What is the Issue?
Is the 1995 Chicago Public School policy an effective model of educational finance reform?
Who are the players?
Mayor
The Mayor's Staff
Neighborhood schools and communities
School Personnel (e.g., teachers, principals, etc.)
Enrolled students and their families
Local business leaders
Appointed officials on the Board of Education
ITBS Testing Service
Mass Media
Local builders and real estate developers (for renovation)
State legislature and policy makers**
Taxpayers
Lobbyists
Courts
NAACP
ACLU
The reform helped make schools financially viable because the Mayor was able to access outside funding from business leaders
Business leaders took an interest in the local schools
Promoted urban development and
Restoration of School buildiings
Established inter-organizational relationships
Legitimizes the Chicago Public School System
Encouraged business leaders to take an active role in the public schools
Allowed the City to redistribute local funds
Recommendations:
Elyssa D. Durant
Recommendation:
It is my recommendation that the Chicago Public Schools revise and amend this legislation.
Community members should have the opportunity to select the Board of Education through an election as opposed to executive appointment.
Based upon the rapid implementation of the 1995 Chicago Public School reform, the community was unaware of the new policies until they were in place. If a policy is to be successful, it is critical to engage the primary stakeholders in the planning stages. One needs to gain support and buy-infrom the target population and other stakeholders affected by the policy. It is crucial to involve those responsible for implementation so
that they are fully informed and know what is expected of them. This helps to insure that
the program will be implemented as intended. By removing teachers and educators from
the initial stages of policy development, there will likely be resistance and confusion in
the implementation process. This appears to be the case in Chicago where there is considerable alienation between the school faculty and the mayor's administration.
The Chicago Public School reform of 1995 redefined the goals of the earlier policy implemented in 1988.
The manner in which it the new policy was introduced and invited conflict between the community and the administration. Since the policy was not implemented in democratic fashion, there is a underlying implication that community members are not capable of such a task.
The 1995 reform severely undermines the professionalism educators have been striving for. Furthermore, using high stakes testing as the sole method of evaluation undermines teacher autonomy and may discourage teachers from using innovative methods in the classroom.
The frequent change of school principals creates a feeling of job insecurity that may result in "teaching towards the test."
Using high stakes testing may result in higher test scores, but it also has the potential to reduce learning the other critical aspects of the curriculum.
One needs to gain support and buy-infrom the target population and other stakeholders (listed above) affected by the policy. It is crucial to involve those responsible for implementation so that they are fully informed and know what is expected of them. This helps to insure that the program will be implemented as intended. By removing teachers and educators from the initial stages of policy development, there will likely be resistance and confusion in the implementation process. This appears to be the case in Chicago where there is considerable alienation between the school faculty and the mayor's administration.
The Chicago Public School reform of 1995 redefined the goals of the earlier policy implemented in 1988. The manner in which it the new policy was introduced invited conflict between the community and the administration. Since the policy was not implemented in democratic fashion, there is a underlying implication that community members are not capable of such a task.
The 1995 reform severely undermines the professionalism educators have been striving for. Furthermore, using high stakes testing as the sole method of evaluation undermines teacher autonomy and may discourage teachers from using innovative methods in the classroom. The frequent change of school principals creates a feeling of job insecurity that may result in "teaching towards the test."
Using high stakes testing may result in higher test scores, but it also has the
potential to reduce learning the other critical aspects of the curriculum.
Elyssa D. Durant
Research & Policy Analyst
Columbia University
No comments:
Post a Comment