Reading the Chicago School Reform Report with a Lawyer’s Eye

A recent report (“Trends in Chicago’s Schools Across Three Eras of Reform”) by the Consortium on Chicago School Research assesses how school reform efforts in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) over the past twenty years have impacted student achievement.  The report’s conclusion?  Not significantly.

There is some good news, including increased graduation rates and an uptick in high school test scores.  But the report’s findings are largely sobering.  Reading scores for elementary and middle school students “remained fairly flat for two decades.”  The past twenty years saw an increase in the achievement gap between white students and Latino students, and between white students and African American students.  And, per the report, most students in the Chicago Public Schools are still not prepared for college upon graduation.

Reading the Chicago school reform report with a lawyer’s eye, a few points jump out.

First, the report notes that, according to students’ perceptions, safety in CPS schools increased significantly in the early 1990s.   More students (although not a majority)  “said they felt safe in the area immediately outside of the school.”  And, a majority of students “said that they felt mostly safe in the hallways and bathrooms around the school.”   A safe school environment is, of course, critical for student achievement.  But, notably, students’ increased perception of safety coincided with “a focus on security and an increased police presence in the schools.”  This arguably gives cause for concern, given the too-close connection between involvement in school disciplinary procedures and subsequent incarceration (i.e., the “school to prison pipeline”).

Second, the report emphasizes that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) coincided with (and animated in part) the reforms of the Arne Duncan era.  (Duncan, once head of the CPS, is now Secretary of Education.)  During the Duncan era, CPS made systemic changes under its Renaissance 2010 plan – closing numerous schools on performance grounds and opening new schools – while simultaneously implementing NCLB requirements.  It’s an interesting example of federal and local reforms operating in tandem – perhaps sometimes at cross-purposes.

Third, the increase in the achievement gap is striking and very troubling.  The report’s findings on the achievement gap prompt the question: could advocates marshal this data (or similar data in other school districts) in litigation challenging the adequacy of school funding?