The Thing about CPS schools (Chicago, Brighton: crime rate, homes, neighborhoods)

[ajolotl]

You know it's a desperate situation when places like MP and Kenwood are held up as examples of anything positive.

[lombardsouth]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Um, respectfully, several of those schools ARE primarily "selective admissions", just not EXCLUSIVELY "test based admission".

The CPS still has no conception of how neighborhood schools at any level can really be run without some kind of selective admissions program, and frankly my suspicion is they do care to attempt to re-learn those lost skills...

Thanks for your information! Being an outsider I don't have much knowledge of all the various machinations of how many schools are trying to position themselves as hybrids between zoned and metro selective schools and how well they may have accomplished that, so I appreciate your more detailed information.

[lombardsouth]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Its no coincidence that there are similarities between Chicago and Philadelphia. Paul Vallas was head of CPS until 2001 or so, and then went on to head the Philadelphia public school system.

The greatest gains in CPS over the last decade have been in the elementary schools - hopefully some of that success will be reflected in the High Schools as the elementary students progress to high school.

Well, one can only hope! I have lived in both cities and have followed both since leaving so I always wish them the best. I didn't think of that important commonality between the systems so thanks for bringing that to my attention. Vallas is no longer head of the Philly system. They now have a more traditional bureaucrat heading the system and I doubt the change is for the better.

[lombardsouth]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

You know it's a desperate situation when places like MP and Kenwood are held up as examples of anything positive.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. Maybe you should write less and read more.

[ajolotl]

You seem to be including MP and Kenwood as examples of non-selective Chicago public schools that don't suck. Your evidence is that you read some test scores and they compare favorably to test scores of some schools in downstate areas (which happen to be mostly white -- not sure why this matters).

I have a foot in both communities and know the schools pretty well on a first hand and anecdotal level. I claim that they are pretty damn awful by any normal standard. Without getting into details, I was presenting this view as a counterweight to your equally vapid argument.

Kind of weird and preachy to tell someone to read more, especially when you know nothing about them.

Originally Posted by lombardsouth

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. Maybe you should write less and read more.

[lombardsouth]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

You seem to be including MP and Kenwood as examples of non-selective Chicago public schools that don't suck. Your evidence is that you read some test scores and they compare favorably to test scores of some schools in downstate areas (which happen to be mostly white -- not sure why this matters).

I have a foot in both communities and know the schools pretty well on a first hand and anecdotal level. I claim that they are pretty damn awful by any normal standard. Without getting into details, I was presenting this view as a counterweight to your equally vapid argument.

Kind of weird and preachy to tell someone to read more, especially when you know nothing about them.

Again, an absolutely no information response. "Without getting into the details" I have "anecdotal" blah, blah, blah. Attitude "without getting into the details" or offering specifics or comparatives is something I really hate. The practice turns internet discourse into a wasteland. True, I don't know you, but, from what I've read so far, you're just another person offering no actual information that I could use to really learn about something.

My evidence of some hope is better than anything you've offered. I didn't say these schools performed well. I said they performed below average (some well below average) but at least they were significantly above the bottom. As far as "not sure why that matters," well, majority minority schools (other than asian) that are not magnet schools historically under perform majority white schools. Poverty is undoubtedly the higher correlate but ethnicity has correlated historically. Furthermore, students in inner city schools, regardless of race, face some problems not encountered anywhere to the same degree in most suburban or rural schools. If these non-magnet city schools manage to inch further toward the median of assessment measures, even slowly, I think that is some good news and reason to make us doubt whether they really do all "suck."

[Drover]

Any way you slice it, "they're below average but don't totally suck" is not a particularly compelling argument in favor of sending your kids there when there are several much better options available and easily attainable with a move to the suburbs.

[ajolotl]

When you know a dozen people over 25 years who have substitute taught at a school, a handful of teachers, have a few friends who went there (in the 80s), know a few parents who have considered it recently, eat lunch among the students a few times a month on 51st street, hear endless stories from students over the years, go to the school occasionally for functions, live in the community and know who goes there and who refuses to (of all colors -- not really a black and white issue), etc. etc -- after a while you start to get a pretty good picture of what it's like. It is a much more accurate picture than I think is possible to get looking at test scores online (which are unbelievably bad in any case). I never claimed or pretended to be packaging information in a way that could be quantitatively defended and useful to others -- I was simply stating a one-line opinion based on 25 years of many, many little things. It is widely believed in their respective communities that both MP and Kenwood were better 20 years ago. I would say that they are at a low point now, not on the upswing. Whether this is a ray of hope or not is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by lombardsouth

Again, an absolutely no information response. "Without getting into the details" I have "anecdotal" blah, blah, blah. Attitude "without getting into the details" or offering specifics or comparatives is something I really hate. The practice turns internet discourse into a wasteland. True, I don't know you, but, from what I've read so far, you're just another person offering no actual information that I could use to really learn about something.

My evidence of some hope is better than anything you've offered. I didn't say these schools performed well. I said they performed below average (some well below average) but at least they were significantly above the bottom. As far as "not sure why that matters," well, majority minority schools (other than asian) that are not magnet schools historically under perform majority white schools. Poverty is undoubtedly the higher correlate but ethnicity has correlated historically. Furthermore, students in inner city schools, regardless of race, face some problems not encountered anywhere to the same degree in most suburban or rural schools. If these non-magnet city schools manage to inch further toward the median of assessment measures, even slowly, I think that is some good news and reason to make us doubt whether they really do all "suck."

[ajolotl]

The other issue is that, regardless of how good or bad they are now, Lombard, based on his studies, sees them as on the upswing. From everything I've seen, I don't agree.

Originally Posted by Drover

Any way you slice it, "they're below average but don't totally suck" is not a particularly compelling argument in favor of sending your kids there when there are several much better options available and easily attainable with a move to the suburbs.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

The other issue is that, regardless of how good or bad they are now, Lombard, based on his studies, sees them as on the upswing. From everything I've seen, I don't agree.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I honestly don't see a major improvement happening any time soon because overcoming the inertia of crappy schools would basically require social engineering that most sane parents with the means to provide their kids with a better-than-average education won't participate in. Most of the kids who would be needed to affect a substantial upswing are instead sent to private schools or whisked off into the suburbs because their parents aren't willing to risk having their kids be part of the "upswing" when that means they might still get an inadequate education.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, crappy schools will only stop being a persistent problem when the culture that produces crappy schools disappears. It doesn't matter how talented and well-meaning the faculty and administration are (or how much funding they get) if they spend so much of their time acting as social workers that they hardly ever get the chance to teach these kids anything of academic value.