Chicago School Reform: Myths, Realities, and New Visions

8/3/2019 Chicago School Reform: Myths, Realities, and New Visions

1/7

Chicago School Reform: Myths, Realities, and New VisionsPrepared by CReATE (Chicago/and Researchers and Advocatesfor Transformative Education), June 2011 (updated)Public education in a democratic society is based on the principle that every' child is of equal and incalculablevalue. This guiding principle requires the fullest development of every member of our nation. Effective publicschools are necessary to enable every member of our nation to reach his or her fullest potential. Schools in ademocracy aim to prepare the' next generation to be knowledgeable and infonned citizens and residents; to becritical thinkers and creative problem solvers; to be prepared to contribute positively to communities, workplaces,and societies that are characterized by diversity and inequities; and to be healthy, happy, and prepared to supportthe well-being of others with compassion and courage.. The children and youth of Chicago deserve no less .. . buthow do we do this?In the midst of campaigns and debates for the 2011 Chicago mayoral election, we hear many proclamations andpromises about what it means to improve public schools. But how does each candidate compare to what we knowso far from research about the real problems and solutions? Education researchers from throughout Chicagolandhave prepared this fact sheet to distinguish myths from realities, and to provide new visions. Following each topicis a list ofresearchers who can be contacted for elaboration. For general infonnation: [email protected]: Provide Bold Leadership that Addresses Difficult Systemic Problems and Avoids Scapegoating the"Usual Suspects."

MYTH: The main problem with education is the lazy or incompetent teacher, who is protected by corruptunions and supervised by out-of-controllocal school councils, so the key to refonn is a system of rewards andpunishments (such as performance pay) and the dismantling of rights to organize (as with state legislationcurrently under debate).REALITY: Consistently underperfonning schools are unevenly but predictably distributed in Chicago's publicK-12 education. School success maps strongly with traditional markers of privilege (by race, income, class,immigrant status, etc.) and school failure maps predictably along lines of poverty.[l] Even if every teacherwere hardworking, knowledgeable, and skilled, inequities. in education would still exist because ofa range oflarger, systemic problems that hinder effective teaching, both inside and outside of school.[2] Furthennore,good learning conditions cannot exist without good teaching conditions, which do not include merit paysystems. [3] The most successful public schools have teachers' unions and effective local school councils thatare responsive to their membership and that operate with democratic decision-making processes.[4]MYTH: In this financial crisis, there is no additional funding available for education, but even i f here were,increased funding does not improve education, Chicago's public schools already enjoy equitable funding, and ifa community wants to raise more funds it has that option.REALITY: Financial and other resources can drastically change education quali(V.[5] Wealthycommunities are able to invest much more into their schools through private donations and fundraising, whilesome elected officials are able to advocate more effectively for additional resources for well-heeled districts.Consequently, public schools across the city operate on vastly different budgets.[6] Budgets reflect priorities,and education does not fare well against, say, prisons. At a time when allocations for public education areshrinking, states are building new and expanding prisons and detention centers. Across the nation, statespending on prisons was six times the increase of spending on higher education. In Dlinois, the cost ofincarcerating one adult is about 4.5 times the cost of educating one child. Research suggests that one more yearof high school would significantly reduce crime and incarceration rates, and that increasing the male highschool graduation rate by one percent would save $1.4 billion nationwide.[7]PLEDGE: Chicago's mayor must pledge to:

Develop and implement policies that address historic educational inequities that arise from poverty,segregation, discrimination, and social isolation; Prioritize education budgetarilyand invest in public K-12 schools by, for example, reallocating TIFfunding; . Distribute funding and other resources equitably, by implementing broader tax redistribution[8] and byfully funding the Dlinois Education Funding Advisory Board' s minimum per-pupil funding level;


2/7

Resist scapegoating unionized teachers and local school councils, and instead, support democraticprocesses such as teachers organizing and parents serving on governing bodies for their children'sschools.RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS:

Robert Anthony Bruno, University oflllinois at Urbana-Champaign, [email protected] Sumi Cho, DePaul University, scho@de,paul.edu Jerome Hausman, School of he Art Institute ofChicago, [email protected] Lauren Hoffinan, Lewis University, [email protected] Diane Horwitz, DePaul University, [email protected] Valerie Johnson, DePaul University, yjohnso5@de,naul.edu Susan Katz, Roosevelt University, [email protected] Pamela Konkol, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] Kevin Kumashiro, University ofDlinois at Chicago, [email protected] Emily E. LaBarbera Twarog, University ofDlinois at Urbana-Champaign, [email protected] Michelle Turner Mangan, National-Louis University, [email protected] Tema Okun, National-Louis University, [email protected] Michelle Parker-Katz, University oflliinois at Chicago, [email protected] Brad Porfilio, Lewis University, [email protected] Amira Proweller, DePaul University, aprowell@de,paul.edu Karyn Sandlos, School of the Art Institute ofChicago, [email protected] Simeon Stumme, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] .William Watkins, University ofDlinois at Chicago, [email protected]

VISION: Develop and Implement Education Policy and Reform Initiatives that are Primari ly ResearchDriven, Not Market-Driven.MYTH: School turnarounds have benefited Chicago Public Schools by giving "failing" schools a new start.REALITY: First conceived by the Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago's school reform policy"Renaissance 2010"-is based not on sound research and analysis, but on market principles ofprivatization,competition, and commercialization. CPS has even adopted a market structure in which "CEO's" are preferredover educators for the top leadership position, and Boards are appointed by the mayor, not elected by thepeople. Since the implementation ofRenaissance 2010, districtwide high-school student achievement has notrisen, and most of the lowest performing high schools saw scores drop. Moreover, the process for identifying"failing schools" was neither consistent nor research-based, and disproportionately affected low-incomeAfrican American and Latino students by closing schools in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods whileleaving untouched those schools in more affiuent areas with comparable performance and enrollments. TheCPS schools that were "turned around" have not all shown significant improvement in student achievement,and instead, have shown increases in tensions and violence inside and outside of school.[9]MYTH: Because competition leads to improvement, school "choice" options are necessary, and because theprivate sector can do better what the public has failed to do, the "choice" options must involve privatization.REALITY: Philanthropies altogether spend almost $4 billion annually on education, dominated by a handfulof foundations that advance initiatives of choice, competition, deregulation, and accountability, despite thatschool-choice, voucher, and restrictive-enrollment programs have not proven to be more effective in increasingdistrict overall student achievement.[10] In some cases, poorer neighborhoods in Chicago saw reductions infunding even while enrollments rose, and there is evidence that choice programs exacerbate racialsegregation.[11] Similarly, the private sector has not proven to be more effective at improving schools, despitea rapid increase in expenditure of outsourcing services and products, including school management, curriculum,and assessments. The majority ofprivately run schools, including charter schools, operated with deficit budgetsin recent years and/or violated such public-accountability measures as the Open Meetings Act and Freedom ofInformation Act. - . . . . ~ : . MYTH: Charter schools are more effective than traditional public school based on standardized test scores, andtheir freedom from bureaucratic red tape makes them more efficient.REALITY: Actually, 37% of charter schools do worse and 46% achieve the same on tests as traditionalpublic schools, with only 17% of charter schools performing better.[12] Charter schools spend less oninstruction and have higher administrative costs, including for-profit management services. [13] They areexempted from Dlinois state laws that require a voting majority ofLocal School Councils to be parents, and inChicago, less than 5% ofcharter-school board members are parents. [14] Charter schools are not all required toenroll students with special needs, including English language learners and students with disabilities, and areincentivized to push out and keep out lower-scoring students. While some parents and families may perceive


3/7

that select specialty or charter schools provide viable pathways for young people, the success of some of theseschools has not improved the overall school system. [IS]PLEDGE: Chicago's mayor must pledge to:

Draw on the expertise of educators and researchers, not primarily the business and philanthropysectors, to develop policies and reforms. Halt the school-turnaround process, adequately evaluate its effectiveness, and then develop and applystandards for school turnaround or closure that are research-based, consistent, fair, and transparent; Enforce policies for public accountability, and require all schools that are supported by public funds toconstitute Local School Councils with a voting majority ofparents; Provide district leaders who are knowledgeable about education and urban contexts and skillful incollaborative and democratic decision-making processes, starting with a credentialed superintendent ofCPS, and transitioning from mayoral control to a democratically elected school board that isaccountable to the public.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON CPS REFORMS: William Ayers, University ofIDinois at Chicago (retired), [email protected] Leslie Bloom, Roosevelt University, [email protected] Gabriel Alejandro Cortez, Northeastern Dlinois University, [email protected] Lynette ~ m m o n s , National Louis University, [email protected] Michael Klonsky, DePaul University, mklonsky@de,paul.edu Dan A. Lewis, Northwestern University, [email protected] Amanda M. Maddocks, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] Marlene V. Meisels, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] Kenneth Saltman, DePaul University, [email protected] David Stovall, University of IDinois at Chicago, [email protected]: Improve Teaching and Learning Effectiveness by Developing Standards, Curricula, andAssessments that are Skills-Based, not Sorting-Based.

MYTH: A standardized cuniculum, with emphasis on basic reading and mathematics, will raise standards.REALITY: In districts with mandated, scripted curriculums, or in schools that inevitably narrow thecurriculum in order to prepare for high-stakes testing, students are covering less content in ways that do notrequire higher-order thinking skills and do nothing to prepare them for engaged democratic citizenship. Thestandardfor student learning is being lowered, not raised, and those students who struggle the most are evenless likely to be served by cuniculums designed with little knowledge of he unique needs in a given school andcommunity.[16] One of the many subjects being cut is the arts, particularly for students in low-incomecommunities ofcolor, despite that arts education contributes significantly to creative problem-solving skills andto social and emotionalleaming, which are all essential for academic success.[l7] In contrast are nations suchas Finland where broad, rich curriculums with diverse, flexible, and rigorous standards are developed at theschool level by teachers and school administrators, and where students perfonn at the highest levelsinternationally with little variation between schools.[18]MYTH: High-stakes testing is an effective way to measure learning and to hold students, educators, andschools accountable.REALITY: High-stakes tests may effectively measure a small set of knowledge and skills, but they do notmeasure higher-order thinking skills and a broad set of knowledge, and consequently, offer a very narrowpicture o fwhat students have learned and how we/I teachers have taught. Grade retention that results fromnarrow measures of academic preparedness can increase student risk for problems in school, includingincreased drop-out rates, and even when the student is promoted, the use of such assessments to sort studentscreates tracks within grade levels that reflect racial, ethnic, and social-class differences and that function todirect entire categories of students toward low-wage jobs or incarceration.[19] When such narrow and biasedassessments are then tied to teacher evaluation and compensation, the result is a system that rewards narrowand biased teaching.[20]MYTH: Good teachers are primarily those who know what they are teaching and need not have learned how toteach or be able to connect to the community.

CReATE, "Chica o School Re onn. It June 2011 uodated ' D. 3


4/7

REALITY: Chicago Public Schools has reserved teaching vacancies for graduates of fast-track alternativecertification programs, despite that such graduates overwhelmingly report that they are ill-prepared for thereality of schools, and have not shown to be more effective at raising student achievement. Programs likeTeach For America recruit bright college graduates but offer little pre-service preparation, and then see theirparticipants leave the profession after an average of three years.[21 ] In contrast, teachers with communityknowledge and connections are more likely to raise student achievement, as well as to participate in long-termefforts at school-community partnerships and teacher professionalization, including mentoring andcollaboratively improving working conditions.[22]PLEDGE: Chicago's mayor must pledge to:

Support teachers and school administrators in developing broad, rich curriculum that centers ondiverse, flexible, and rigorous standards and that is targeted to their students' unique and variedstrengths and needs. Create more complex and accurate assessments and use them not to penalize students or teachers, butto identify what additional resources or services are needed, such as with multi-layered performancebased assessments that are used formatively. Invest in high-quality and long-term teacher preparation.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT:

John Duffy, National-Louis University, [email protected] Gouwens, Roosevelt University, [email protected] Hilton, Saint Xavier University, [email protected] Holland, Northeastern illinois University, [email protected] Katsarou, University of llinois at Chicago, [email protected] Kim, Lewis University, [email protected] Quinn Knight, Saint Xavier University, [email protected], DePaul University, [email protected] Michie, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] Nunez, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] Quinn, School of he Art Institute ofChicago, [email protected], University oflliinois at Chicago, [email protected] H. Schubert, Umversity ofDlinois at Chicago, [email protected] D. Schultz, Northeastern illinois University, [email protected] Sobe, Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Soljaga, Concordia University Chicago, [email protected] I. Wheeler, Northeastern illinois University, [email protected]

VISION: Ensure the Support, Dignity, and Human and Civil Rights of Every Student.MYTH: Students are as likely to find the necessary support for school success in large schools and classroomsas in small ones.REALITY: Next to parental income level, school size is the key factor in school success. Defined as under 500students at the elementary level and between 1000 and 2500 at the secondary level, small schools do better onevery measure: graduation rates, attendance, grades, test scores, violence, drug abuse, suicide. Smaller schoolsand classrooms make it more likely for every child to be well-known by a teacher, for teachers to collaborate,and for parents and families to participate, and not swprisingly, in the nation's wealthiest private schools, classsize is typically limited to 15 in elementary schools and 25 in high schools.[23]MYTH: Safer and more effective schools result from tougher punishment or militarized discipline.REALITY: There is no evidence that punishment leads to safer schools. However, research confinns thatschools punish certain gender, racial, and sexual-identity groups more often and more severely than others.From as early as preschool, boys are expelled almost five times as often as girls; for all grade levels, AfricanAmerican students are suspended or expelled at rates several times higher than an y other group; andnonheterosexual youth experience school sanctions up to three times more often than heterosexual youth.[24]Similarly, there is no evidence that military programs increase academic success, and yet, Chicago has themost mUitarized public-school system in the nation. The military high schools, JROTC, and Cadet programsenroll a disproportionately high percentage of students of color, reflecting the broader strategy to recruitAfrican American and Latino males from low-income areas for first-responder positions in U.S. wars abroad.


5/7

Military programs are reducing coursework in academic content (replacing them with JROTC courses, forexample), and graduates of such programs are not always receiving the financial benefits promised. Themajority of expenses to run such programs are covered by Chicago taxpayers, not the Department of Defense,totaling over $9 million.[25]MYTH: Public education is already supportive and effective for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,questioning (LGBTQ) and gender non-conforming youth; for English language learners; and for undocumentedimmigrant students.REALITY: Despite state laws and district policies that prohibit discrimination and address bullying based onsexual orientation and gender identity, many LGBTQ and gender non-conlorming youth are experiencingverbal and physical discrimination and harassment, are not able to identify adult supporters, and are notlearning accurate infonnation about gender, sex, and sexual orientation; and teacher-preparation programs inDlinois are not adequately preparing teachers to address such bias based on sexual orientation and genderidentity.[26] Despite evidence that developmental bilingual education is correlated with the strongestoutcomeslor academic achievement in Englishlor English language learners, schools continue to operate asif such students will learn English faster through immersion in an English-only school experience.[27] Despitethe U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states may not discriminate against students enrolling in K-12 publicschools on the basis 01their legal status, clear guidelines do not exist for higher education. In the absence offederal guidelines, states have created their own rules. Although undocumented students can apply to mostcolleges, they are not eligible for federal or state financial aid. Conservative estimates put the number ofundocumented children at 1.7 million, with 65,000 of those who have lived in the United States for five yearsor longer graduating from high school, and between 7,000-13,000 enrolling in colleges.[28]PLEDGE: Chicago's mayor must pledge to:

Limit the number of students in every school and every classroom to the levels that research hasdetermined to be optimal. Provide successful restorative- and transformation-justice programs instead of tougher punishmentpolicies and practices. Halt the establishment and expansion of all military programs, phase out JROTC programs, and investinstead in programs that research has shown to be effective in fostering academic success, discipline,

leadership, and college pathways. Improve both pre-service and in-service preparation for all school personnel about diversity and equityregarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and provide adequate resources tosupport students, operate programs, and monitor compliance. Provide high-quality developmental bilingual education programs. In the absence of federal legalization or pathways such as the DREAM Act, create other avenues foraccessible higher education.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON STUDENT SUPPORT AND RIGHTS: Horace Hall, DePaul University, [email protected] Stacey Hom, University ofDlinois at Chicago, s s h o m ~ e d u Crystal Laura, Chicago State University, ctlaura2_21]!ail.com Kathleen McInerney, Saint Xavier University, [email protected] Erica Meiners, Northeastern Dlinois University, e - m e i n e r s ~ e i u . e d u Karen Monkman, DePaul University, [email protected] .edu C h r i s t o p ~ e r J. Palmi, Lewis University, [email protected] Kate Philljppo, Lyola University C l i i c a g o ~ h i l l i p p o @ J u c . e d u Amy Shuffelton, University ofWisconsin, -'tewater, [email protected] Sonia Soltero, DePaul University, [email protected] Geni Spinella, National-Louis University, [email protected] June Tetpstra, Northeastern Dlinois University, [email protected]

REFERENCES

CReATE, "Chicago School Refonn, " June 2011 updated , p. 5


6/7

[I ] Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-o/-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and thePublic Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit http://nepc.colorado.edulpublicationlpovertv-and-ootential. Lipman, P.(2011). The New Political Economy o/Urban Education: Neoliberalism. Race. and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge.[2] Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools.Educational Researcher 35(7),3-12.[3] Molnar, A., Rosenshine, B., Lugg, C., Howley, C., Downey, D., Glass, G., Bracey, G., Kupermintz, H., Finn, J., Carini, R., Reitzug,U., & Barnett, S. (2002). School Refonn Proposals: The Research Evidence. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory.http://nenc.colorado.edulpublicationlschool-refonn-proposaIs-the-research-evidence.[4] Miner, B. (2009, Autumn). The Debate over Differentiated Pay: The Devil is in the Details. Rethinking Schools.http://www.rethinkingschools.orglrestrict.asp?nath=archiveJ24 01124 01 pay.shtml[S] Kozol, J. (2006). The Shame o/the Nation: The Restoration0/Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Broadway.[6] Myers, J., & Anderson, V. (2005). Assessing Inequities in School Funding with Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Catalyst Chicago.http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/newslindex.php?item=16S0&cat=23.[7] Justice Policy Institute. (2002). CeJlb/ocks Or Classrooms?: The Funding O/Higher Education and Corrections and Its Impact onA/rican American Men. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepoIicy.orglimagesluploadl02-09 REP CellblocksClassrooms BB-AC.od Kim, C., LoseD, D., & Hewitt, D. (2010). The School to Prison Pipeline: StructuringLegal Refonn. New York: NYU Press.[8] Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. (2006). Funding a Quality Education Requires Fiscal Rf!jOnn. Chicago: CTBA.http://www.ctbaonline.orglEducation.htm.[9] Cassidy, L., Humphrey, D. C., Weschler, M. E., & Young, V. M. (2009). High School Refonn in Chicago: Renaissance 2010.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. http://ccsr.uchicago.edulpublications/otherlRenaisance 2010.pdf. Fleming, J.,Greenlee,A, Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., & Smith, J. (2009). Examining CPS' Plan to Close. Phase Out. Consolidate, Turn-around22 Schools. Data and Democracy Project. Research Paper #2. Chicago: CErn. http://www.uic.eduleduclcejeJresources.html.Gwynne, J., & de la Torre, M. (2009). When Schools Close. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.http://ccsr.uchicago.edulcontentlpublications.php?pub id= 136.[10] Barkan, J. (2011, Winter). Got Dough? Public School Refonn in the Age ofVenture Philanthropy. Dissent Magazine.http://www.dissentmagazine.org/articlef1article=37SI. Kovacs, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Gates Foundation and the 'Future' o/PublicEducation. New York: Routledge. Saltman, K. J. (2009). The rise ofventure philanthropy and the ongoing neoliberaI assault onpublic education: The case of he Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. Workplace 16, S2-67. Saltman, K. J. (20 I 0). The Gift0/Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.[ I I ] Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2008). The Competitive Effect o/School Choice Policies on Perfonnance in Traditional Public Schools.Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unithttp://neoc.colorado.edulpublicationlthe-competitive-effect-school-choice-policies-perfonnance-traditional-public-schools. Wolf,P. J. (2010). The Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation o/ the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Summary o/Third YearReports. Fayetteville: UniversityofArizona School Choice Demonstration Project.http://www.uark.edulualder/SCDPlMiIwaukee EvalIReport 14.pdf.[12] Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (200S). The Charter School Dust Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollmentand Achievement. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Finnigan, K., Adelman, N., Anderson, L., Cotton, L., Donnelly,M.B., & Price, T. (2004). Evaluation o/the Public Charter Schools Program: Final evaluation report. Washington, DC: USDepartmentof Education.[13] Miron, G. & Urschel, J.L. (2010). Equal or Fair? A Study0/Revenues and Expenditure in American Charter Schools. Boulder andTempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit Retrieved [SI9/11]from http://eoicpolicv.orglpublicationlcharter-school-finance http://e.picpolicy.orglpublicationlcharter-school-finance.[14] Lipman, P., & Hursh, D. (2007). Renaissance 2010: Thereassertion of ruling class power through neoliberal policies in Chicago.Policy Futures in Education (5)2. Saltman, K. J. (2007). Capitalizing on Disaster: TakingandBreaking Public Schools. Boulder,CO: Paradigm Publishers.[IS) Karp, S. (2010, August). Budget Landmines. Catalyst Chicago. http://www.catalystchicago.omlnewslindex.php?item=263S&cat=23. Miron, G., Urschel, J. L, Mathis, W., & T o ~ q u i s t , E. (2010). Schools withoutDiversity: Education Management Organizations. Charter Schools and the Demographic Stratification o/theAmerican SchoolSystem. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Uni thttp://epicpoIicy.orglpublicationlschools-without-diversity. WoestehoH: J. (2008). Public Accountability and Renaissance 2010: AReport o/Parents Unitedfor Responsible Education. Chicago: PURE. http://pureparents.orgldatalfilesIFOlAreportll-16-08.pdf.[16] Mathis, W.J. (2010). The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Rf!jOnn Tool? Boulder and Tempe: Education and thePublic Interest Center & Educational Policy Research Uni t http://neoc.colorado.edulpublicationlcommon-core-standards.[17] Eisner, E., & Day, M. (2004). Handbook0/Research andPolicy in Art Education. New York: Routledge. Dlinois Creates. (2005).Arts at the Core: Every School. Every Student. Chicago: Illinois Arts Alliance. http://www.artsaIIiance.org. Kroll, A (2009, August30). Fast Times at Recruitment High. MotherJones. http://motheriones.com!politicsl2009/08/fast-times-recruitment-high. Zehr,M.

(2009). Access to Arts Education. Education Week. 25(S), S.[IS] Kupiainen, S., Hautamiki, J., & Karjalainen, T. (2009). The Finnish Education System and PISA. Helsinki, Finland: The MiniStlyofEducation.[19] Forum on Educational Accountability. (2007). Assessment and Accountability/or Improving Schools and Learning: Principles andRecommendationsfor Federal Law and State and Local Systems. Boston, MA: Forum on Educational Accountability.http://www.edaccountability.orglreports.htmI.[20] Hincher, P. (2010). Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn From Research. Boulder, CO: NationalEducation Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edulpublicationlgetting-teacher-assessment-right Holme, J. J., Richartfs, M. P.,Jimerson, J.B., & Cohen, R. W. (2010). Assessing the Effects ofHigh School Exit Examinations. Review o/Educational Research.80(4), 476-S26. Sirotnik, K. (2004). Holding Accountability Accountable: What Ought to Matter in Public Education. New York:Teachers College Press. Tollefson, K. (2008). Volatile Knowing: Parents, Teachers. and the Censored Story0/AccountabilityinAmerica 's Public Schools. New York: Lexington Books.[21] Grossman, G., & Loeb, S. (2008). Alternative Routes to Teaching: Mapping the New Landscape o/Teacher Education. Cambridge:Harvard Education Press. Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach For America: A Review o/the Evidence. Boulder and Tempe:Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit http://nepc.colorado.edulpublicationlteach-foramerica.[22] Molnar, A, Rosenshine, B., Lugg, C., Howley, C., Downey, D., Glass, G., Bracey, G., Kupermintz, H., Finn, J., Carini, R.,Reitzug, U., & Barnett, S. (2002). School Refonn Proposals: The Research Evidence. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy StudiesLaboratory. htto:llnepc.colorado.edulpublicationlschoo1-refonn-proposaIs-the-research-evidence.


7/7

[23] Meier, D. (2002). In Schools We TlUSt: Creating Communities 0/Learning in an Era o/Testing and Standardization. Boston, MA:Beacon Press. S t r i k ~ K. (2010). Small Schools and Strong Communities: A Third Way o/School Refonn. New York: TeachersCollege Press.[24] Gilliam, W. (2005). Prekindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in State Prekindergarten Programs. New York: Foundationfor Child Development http://www.fcd-us.org/resourceslprek-3rd-policy-briefs.Gregory.A.Skiba. R, & Noguera, P. (2010). TheAchievement Gap and the Discipline Gap: Two Sides of he Same Coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68. Himmelstein, K.,& Bruckner, H. (2010). Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against Non-Heterosexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study.Pediatrics, 127(1),48-57. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The Effect ofEducation on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates,Arrests, and Self-Reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155-189. Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education:Urban Muldle Schools in Crisis. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.http://www.splcenter.orglsitesldefaultlfilesldownloadslpublicationlSuspended Education.pdf.[25] Anderson, G. L. (2009). The Politics ofAnother Side: Truth-in-Military-Recruiting Advocacy in an Urban School District. Journal0/Educational Policy, 23(1), 267-291. Diener, S., & Munro, J. (2005). Military Money for College: A Reality Check. PeaceworkMagazine. http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pworkl0506/050607.htm. Hagopian, A, & Barker, K. (2011). Should We EndMilitary Recruiting in High Schools as a Matter ofChild Protection and Public Health? American Journal ofPublic Health, 101(1),19-23.[26] Biegel, S., & Kuehl, S. J. (2010). Saft at School: Addressing the School Environment and LGBTSa/ety through Policy andLegislation. Tempe and Los Angeles: Education Policy Research Unit and UCLA Williams Institute.http://epicpolicv.org/publicationlresearch-that-reaches. Illinois Safe Schools Alliance. (2010). Visibility Matters 2010: HigherEducation and TeacherlSocial Work Preparation in Illinois: A Web-based Assessment0/LGBTQ Presence. Chicago: ISSAhttp://wwwoillinoissafeschools.org/page attachmentslOOOO/0116/visibilitv matters full report final.pdf. Kosciw, J. G., & Diu, E.D. (2009). Shared Differences: The ExperienceofLesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Students o/Color in Our Nation'sSchools. New York: GLSEN.[27] Collier, V. P. (1989). How Long? A Synthesis ofResearch on Academic Achievement in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly,23(3),509-531. Gandara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies.New York: Teachers College Press.[28] Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic Youth Dropping Out o/U.S. Schools: Measuring the Challenge. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.http://pewhispanic.orglrqx>rtslreportphp?ReoortID=19. Lopez, M.P.,& Lopez, O. (2010). Persistent Inequality: ContemporaryRealities in the Education ofUndocumented Latina/o Students. New York: Routledge. Mehta, C., & Ali, A (2003). Education forAll: Chicago's Undocumented Immigrants and Their Access to Higher Education. Chicago: UIC Center for Urban EconomicDevelopment http://www.urbaneconomy.orglsitesldefuultlfileslundocumentedlmmigrants edu 22.pdf. National Center for PublicPolicy and Higher Education (2005). Policy Alert. Income ofu.s. Workforce Projected to Decline ifEducation Doesn't Improve.San J o ~ CA: NCPPHE. http://www.highereducation.org/rqx>rtslpa decline/pa decline,pdf.

Prepared June 2011 (updated) byCReATE(Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education)http://[email protected]

Documents

Chicago School Reform: Myths, Realities, and New Visions