Chi-Town Schools Go Bust -or- Will The City Be Next?

[dales]

Chicago Public Schools announce layoff of 2,110



By HERBERT G. McCANN, Associated Press

Updated 8:59 pm, Thursday, July 18, 2013



CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago public school district announced Thursday that it was laying off about 2,100 teachers and support staff — a figure more than twice as large as the teachers union head was expecting and one the district blamed on the Legislature's failure to reach a deal on pension reform.

The Chicago Public Schools layoffs are in addition to the approximately 850 teachers and support staff who were laid off in June, which the district attributed to its planned closures of about 50 schools that it considered underutilized.

Among those laid off Thursday are 1,036 teachers, the remainder are support staff, including teacher assistants, food service employees and janitorial staff.

School district spokeswoman Becky Carroll said the district is facing a $1 billion budget deficit, much of it driven by an increase in its pension obligations.

"We were hoping to get pension reform in Springfield," she said. "That did not happen. That has brought the pension crisis to the doorstep of our schools," she said.

Chicago schools were seeking a waiver on pension payments for the 2014 budgetary year, which began July 1. During the spring legislative session, the General Assembly failed to pass legislation permitting the district to make a reduced pension contribution over the next two years, obligating the district to increase the contribution by $400 million.

District officials said even if pension reform is enacted by the Legislature, it would not commit to reversing the layoffs.

Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis expressed surprise at the number of layoffs, saying she expected the figure to be closer to 800.

"Once again, CPS has lied to parents, employees and the public, about keeping the new school-based budget cuts away from the classroom," Lewis said in a statement.

The district has eliminated $600 million in central office operations and administration in recent years, in addition to $52 million in cuts it made this year, according to Carroll.

"We can't cut our way out of this crisis," she said. "Our spending obligations, pension, salary increases and other costs, continue to rise."

The majority of the teachers laid off are probationary teachers who have worked for CPS for less than three years, said CPS Chief Talent Officer Alicia Winckler

The teachers being laid off will be notified by their principals on Friday. Winckler said all laid-off teachers will be able to reapply for district teaching positions. She noted that in the past, more the 60 percent of district teachers who were laid off were rehired.

Thursday's announcement came as lawyers for the nation's third-largest school district were in a federal courtroom defending Chicago's plan to shutter some 50 schools.

The Chicago Teachers Union and concerned parents who are seeking an injunction to halt the plan before the new school year begins say the closures inordinately harm black and special-needs students, violating their rights.

The hearing stems from several lawsuits filed on behalf of parents. One contends that black children make up about 88 percent of students being moved from closed schools, although they comprise 42 percent of district students.

Critics say talk by city and schools officials of budgetary savings is misleading, leaving the impression that the closures will help address the yawning budget deficit. Pressed during cross-examination on Thursday, which was the hearing's third day, CPS' budget director, Ginger Ostro, conceded that the closures weren't designed to fix CPS' financial mess.

Adam Anderson, a district planning official, testified that what guided the district as it decided what schools would be closed was how much classroom space wasn't being used.

A complex "utilization equation" was employed in the process, and the district found there were some 500,000 available classroom seats for 400,000 students, leaving 100,000 seats unused, Anderson said.

Enrollment has fallen over the years with a corresponding fall in population in African-American areas, which is why so many of the schools that ended up on the closure list were in predominantly black neighborhoods, Anderson said.

[dgs49]

So let me get this straight: A bunch of schools is being closed.

Isn't it logical to assume that those closing schools are the ones that are most in need of repair, or are the least functional in some tangible way? How could it be otherwise?

So if your kid is being moved, there is a very good probability that s/he is being moved from a marginal school to a "better" school.

So unless you are the sort of parent or person who simply gripes about every fucking change that ever happens, having your kid moved under the present circumstances is not something to complain about. Actually, you should be glad.

In my own school district, we just had a majority of the school board voted out because they had the temerity to vote to close down a half-empty school. Gonzo. All of the ones who voted to close the school. And there is ample room in the remaining facilities to accommodate each and every one of the darlings who would have been moved.

Doncha just love it?

[rubato]

Another example of how difficult it is to govern a system which is shrinking.

No one wants "their" local school to close but for the system to function they have to. So all of the energy and effort which is put into lobbying to keep a particular school open is, in the end, harmful to everyone. A signal failure of the idea that 'self interest' alone can be trusted to shape public policy. Anyone listening?

Bueller? anyone?



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

So let me get this straight: A bunch of schools is being closed.

Isn't it logical to assume that those closing schools are the ones that are most in need of repair, or are the least functional in some tangible way? No. How could it be otherwise? Long story, for another time. Then again, you rarely show any evidence of ever reading any of my posts (which is your prerogative, and I have no right to complain), so I might not ever bother.
So if your kid is being moved, there is a very good probability that s/he is being moved from a marginal school to a "better" school. Or a school that's just as bad but further away, and more dangerous to get to for any of a number of reasons.

As for the opening post: the problem hinges on pensions and pension reform, which is the responsibility of the state legislature in Springfield, and has been stalled for years for purely political reasons. I know it's hard to believe, but the Illinois state government is even more dysfunctional than the Chicago city government. (Well, maybe it's not so hard to believe, considering that our last two governors prior to the current one--one Republican, one Democrat--ended up in prison.)

[dgs49]

So your belief is that the School Board is closing down better schools in order to ship kids to relatively worse schools? And why, exactly, would they do that? Racism? Stupidity? They just don't care?

And presumably the average school bus ride will increase from X minutes to X + 5 minutes.

Does this justify keeping open marginal schools? I'm inclined to disagree on general principle.

Where were the pension benefits negotiated, at the School District or the state level? In most cases, it is by the school district. And if Illinois is like most other states, they didn't worry about funding the pension program "adequately" because the stock market was doing so well that it appeared the portfolios would be sufficient to cover future pension obligations. It was stupid and self-serving to leave the problem alone, but entirely understandable.

The fundamental problem is providing pensions that reward government employees with lifetime stipends and untouchable health benefits for 30 years of work, which is UNSUSTAINABLE, short-sighted, and a criminal disservice to the taxpayers who will have to PAY FOR IT!

So now you expect the state legislature to fuck the Illinois taxpayers to protect the lofty retirement benefits of the government employees and pensioners.

Don't bet on it. There's only so much the People will tolerate. Look to Iceland. The population just said, "NFW."

[Guinevere]

My understanding, from my friends who have kids in the Chicago public school system, is that the Mayor is undertaking a systemic plan to continue to weaken the public school system, so that more and more "Charter" schools -- which are run by private concerns, many of whom are huge political supporters of his -- will be established and "succeed" by having enough kids wanting to go so they can stay local.

Essentially the guy has spent the last two terms using the City of Chicago as a huge graft system for his friends, by privatizing everything that can be privatized. It's been horrific. And I say that being fully cognizant of the history of Chicago politics and how the Office of Mayor works.

Econo, I'd be interested in your take.

[dales]

Graft in Chicago?

[rubato]

My impression of Rahm Emanuel is that he is more motivated by power and glory than by money.

Not that those are neccessarily bad things for someone in public office.

I haven't heard of him doing anything harmful to the public schools, just things people don't like. And he is surely aware that, overall, charter schools have not done better than public schools. He may just be exercising a little brute force, pissing people off, and people are inventing motives to impugn him with in response.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

So your belief is that the School Board is closing down better schools in order to ship kids to relatively worse schools?

That's not what I said. Go back and read my previous post. There are a lot of "relatively worse" schools in the Chicago Public School system, and a lot of the schools that are being kept open are just as bad as the ones that are being closed, so there's absolutely no advantage to the children or the parents to have the students going to a different, unfamiliar, more distant, more crowded school.

And why, exactly, would they do that? Racism? Stupidity? They just don't care?

Yes, yes, and yes.

And presumably the average school bus ride will increase from X minutes to X + 5 minutes.

Do all public school students in Pittsburgh get free bus transportation? Most elementary school students here walk to neighborhood schools, and the difference will be walking, say, 6 blocks instead of 2 blocks, perhaps into a different, unfamiliar neighborhood. For high school students (who might either walk or ride public transportation--which would still involve walking to and from the bus--depending on the distance) the situation is further complicated by the fact that a different school means different street gangs and different gang territories to know and deal with.

Does this justify keeping open marginal schools? I'm inclined to disagree on general principle.

Where were the pension benefits negotiated, at the School District or the state level? In most cases, it is by the school district. And if Illinois is like most other states, they didn't worry about funding the pension program "adequately" because the stock market was doing so well that it appeared the portfolios would be sufficient to cover future pension obligations. It was stupid and self-serving to leave the problem alone, but entirely understandable.

The fundamental problem is providing pensions that reward government employees with lifetime stipends and untouchable health benefits for 30 years of work, which is UNSUSTAINABLE, short-sighted, and a criminal disservice to the taxpayers who will have to PAY FOR IT!

So now you expect the state legislature to fuck the Illinois taxpayers to protect the lofty retirement benefits of the government employees and pensioners.

Uh, no. The state isn't going to be able to afford its contractual obligations to retired state workers, let alone the portion of all Illinois public school teachers' pensions that is already required under state law. But CPS's pension contracts legally can't be altered in any way without approval from the state legislature--which, as I said before, has been stalled for years for purely political reasons. In other words, until the state acts, CPS is legally required to put the interests of its retirees ahead of the interests of its students. Why would you not want the state to act on this?

My understanding, from my friends who have kids in the Chicago public school system, is that the Mayor is undertaking a systemic plan to continue to weaken the public school system, so that more and more "Charter" schools -- which are run by private concerns, many of whom are huge political supporters of his -- will be established and "succeed" by having enough kids wanting to go so they can stay local.

Essentially the guy has spent the last two terms using the City of Chicago as a huge graft system for his friends, by privatizing everything that can be privatized. It's been horrific. And I say that being fully cognizant of the history of Chicago politics and how the Office of Mayor works.

Econo, I'd be interested in your take.

Guin- yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it, though much of the privatization started under the previous mayor (Daley). A big element in the ongoing privatization/'charterization of CPS is Rahm's open hostility to the Chicago Teachers Union--union-busting, pure and simple.

My impression of Rahm Emanuel is that he is more motivated by power and glory than by money.

Not that those are neccessarily bad things for someone in public office.

They are if, in order to acquire power and glory you have to put the interests of large businesses ahead of the interests of ordinary citizens.

I haven't heard of him doing anything harmful to the public schools, just things people don't like. And he is surely aware that, overall, charter schools have not done better than public schools.

So you apparently agree that closing public schools in order to open privately run charter schools for the benefit of his political and financial supporters *IS* something harmful to the public schools?

[rubato]

"So you apparently agree that closing public schools in order to open privately run charter schools for the benefit of his political and financial supporters *IS* something harmful to the public schools?"

"In order to" ? I would have to see better evidence for the attribution of evil motives to be compelling.

It appears that he has to close schools because a falling school-age population does not justify the expense of too many schools which are too small. It is just needless inefficiency and makes governing the system too difficult. And while charter schools have not been better than public schools they have also not been worse. You have to grant to those who are accountable for government the ability to govern. Closing schools pisses people off and they want to lash out and accuse everyone else of being evil. It happened here too. But when you only have the students for 10 schools and the money for 10 schools but you're paying for 12 you have to do something.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

"So you apparently agree that closing public schools in order to open privately run charter schools for the benefit of his political and financial supporters *IS* something harmful to the public schools?"

"In order to" ? I would have to see better evidence for the attribution of evil motives to be compelling.

Okay. I'll work on finding some links to post on this issue. (Warning: it may take me a couple of days.)

It appears that he has to close schools because a falling school-age population does not justify the expense of too many schools which are too small. It is just needless inefficiency and makes governing the system too difficult. And while charter schools have not been better than public schools they have also not been worse. You have to grant to those who are accountable for government the ability to govern. Closing schools pisses people off and they want to lash out and accuse everyone else of being evil. It happened here too. But when you only have the students for 10 schools and the money for 10 schools but you're paying for 12 you have to do something.

But..."something" like closing those 2 public schools and simultaneously opening 2 charter schools (which are privately run but publicly financed, and which also can improve their performance stats by kicking out their worst students and sending them back to the public schools, which have to take them)?????