid., P. 5-6.
4339
SUGGESTED READING
Dobbs, Virginia and Donald Neville. (July-Aug. 1967) 'The Effect of Nonpromotion on theAchievement Of Groups Matched from Retained First Graders and Promoted SecondGraders." Journal of Educational Research, 60, pp. 472-475.
Hess, G. Alfred, Jr. and Diana Lauber. (April 1985) Dropouts from the Chicago Public Schools.Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
Hess, G. Alfred, Jr., Arthur Lyons, Lou Corsino and Emily Wells. (June 1989) Against theOdds: the Early Identification of Dropouts. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public SchoolPolicy and Finance.
Holmes, C. Thomas. (1983) 'The Fourth R: Retention." Journal of Research and Developmentin Education, 17, 1, pp. 1-6.
Holmes, C. Thomas and Kenneth M. Matthews. (Summer 1984) "The Effects of Nonpromotionon Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis."Review of EducationalResearch, 54, pp. 225-236.
Jackson, Gregg B. (Fall 1975) "The Research Evidence on the Effects of Grade Retention."Review of Educational Research, 45, pp. 613-635.
Johnson, James R. (May 1984) "Synthesis of Research on Grade Retention and SocialPromotion." Educational Leadership, 41, pp. 66-68.
Labaree, David F. (Feb. 1984) "Setting the Standard: Alternative Policies for StudentPromotion." Harvard Educational Review, 54, pp. 67-87.
Nildason, Lucille B. (Oct. 1987) "Do Certain Groups of Children Profit from a GradeRetention." Psychology in the Schools, 24, pp. 339-45.
Overman, Monica. (April 1986) "Student Promotion and Retention." Phi Delta Kappan, 67,pp. 609-13.
Shepard, Lorrie A. and Mar, Lee Smith, eds. (1989) Flunking Grades: Research and Policieson Retention. London: Falmer Press, 1989.
Shepard, Lorrie A. and Mary Lee Smith. (Nov. 1988) "Escalating Academic Demand inKindergarten: Counterproductive Policies." Elementary School Journal 89, pp.135-45.
Shepard, Lorrie A. and Mary Lee Smith. (Nov. 1986) "Synthesis of Research on SchoolReadiness and Kindergarten Retention." Educational Leadership, 44, pp. 78-86.
Sklarz, David P. (Sept. 1989) "Keep at-risk students in school by keeping them up to gradelevel." American School Board Journal, 176, pp. 33-34.
Toch, Thomas. (Nov. 1984) 'The Dark Side of The Excellence Movement." Phi Delta Kappan,66, pp. 173-76.
40 44
PUBLICATIONS OF THE CHICAGO PANEL AND ITS AFFILIATE, METROSTAT
CHICAGO SCHOOL REFORM - RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROJECT
Chicago School Reform: What It Is and How It Came To Be. March 1990.Teacher Attitudes Toward School Reform. October 1989.Observing Local School Council Elections. October 1989.
STATE SCHOOL REFORM
Implementing Educational Reform in Illinois. November 1985.What Are We Willing to Pay for School Reform? May 1985.
DESEGREGATION AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
The Changing Racial Enrollment Patterns in Chicago's Schools. April 1990Who Benefits From Desegregation? December 1987.Who Gets Extra Staff? May 1986.Recreational Programs in a Tune of Fiscal Constraint. January 1985.
DROPOUTS
Against the Odds: The Early Identification of Dropouts. June 1989.Invisibly Pregnant Teenage Mothers and the Chicago Public Schools. December 1988.Bending the Twig: The Elementary Years and Dropout Rates in the Chicago Public Schools. July 1987.Where's Room 185? How Schools Can Reduce Their Dropout Problem. December 1986.Dropouts from the Chicago Public Schools. April 1985.
TEACHER MANAGEMENT STUDIES
Teacher Transfers and Classroom Disruption. January 1984.Class Coverage in the Chicago Public Schools. June 1983.
BUDGET
1987-1988 Assessment of School Site Budgeting Practices of the Chicago Public Schools. August 1988.1986-1987 Assessment of School Site Budgeting Practice of the Chicago Public Schools. June 1987.School Budget Hewing Assessment. June 1986.Revenue Short Falls at the Chicago Board of Education: 1970-1984. June 1984 (updated annually).Budget Cuts at the Board of Education. July 1982 (updated annually).
OTHER
Assessment of Sam Lee Corporation's Adopt-A-School Program at Harper High School 1982 - 1988. August 1988.Chicagoans View Their Public Schools. June 1985.
RESOURCE VOLUMES
Chicago Public Schools DataBoolc School Year 1988-1989. February 1990.Directory of Youth Services. December 1989.1988 METROSTAT DataBook. November 1989.
For descriptions and costs of the above publications, please request a publication list from the Chicago Panel, (312) 939-2202.
45
![13 0408 2013 SRTP - Draft · Arabic 781 0.15% Korean 637 0.12% Russian 499 0.09% Persian 414 0.08% Japanese 338 0.06% Total Survey Participants 527,086 100.0% [1] Source: US Census](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5ede8403ad6a402d6669d70e/13-0408-2013-srtp-draft-arabic-781-015-korean-637-012-russian-499-009-persian.jpg)
