Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't feel as sheltered as some people who've only attended Catholic or Charter schools their whole lives, constantly fearing minority children in the same classroom as them.
Huh? As someone who attended parochial schools for 12 years I find this amusing. Then again I've heard some very strange things on what was thought to be taught in such settings.
Mostly my younger relatives flee for more interesting places. The older ones stay and a few move to Arizona or Texas.
The few young relatives that do stay do so simply out of obligation to family and the need for a support group. None of the younger relatives really want to actually live there.
What's the issue with Chicago's Public school? Especially in the nicer and more white collar areas? I know many people, myself included, who are a product of the public school system, it seems our overall success was more or less based on our personal initiative and the upbringing in our homes, the school environment was not a determent in our cases. I myself am thankful for my experiences in public schools, I don't feel as sheltered as some people who've only attended Catholic or Charter schools their whole lives, constantly fearing minority children in the same classroom as them.
Obviously I've never attended Chicago's schools, but on the north side what is so bad about them?
Good question. I didn't attend one either, but I was a teacher and educational researcher in a past life... and some very good friends of mine in Chi are discovering what the school options are for their kids. So I'll give you my long-winded opinion.
It comes down to what many (note not all) middle class and well educated people want for their children. We can look at the aggregated stats of CPS and say "they're doing alright". But that's an average. And more to the point, the standards are low. America is socio-economically stratifying at a rapid pace. To get ahead in life, people now need the best opportunities, colleges and internships they can get their hands on. (Unless we're talking about serious family money, which trumps the whole school-college-internship horror.)
As we know, such opportunities are only offered to the highest percentiles of the population. Just doing well relative to a low benchmark ain't going to cut it. Educated parents want their kids to have a shot at the top, or near enough to it.
And after family, which you rightly mention, the single biggest factor in success at a high level is peer group. Competing against motivated, successful peers creates a positive feedback loop of success. In a high-achieving school, learning how to graph, say arg(z+1) + arg(z-1) = pi/3 on the complex plane, in the tenth grade, doesn't put you in the 'honors' class. It puts you in the middle of the pack. If your friends are reading Orwell or Chekhov in the seventh grade then you'll likely try that too.
Inversely, if a large majority of the children around you are underachieving and have middling expectations of themselves then that positive feedback simply isn't there. You'll think you're something special if by the tenth grade you can solve quadratic inequalities, and you'll be unaware of the urgency presented by the large, unseen and high-achieving cohort accelerating ahead of you.
Then there's the problems of classroom chaos and adverse factors like gangs. It doesn't take many troublemakers to pull a classroom environment completely off the rails. And the more that are added, the worse it becomes, exponentially. Chaotic classrooms are hopeless places to learn. Add enough troublemakers, whose families don't value education and whom the school cannot expel, and school begins to put headwinds into a child's progress.
Gangs, moreover, cast long shadows over schools and the environment around schools. Again, it doesn't take all students being associated with gangs to cause damage. Just enough of them. Kids should be worrying about getting places in academic olympiads, not running afoul of gangs.
Finally, there's the matter of where schools focus their resources. Schools that pack a lot of students off to top-tier colleges can provide huge benefits. Through experience, they can advise students what co-curriculars to do, what classes to take, what grades to earn. They know what selectors are looking for in written references. Good schools can put their money and staff time into offering many levels of acceleration. (The Iranian Geometry Olympiad needs at least one body to administer it.)
Not-so-good schools are stuck diverting resources into addressing behavior disabilities and teaching illiterate, and reluctant students some elementary skills.
Now you are correct that some schools in expensive North Side neighborhoods are pretty good. Lincoln Park High has a good IB program, if I recall. Some, however, are not. Look up the neighborhood school for people South of Oak Street in the Near North.
Worse, say you're on a decent income -- two parents on ~80K -- but you have two or three kids. No way you're squeezing them into your condo when they're teenagers. And the only larger places available in your range are in neighborhoods with not-so-good schools, whose students largely have middling (or worse) expectations, and who must pour resources and time into addressing illiteracy and behavioral disabilities.
At this stage you're thinking 'my kid isn't a genius. He isn't likely to sketch hyperbolas on the complex plane at fifteen. But he needs the best possible set of circumstances to optimize his chances at success'. Sure, you have the possibility of testing into selectives, but thanks to geographical selection shenanigans, there's a damned good chance he's going to miss out. Then you look at the suburbs and the choice is an absolute no-brainer.
It's worth emphasizing that school environment and peer group is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for success. But it sure does help your chances. And the inverse is true, too. Remember, each person only gets one shot out of the cannon. You're doing your kids a disservice if you don't make damned sure you've stuffed it with powder. Educated and middle-class parents are hyper-aware of this necessity.
Now, I'd like to acknowledge that in America, all this stuff has been mixed up with race. That's very unfortunate because it means nobody wants to talk about it. For what it's worth, in my home country the least desirable schools are almost monolithically white. They are, however, afflicted with the same home-life, behavioral, learning and gang problems as low-achieving schools in the US. And like most Americans (I hope), people avoid such schools for the reasons I've belaboured, not because the students are the wrong color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical
Mostly my younger relatives flee for more interesting places. The older ones stay and a few move to Arizona or Texas.
The few young relatives that do stay do so simply out of obligation to family and the need for a support group. None of the younger relatives really want to actually live there.
Baiter
Last edited by compactspace; 12-12-2015 at 12:04 AM..
Reason: Wrong verb.
I think one of the big problems is probably the fact that a lot of highly educated parents who are very successful in life and have earned a good amount of money send their kids to the non-public schools. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it's contributing slightly to the problem. Where I grew up, our public schools were excellent and though we had private schools that cost tens of thousands per year, most people could not understand why you'd even have to consider that. In Chicago, it's much more of the norm.
I think one of the big problems is probably the fact that a lot of highly educated parents who are very successful in life and have earned a good amount of money send their kids to the non-public schools. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it's contributing slightly to the problem. Where I grew up, our public schools were excellent and though we had private schools that cost tens of thousands per year, most people could not understand why you'd even have to consider that. In Chicago, it's much more of the norm.
That's very true. I grew up in Roscoe Village and basically if you didn't get into schools like Lane Tech, Whitney, Northside, etc, you were then sent to a private school.
It's interesting because the CPS schools that are good are very very very good and the best in the state and in the nation. After those top notch schools it really takes a plunge. There really isn't a middle ground in CPS. You either go to a really good school or one that is very sub par.
That's very true. I grew up in Roscoe Village and basically if you didn't get into schools like Lane Tech, Whitney, Northside, etc, you were then sent to a private school.
It's interesting because the CPS schools that are good are very very very good and the best in the state and in the nation. After those top notch schools it really takes a plunge. There really isn't a middle ground in CPS. You either go to a really good school or one that is very sub par.
I'm not too familiar with the process of schools here, but I do see many comments talking about how hard it is for teachers to get jobs here. To me, that seems like a massive barrier. Someone great might want to teach in Chicago and then runs into the ridiculous process, and then says "screw it" and looks for positions in other cities. To me that seems like one of the biggest barriers with attracting any sort of good talent. When your process is so big and inefficient, it can end up hurting you big time. I've heard of this elsewhere in Chicago's governments - building permit review process is another one I've heard from a few developers and people in the know. They've stated that the process is so time consuming that it's ended up actually hurting Chicago. According to them, the city would have double the amount of construction or more, and not just in the major areas (i.e. north side, downtown) if the government process was more in line with other cities. There's a lost of pissed off developers in town apparently. So that kind of reminded me of the school thing where the process is so ridiculous that it ends up really hurting the city in the end.
Mostly solid explanation of some major factors, but it leaves out the blame that bad leadership and voters carry...
Quote:
Originally Posted by compactspace
Good question. I didn't attend one either, but I was a teacher and educational researcher in a past life... and some very good friends of mine in Chi are discovering what the school options are for their kids. So I'll give you my long-winded opinion.
It comes down to what many (note not all) middle class and well educated people want for their children. We can look at the aggregated stats of CPS and say "they're doing alright". But that's an average. And more to the point, the standards are low. America is socio-economically stratifying at a rapid pace. To get ahead in life, people now need the best opportunities, colleges and internships they can get their hands on. (Unless we're talking about serious family money, which trumps the whole school-college-internship horror.)
As we know, such opportunities are only offered to the highest percentiles of the population. Just doing well relative to a low benchmark ain't going to cut it. Educated parents want their kids to have a shot at the top, or near enough to it.
And after family, which you rightly mention, the single biggest factor in success at a high level is peer group. Competing against motivated, successful peers creates a positive feedback loop of success. In a high-achieving school, learning how to graph, say arg(z+1) + arg(z-1) = pi/3 on the complex plane, in the tenth grade, doesn't put you in the 'honors' class. It puts you in the middle of the pack. If your friends are reading Orwell or Chekhov in the seventh grade then you'll likely try that too.
Inversely, if a large majority of the children around you are underachieving and have middling expectations of themselves then that positive feedback simply isn't there. You'll think you're something special if by the tenth grade you can solve quadratic inequalities, and you'll be unaware of the urgency presented by the large, unseen and high-achieving cohort accelerating ahead of you.
Then there's the problems of classroom chaos and adverse factors like gangs. It doesn't take many troublemakers to pull a classroom environment completely off the rails. And the more that are added, the worse it becomes, exponentially. Chaotic classrooms are hopeless places to learn. Add enough troublemakers, whose families don't value education and whom the school cannot expel, and school begins to put headwinds into a child's progress.
Gangs, moreover, cast long shadows over schools and the environment around schools. Again, it doesn't take all students being associated with gangs to cause damage. Just enough of them. Kids should be worrying about getting places in academic olympiads, not running afoul of gangs.
Finally, there's the matter of where schools focus their resources. Schools that pack a lot of students off to top-tier colleges can provide huge benefits. Through experience, they can advise students what co-curriculars to do, what classes to take, what grades to earn. They know what selectors are looking for in written references. Good schools can put their money and staff time into offering many levels of acceleration. (The Iranian Geometry Olympiad needs at least one body to administer it.)
Not-so-good schools are stuck diverting resources into addressing behavior disabilities and teaching illiterate, and reluctant students some elementary skills.
Now you are correct that some schools in expensive North Side neighborhoods are pretty good. Lincoln Park High has a good IB program, if I recall. Some, however, are not. Look up the neighborhood school for people South of Oak Street in the Near North.
Worse, say you're on a decent income -- two parents on ~80K -- but you have two or three kids. No way you're squeezing them into your condo when they're teenagers. And the only larger places available in your range are in neighborhoods with not-so-good schools, whose students largely have middling (or worse) expectations, and who must pour resources and time into addressing illiteracy and behavioral disabilities.
At this stage you're thinking 'my kid isn't a genius. He isn't likely to sketch hyperbolas on the complex plane at fifteen. But he needs the best possible set of circumstances to optimize his chances at success'. Sure, you have the possibility of testing into selectives, but thanks to geographical selection shenanigans, there's a damned good chance he's going to miss out. Then you look at the suburbs and the choice is an absolute no-brainer.
It's worth emphasizing that school environment and peer group is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for success. But it sure does help your chances. And the inverse is true, too. Remember, each person only gets one shot out of the cannon. You're doing your kids a disservice if you don't make damned sure you've stuffed it with powder. Educated and middle-class parents are hyper-aware of this necessity.
Now, I'd like to acknowledge that in America, all this stuff has been mixed up with race. That's very unfortunate because it means nobody wants to talk about it. For what it's worth, in my home country the least desirable schools are almost monolithically white. They are, however, afflicted with the same home-life, behavioral, learning and gang problems as low-achieving schools in the US. And like most Americans (I hope), people avoid such schools for the reasons I've belaboured, not because the students are the wrong color.
...
There are more than a few CPS "regular" high schools that ought to be performing much better than they are based on the demographics of the nearby community, the reason they are not is largely the incompetent policies of CPS. The other day, in a thread about Rogers Park, I highlighted the abysmal performance of Sullivan High. I find it kind of shocking that the city manages to get a school that ends up with greater than 94% low income -- SULLIVAN HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The thing is, pretty much every CPS high school ends up as over represented with low income students. The quiet NW side neighbor that is home to Taft has more than 64% low income -- TAFT HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The weird thing is that it not JUST the low income factor -- heck even top tier schools reflect the depressing reality of how concentrated poverty has become in Chicago --
Northside Prep is over 68% low income -- NORTHSIDE COLLEGE PREPARATORY HS: School Profile
Payton Prep is over 68% low income -- PAYTON COLLEGE PREPARATORY HS: School Profile
Lane Technical is one of the least low income at 59.4% low income -- LANE TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Young Magnet is over 68% low income -- YOUNG MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Jones Prep may be one of the only CPS high schools to not have a majority of low income students, with "just" 44.9% -- JONES COLLEGE PREP HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Lincoln Park High is over 68% low income -- LINCOLN PARK HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The fact is those schools do far more to either "concentrate on the kids motivated to perform" or if you have a different view "skim off the cream"...
In either view, the take away is that whatever is "working" to help sustain respectable levels of performance at schools that do have similar levels of low income students, like Lincoln Park, is missing from the students at Taft. And the role of segregating students via entrance tests, that seem to be a large part of the success of Young, Jones, Lane, Northside and Payton, almost certainly distort both their performance upwards and subsequently leave a far less prepared pool of students for the neighborhoods schools.
There are some that would argue that there are too many kids with too many problems in CPS, that seems worse than a cop out, it essentially dooms those kids to schools of concentrated non-performance. The odds of any of kid from Sullivan (or similar concentrated failure...) seeing any success after high school is just depressingly grim...
Sadly the same kind of idiotic mindset that is all too willing to give corrupt politicians that have been proven their incompetence more terms in office is also rampant among too many Chicago residents that ought to be demanding improvement in the schools. Just stay 'chill' and watch things continue their spiral toward more chaos...
Sadly the same kind of idiotic mindset that is all too willing to give corrupt politicians that have been proven their incompetence more terms in office is also rampant among too many Chicago residents that ought to be demanding improvement in the schools. Just stay 'chill' and watch things continue their spiral toward more chaos...
There are more than a few CPS "regular" high schools that ought to be performing much better than they are based on the demographics of the nearby community, the reason they are not is largely the incompetent policies of CPS. The other day, in a thread about Rogers Park, I highlighted the abysmal performance of Sullivan High. I find it kind of shocking that the city manages to get a school that ends up with greater than 94% low income -- SULLIVAN HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The thing is, pretty much every CPS high school ends up as over represented with low income students. The quiet NW side neighbor that is home to Taft has more than 64% low income -- TAFT HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The weird thing is that it not JUST the low income factor -- heck even top tier schools reflect the depressing reality of how concentrated poverty has become in Chicago --
Northside Prep is over 68% low income -- NORTHSIDE COLLEGE PREPARATORY HS: School Profile
Payton Prep is over 68% low income -- PAYTON COLLEGE PREPARATORY HS: School Profile
Lane Technical is one of the least low income at 59.4% low income -- LANE TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Young Magnet is over 68% low income -- YOUNG MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Jones Prep may be one of the only CPS high schools to not have a majority of low income students, with "just" 44.9% -- JONES COLLEGE PREP HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
Lincoln Park High is over 68% low income -- LINCOLN PARK HIGH SCHOOL: School Profile
The fact is those schools do far more to either "concentrate on the kids motivated to perform" or if you have a different view "skim off the cream"...
In either view, the take away is that whatever is "working" to help sustain respectable levels of performance at schools that do have similar levels of low income students, like Lincoln Park, is missing from the students at Taft. And the role of segregating students via entrance tests, that seem to be a large part of the success of Young, Jones, Lane, Northside and Payton, almost certainly distort both their performance upwards and subsequently leave a far less prepared pool of students for the neighborhoods schools.
There are some that would argue that there are too many kids with too many problems in CPS, that seems worse than a cop out, it essentially dooms those kids to schools of concentrated non-performance. The odds of any of kid from Sullivan (or similar concentrated failure...) seeing any success after high school is just depressingly grim...
Sadly the same kind of idiotic mindset that is all too willing to give corrupt politicians that have been proven their incompetence more terms in office is also rampant among too many Chicago residents that ought to be demanding improvement in the schools. Just stay 'chill' and watch things continue their spiral toward more chaos...
As another poster pointed out, it's about the student's culture at home (how do their parent's view education, how do their parents view drug use, how do their parents view sex etc.), their peers (gang affiliated or not, drug users or not, motivated or not) and, I'll add, how they see themselves.
I just watched a short clip of Chad Adams, principal of Sullivan High School, and part of the reason, in his eyes, that his students aren't succeeding is because of racism and the lack of funding due to this perceived racism. He brought up New Trier as an example of this unfair budgeting.
Last year estimates indicated a decline in population, while the three years of estimates before then indicated growth. What the final numbers will be when the 2020 census is actually conducted and through, who knows, but my guess is that it will be overall a small increase.
Something you have to understand about Chicago is that even though it is growing (at basically the bare minimum), that is coming from natural increase. Chicagoland is losing so many people to other metro areas in the US that the international migration numbers don't even make up for it. This has been the case for at least the last 40 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mostly solid explanation of some major factors, but it leaves out the blame that bad leadership and voters carry...
