Upload
wbez
View
471
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
2010 School 2010 School ActionsActions
2
CPS Has Changed School Closing Guidelines
In an effort to reduce the burden placed on students, families and the community, resources and supports for transitioning students will be added to receiving schools
CPS has changed the school closing and consolidation processes
New guidelines create a more transparent and thorough process
A new “School Closings Student Bill of Rights” articulates the safeguards students can expect during the transition year
3
CPS can close, consolidate or create turnaround schools for any of 3 reasons:
1. Facilities in a state of disrepair culminating in the need for students to be relocated to a school with better infrastructure; or the facility’s use impractical
2. School enrollment currently, or projected to be, lower than 250 students
3. Chronic low performance culminating in 2 consecutive years of less than 33.3% of total possible points earned on the CPS Performance Policy
CPS Has Changed School Closing Guidelines
4
New Guidelines Highlights Students will be sent to a higher
performing school in all cases All students will be re-assigned to a school that
performed at least 20% better at least 20% better on the 2008/09 CPS Performance Policy
CPS will work with CPD and CTA to create safe passage plans for new commutes
Students will be given individualized transition plans to ensure a smooth transfer to their new school
Receiving schools will be provided with funding for an extended school day to provide more instructional time
5
Student Bill of Rights1. When a school is closed or consolidated,
students will be assigned to a receiving school that has performed better on the CPS Performance Policy than their original school.
2. Designated receiving schools will be within 1.5 miles of the student’s home address. If a better performing receiving school is not available within that distance, CPS will provide transportation options to a better performing school during the transition year.
3. CPS will create safe passage plans in coordination with community partners, CPD, CTA and other city agencies to ensure, to the extent possible, that students have a safe commute to their new school.
6
Student Bill of Rights4. CPS will work with receiving school
principals to extend instructional time in designated receiving schools.
5. A student’s school will not be closed or consolidated if that school has served as a designated receiving school within the last 2 academic years.
6. The District will provide individualized transition plans and supports for homeless and special needs students and families affected by school closure. Students in these groups that previously received transportation services from the District will continue to do so.
7
Student Bill of Rights7. CPS will ensure enrollment in Summer
Bridge for eligible transitioning students to foster academic growth during the transition period.
8. Each student will be assigned a staff member at the new receiving school that is responsible for their transition.
9. Designated receiving school principals and teachers will create personal learning plans for transitioning students to facilitate their academic continuity.
Facilities-based Facilities-based ClosingsClosings
9
Facilities-based Closing Guidelines Facility has fallen into a state of disrepair
culminating in the need for students to be relocated to a school with better infrastructure The cost to repair safety hazards makes
continued operation of the site cost-prohibitive Continued occupancy of the site is unsafe or
impractical
10
Las Casas: Facility Usage
Facility not conducive to specific needs of special education students
Aging building cannot accommodate more innovative therapies as well as newer facilities
Building at a cost of $250,000 annually Less than 50% attendance on any given day Annual per pupil cost of $50,000 vs.
approximately $30,000 at private providers which better serve students
8401 S. Saginaw Avenue
82 students
11
Las Casas
Las Casas: Receiving Schools
Montefiore
1310 S. Ashland Avenue
62 students Facility better suits
the specific needs of the special education population
Expanding to serve 6th through 12th grade
Private School
Placements
Hillside Academy
Banner LincAcademy
12
McCorkle Elementary: Facility Condition
4421 S. State Street, 310 students McCorkle facility requires capital investment greater than
50% of replacement value Facility has long surpassed 30-year lifespan Receiving school scheduled for $8.5m in capital
improvements (Beethoven)
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
13
McCorkle
McCorkle Elementary: Receiving School
Beethoven
2007-20082008-2009
25 W. 47th Street
411 Students
2007-20082008-2009
+122.4% Performance Policy
+48.7% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Performance PolicyPercentage
Performance PolicyPercentage
Under Enrollment Under Enrollment ProcessProcess
15
Under enrollment process uses 250 students as a conservative measure to ensure focus on the most chronically under enrolled schools
Larger schools have more educational opportunities such as after school programming, no classrooms with split grades
Schools with fewer than 250 students and under 40% utilization have higher per-pupil costs
Under Enrollment
16
Prescott Elementary: Under Enrollment
1632 W. Wrightwood Avenue,197 students School enrollment is well below operational
efficiency Receiving schools are significantly higher
performing Crossing guards to be deployed to ensure safe
passage
EnrollmentCapacity Current
17
Agassiz
Prescott Elementary: Receiving Schools
Prescott Burley
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
76.259.5
92.9 – 07/08100 – 08/09
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
+38.7% Performance Policy
+24.9% ISAT
+138.1% Performance Policy
+120% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
18
2221 S. Lawndale,142 Students Student enrollment is well under operational
efficiency Receiving school performed significantly better CPS and CPD implementing safe passage plan
Paderewski Elementary: Under Enrollment
EnrollmentCapacityCurrent
19
Paderewski
Paderewski Elementary: Receiving School
Mason
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008
2008-2009
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
50 57.1
4217 W. 18th Street
562 Students
26.240.5
Paderewski will be consolidated into Mason Elementary
+41% Performance Policy
+21.3% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
20
230 N. Kolmar Marconi has 251 students,
projected to enroll 236 next year Marconi consolidates with Tilton
Elementary and becomes the Tilton-Marconi Neighborhood Magnet School in the Marconi building
Offers enhanced academic options and additional resources for students and teachers from both schools
Marconi Elementary: Under Enrollment
Marconi Tilton
Consolidation into
neighborhood magnet school
EnrollmentCapacity Projected
21
Marconi Elementary: Receiving Schools
Ericson
Gregory
Calhoun North
Tilton-Marconi Neighborhood Magnet School
Option
Option
Option
Students given other options if desired:
+26.6% Performance Policy
+14.7% ISAT
+66.7% Performance Policy
+21.8% ISAT
+66.7% Performance Policy
+32.6% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
22
2957 N. Hoyne Ave,114 Students Student enrollment well below operational efficiency Schneider will be phased out Existing students remain but no new students enrolled
Schneider Elementary: Under Enrollment
Enrollment
Capacity Current
23
3149 N. Wolcott Avenue, 436 Students Incoming students living in Schneider’s old boundary will attend
Jahn Jahn’s CPS Performance Policy score is 26 points higher than
Schneider’s
Jahn Assumes Schneider’s Boundary
61.9 61.9
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
+76.2% Performance Policy
+54.7% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
Academic Academic Performance Performance
ProcessProcess
25
Performance Policy Explanation All schools earning less than 33.3% of
total points available on the CPS Performance Policy for 2 consecutive years are eligible for closure CPS Performance Policy is a combined metric
that draws from several key indicators (attendance, test scores, trend, etc.) to give a better overall picture of the school
By setting the bar at 33.3%, the guidelines focus on chronically low performing schools
Only schools eligible for closure under the performance guidelines will be considered for turnaround
26
Curtis Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
32 E. 115th Street, 464 students Lowest performing elementary school in the
District ISAT performance has declined over the last 3
years Only 36% of students met state standards in
reading (bottom 2%) Receiving schools, Pullman and Haley, are
significantly stronger academically
Lowest Lowest
Performing Performing
ElementaryElementaryLowest Lowest
Performing Performing
ElementaryElementary
27
Curtis
Curtis Elementary: Receiving Schools
Pullman
Haley
11311 S. Forrestville Ave
424 Students
11411 S. Eggleston Ave
600 Students
28
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Pullman
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Curtis Elementary: Receiving Schools
HaleyCurtis
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
+1,189% Performance Policy
+57.9% ISAT
+1,041% Performance Policy
+59.1% ISAT
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
29
Guggenheim Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
7141 S. Morgan Street, 263 students One of lowest performing schools in the District Attendance rate in bottom 4% of elementary
schools ISAT performance gap between Guggenheim
and CPS has widened over the past 3 years Receiving schools and magnet options are
better performing
Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
30
Guggenheim(closed)
Guggenheim Elementary: Receiving Schools
Hinton
Altgeld
644 W. 71st Street 296 Students
1340 W. 71st Street 669 Students
Nicholson Burnside
Magnet Options
31
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Hinton
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Guggenheim Elementary: Receiving Schools
Altgeld
Guggenheim
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
+100.5% Performance Policy
+5.2% ISAT
+225.8% Performance Policy
+46.3% ISAT
* One of the fastest improving school in District
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
32
4415 S. King Drive, 228 Students Mollison has underperformed the District for a decade Wells Elementary moves into the Mollison building
and becomes the Wells-Mollison School Wells will assume the neighborhood attendance
boundary
Mollison Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
33
Mollison
Wells Elementary: Receiving School
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
149 Students (Wells)
+175.8% Performance Policy (Wells)
+29.3% ISAT (Wells)
Wells-Mollison
Higher Performing
Higher Performing
TurnaroundsTurnarounds
35
Turnarounds All students remain enrolled in the school Staff displaced School receives new leadership and a new
staff managed by CPS or by a CPS-approved provider
School receives significant investment in facilities, training, staff and services
36
7257 S. State Street, 492 Students ISAT performance gap between Deneen and CPS has widened
over the past 3 years Less than 30% of Deneen students meet state standards in
science No higher performing schools in immediate area that can
accommodate Deneen students Turnaround to be managed by the Academy for Urban School
Leadership (AUSL)
Deneen Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
37
9301 South State Street, 543 Students Bottom 5% of schools on ISAT and Performance
Policy No higher performing schools in immediate area
that can accommodate Gillespie students 58% of students not meeting state standards ISAT performance has declined for the past 3 years Turnaround managed by the AUSL
Gillespie Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
3111.9
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
38
7736 South Burnham, 612 Students 2nd lowest performing elementary school in the District ISAT performance has declined over the past 3 years Only 41% of students met state standards in 2009 No higher performing schools in immediate area that can accommodate Bradwell students Turnaround managed by the AUSL
Bradwell Elementary: Chronic Low Performance
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
39
244 E. Pershing Road, 746 Students Phillips has the lowest PSAE performance of all
schools eligible for school action (2.7%) Less than10% of students meet state standards
for over a decade Turnaround managed by the AUSL
Phillips High School: Chronic Low Performance
27.819.4
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009Lowest Lowest
5%5%Lowest Lowest
5%5%
40
3250 W. Adams, 998 students Lowest performing high school in the District Less than 5% of students met state standards in 2009 On probation for 14 consecutive years State has threatened closure if action not taken Turnaround coincides with $4.3M. Campus Park investment Safe passage and school climate strategy with CPD Turnaround to be managed by CPS Chief Education Office
Marshall High School: Chronic Low Performance
16.7 6.1
Performance PolicyPercentage
2007-2008 2008-2009
Lowest Lowest
Performing Performing
High SchoolHigh School
Lowest Lowest
Performing Performing
High SchoolHigh School
41
Closings (4)1. Curtis Elementary2. Guggenheim
Elementary3. Prescott Elementary4. Las Casas
Occupational High School
Consolidations (4)1. McCorkle Elementary2. Paderewski
Elementary3. Marconi Elementary 4. Mollison Elementary
Phase Out (1)1. Schneider Elementary
Turnarounds (5)1. Deneen Elementary2. Gillespie Elementary3. Bradwell Elementary4. Phillips High School5. Marshall High School
Proposed Actions in Summary
42
Final Points All recommendations subject to approval
by the Chicago Board of Education Public hearings held for proposed school
closings Feasibility analyses undertaken for all
proposed actions to ensure successful transition is approved by the Board
2010 School 2010 School ActionsActions
Under Enrollment Process
45
Under enrollment process uses 250 students as a conservative measure to ensure focus on the most chronically under enrolled schools
Larger schools have more educational opportunities such as after school programming, no classrooms with split grades
Schools with fewer than 250 students and under 40% utilization have higher per-pupil costs
Under Enrollment Explanation
46
Under Enrollment Process Includes the full universe of schools Other Districts use similar utilization
criteria
Any school that is projected to have greater than 250 students
Exclusion CriteriaExclusion CriteriaConsolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Consolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Minimum Minimum EnrollmentEnrollment
47
Under Enrollment Process
Any school projected to operate at greater than 40% of its design capacity
Schools in a transition phase
Magnets
Early Childhood Centers
Exclusion CriteriaExclusion CriteriaConsolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Consolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Minimum Minimum EnrollmentEnrollment
Specific Utilization Specific Utilization CriteriaCriteria
48
Under Enrollment Process
Any school that:
Is not within reasonable proximity of a receiving school that has sufficient space to take additional students and transportation cannot be provided
Safe passage not impeded by unsafe natural barriers
Exclusion CriteriaExclusion CriteriaConsolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Consolidation Consolidation DecisionDecision
Minimum Minimum EnrollmentEnrollment
Specific Utilization CriteriaCriteria
Additional Consolidation
Criteria
Academic Performance Process
50
Performance Explanation All schools earning less than 33.3% of
total points available on the CPS Performance Policy for two consecutive years are eligible for closure CPS Performance Policy is a combined metric
that draws from several key indicators (attendance, test scores, trend, etc.)
By setting the bar at 33.3%, the guidelines focus on chronically low performing schools
Only schools eligible for closure under the performance guidelines will be considered for turnaround
51
Performance ProcessCutpoint<=33.3
%Performance PolicyPerformance PolicyPerformance PolicyPerformance Policy
Performance On Probation Performance On Probation PolicyPolicy
2 consecutive years of less than 33.3% of possible points earned on probation policy
52
Performance Process
School within reasonable proximity (1.5 mi) of a higher performing receiving school or transportation provided
Receiving school has: Sufficient amount of
space Facility of sufficient
quality Safe passage not
impeded by unsafe natural barriers
Cutpoint<=33.3%Performance PolicyPerformance Policy
Performance On Probation Performance On Probation PolicyPolicy
Receiving Receiving School(s) School(s)
Presence/CriteriPresence/Criteriaa
53
Performance ProcessCutpoint<=33.3
%Performance PolicyPerformance Policy
Performance On Probation Performance On Probation PolicyPolicy
Receiving Receiving School(s) School(s)
Presence/CriteriPresence/Criteriaa
Receiving Status ofReceiving Status ofSchool In QuestionSchool In Question
Has the school in question served as a receiving school for a closing or a consolidation in the last two years?
54
Performance ProcessCutpoint<=33.3
%Performance PolicyPerformance Policy
Performance On Probation Performance On Probation PolicyPolicy
Receiving Receiving School(s) School(s)
Presence/CriteriPresence/Criteriaa
Receiving Status ofReceiving Status ofSchool In QuestionSchool In Question
Recent Action(s)on School
In Question
Elementary contract principal been in place for less than 2 years?
School: Participating in Fresh Start
Administration has plan to take future action at the school