RESEARCH REPORT JANUARY 2015 School Closings in Chicago Understanding Families’ Choices and Constraints for New School Enrollment Marisa de la Torre, Molly F. Gordon, Paul Moore, and Jennifer Cowhy with Sanja Jagešić and Michelle Hanh Huynh TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary 5 Introduction Chapter 1 7 Overview of School Closings Process Chapter 2 15 Enrollment Patterns After Schools Closed Chapter 3 23 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed Chapter 4 35 Interpretive Summary 39 References 41 Appendices A-C ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the Spencer Foundation for its support, which made this study possible. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Chicago Public Schools for providing us the administrative data that allowed us to do this work. We thank our Steering Committee members for their thoughtful comments, especially Luisiana Meléndez, Veronica Anderson, and John Barker for doing a close read of the report. As always, colleagues from the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research have given us so much encouragement and feedback during the course of this work. We especially thank Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Sue Sporte, Jenny Nagaoka, Josh Klugman, and David Johnson for their insightful feedback. Special thanks to research assistants Catherine Alvarez-McCurdy and Kiara Nerenberg for their help with different tasks, as well as Eliza Moeller and Kaleen Healey for expertise as technical readers. We were fortunate to receive substantial feedback and assistance from the communications team: Emily Krone, Bronwyn McDaniel, and Jessica Puller. Finally, and most important, we thank the families that took part in this study and shared their experiences and thoughts with us. We sincerely hope they see their experiences reflected in these pages. We also gratefully acknowledge the Spencer Foundation and the Lewis-Sebring Family Foundation, whose operating grants support the work of UChicago CCSR. This report was produced by UChicago CCSR’s publications and communications staff: Emily Krone, Director for Outreach and Communication; Bronwyn McDaniel, Senior Manager for Outreach and Communication; and Jessica Puller, Communications Specialist. 01.2015/pdf/jh.design@rcn.com Graphic Design: Jeff Hall Design Photography: Lloyd DeGrane, David Schalliol Editing: Ann Lindner Executive Summary Confronted with significant financial challenges and declining student enrollment, many urban districts are resorting to closing schools as a way to consolidate resources among fewer schools. Facing similar challenges, the Chicago Board of Education voted in May 2013 to close 47 underutilized elementary schools—at the time, the largest number of schools closed in one year by any district in the nation.1 Closing schools is difficult and often fiercely contested. Safe Passage program to include routes to these schools Schools are one of the few stable institutions in some with adult monitors. Although the district assigned stu- communities, and closing them has the potential to dents to specific higher-rated welcoming schools, given further destabilize fragile neighborhoods and dispro- the open enrollment system in Chicago, families could portionately affect the most vulnerable students in the enroll their children in any other school in the district system. Districts must weigh the impact that closing with open seats. schools has on those directly affected with any ben- CPS’s policy, in part, was a response to prior research efits that might accrue from consolidating resources on school closings, which found that only students who into fewer school buildings. When districts decide to attended substantially higher-performing schools had close schools, they are often met with strong resistance better academic outcomes; yet, only a small portion of from families, community groups, and school staff. In displaced students from these past closings attended Chicago, the closings were concentrated in depopulated substantially higher-performing schools. 2 neighborhoods in the South and West sides—neighbor- As other districts look to shape closing policies that hoods already grappling with very high levels of poverty, will at once save money and optimize student learning, crime, and unemployment. Because of the vulnerability it is imperative to understand whether CPS’s policy of the affected students, critics of the Chicago Public ultimately succeeded in sending students to higher-per- Schools (CPS) policy worried that displaced students forming schools. Likewise, it is crucial to understand would end up in poor educational environments and why students ultimately enrolled in the schools they suffer both emotionally and academically. did—whether higher- or lower-performing. Our mixed- In an attempt to address some of these concerns, methods study addresses these questions by examining CPS assigned all displaced students to a “welcoming where students from closed schools enrolled the follow- school” that was rated higher-performing than their ing fall and investigating why students did or did not closed schools. The district made investments in these enroll in higher-rated schools as the district intended. welcoming schools and expanded the already existing Affecting nearly 12,000 students, Chicago’s decision to 1 The Board of Education voted to close 49 schools, but two school. CPS labels a school as underutilized if the enrollment of the school is below 80 percent of its capacity. 2 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Engberg et al. (2012). of them had a closing date later than June 2013. The decision also included closing a high school program in an elementary Executive Summary 1 close 47 schools provides a unique opportunity to study Among those students who reenrolled in a CPS school, not only the policy itself but also the mechanisms that 66 percent attended their designated welcoming facilitate or constrain families from enrolling their school. This rate varied greatly from one closed school children in higher-rated schools. to another, ranging from 6 percent in some schools to 90 Data for the quantitative section of this report come 2 percent in others. One-quarter of students enrolled into from CPS administrative records on all students who at- traditional elementary schools other than their assigned tended schools that were closed, including information welcoming school, 4 percent found seats in charter schools, on demographics, enrollment, test scores, neighborhood and 4 percent enrolled into magnet schools. Besides the 48 crime reports from the Chicago Police Department, and designated welcoming schools, the students enrolled in 311 data on neighborhoods from the U.S. Census. Qualitative other CPS schools across the city. Families were more like- data come from interviews with 95 families directly af- ly to attend their designated welcoming school if they lived fected by school closings. The report focuses on students in close proximity to it. Our analysis also showed a positive who were enrolled in grades K-7 in May 2013 and had to relationship between designated welcoming schools’ safety reenroll in a new elementary school the following year. rating on the 2013 My Voice, My School survey and the like- Below we describe the findings using the quantitative lihood of families attending those schools.3 They also were data and on page 3 we describe the findings from the more likely to attend the designated welcoming school if it qualitative interviews. was relocated to the site of the closed school. Surprisingly, What Are the Characteristics of the Students Affected by School Closures? students assigned to higher-rated welcoming schools were less likely to attend those schools than students assigned lower-rated welcoming schools. Schools that were closed were serving a larger share Students who enrolled in other CPS schools often of vulnerable students than other schools in CPS. chose a school with a lower performance policy rating Students affected by school closures were more likely than the designated welcoming school. Students who to receive free or reduced-price lunch, receive special lived in neighborhoods with few high-rated schools were education services, and be old for their grade. Their more likely to attend schools on probation if they did families were also more likely to have changed residences not enroll in their designated welcoming school. Of the in the year prior to the school closings. Eighty-eight per- students who attended other CPS schools in the fall with cent of students affected by school closures were African a performance policy rating, 64 percent attended a school American. All the elementary schools that were initially with lower points than the designated welcoming school.4 targeted for closure (underutilized and low-performing) Even though, in most cases, those welcoming schools had served similarly vulnerable students. higher performance policy points than the closed schools, Where Did Displaced Students Enroll the Following Fall? 22 percent of students who did not enroll in designated welcoming schools attended a school with lower performance policy points than their closed school. Nearly all displaced students (93 percent) attended schools with higher performance ratings than the There was no increase in the number of families that left closed schools. However, almost one-quarter of CPS after schools closed. Following the school closures, students attended schools that were lower-rated 94 percent of students enrolled in CPS schools with 6 per- than their designated welcoming schools. cent leaving the district; this rate is similar to prior years. 3 My Voice, My School is an annual survey of learning conditions 4 Schools do not have a performance policy rating if they have not taken by students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago been in operation for long and, therefore, there is not enough data for the district to calculate the rating. Why Did Families Enroll Their Children into Designated Welcoming Schools? fell outside of the attendance area boundaries. Other Many families we interviewed chose to enroll their tion to get their children to the welcoming schools. families said they moved or lived too far away from the welcoming school and/or could not afford transporta- children into their designated welcoming school because the school matched their priorities and Some families chose not to enroll their children in needs. These families said they chose to enroll their the designated welcoming school because it did not children into their designated welcoming school mainly match the criteria they were looking for in schools. because the school was close to home, they believed the Families that enrolled their children into other higher- school had strong academics, and/or they had personal rated schools did so because they prioritized academic connections like friends and staff from closed schools quality over other factors. The primary reason these who transferred into the welcoming school. families rejected their designated welcoming school was because they perceived it to be of lower academic Some families believed they had no other choice quality. These interviewees also mentioned some safety but to enroll their child(ren) into the designated concerns with their designated welcoming school, heard welcoming school. Some families, based on the infor- negative things about the school from families and mation they received or heard, believed they had to friends, or said they did not want to send their children enroll their children into the designated welcoming to a school that was on previous potential closings lists. school. The district automatically enrolled students into the designated welcoming schools by mid-June. Proximity to home was the primary reason families Many families believed that because of this automatic enrolled their children in lower-rated schools instead enrollment, they could not choose a different school. of a designated welcoming school. The deciding fac- tor for families that enrolled in a lower-rated school, Some families faced constraints or barriers getting other than their designated welcoming school, was the into other schools across the district that limited school’s close proximity to their home. These parents their options. Some families enrolled in the designated also wanted schools that met their children’s academic welcoming school because they could not get into other needs, although distance was prioritized over other schools to which they applied. Other families said considerations, oftentimes because of safety concerns. they felt the welcoming school was their only option Finding a school close to home was not only about because of practical constraints. Among the reasons convenience and safety but also about families’ practi- cited were neighborhood safety concerns, lack of access cal circumstances and realities. Parents and guardians to affordable transportation, the schools not having the worried about being able to get children to and from necessary supports and/or services for children with school when the weather was bad or when their children individualized education programs (IEPs), not having got sick, for example. any other options in the neighborhood, and not having enough time to explore other school options. Why Did Families Enroll Their Children into Other CPS Schools? For many families, academic quality meant something different than a schools’ performance policy rating. The way many parents defined academic quality was different from the official markers of quality Some families faced barriers enrolling into their represented by the district’s performance policy rat- designated welcoming school. Families that moved out ing system. For example, for many families academic of or did not live in attendance area boundaries of the quality meant having after-school programs, certain closed schools were particularly affected. Some fami- curricula and courses, small class sizes, positive and lies were turned away from enrolling into the district welcoming school environments, and/or one-on-one designated welcoming schools because their addresses attention from teachers in classes. Although some Executive Summary 3 families did talk about their school’s official policy rating, most factored in these other “unofficial” indicators of academic quality when making their school choice decisions. 4 UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Introduction Many urban districts across the nation are dealing with declining enrollments and budgetary deficits. In response, some districts are opting to close a number of their low-enrollment schools in order to consolidate resources and save money. 5 In addition to budgetary and enrollment concerns, the The mass closings were met with fierce resistance surge in school closings comes amidst federal calls to from many families, neighborhood groups, and the shutter chronically under-performing schools. U.S. Chicago Teachers Union. Families worried about chil- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan listed closing dren’s safety because students would now have further schools as one of the Race to the Top models for turn- to travel to their new schools, oftentimes through ing around low-performing schools. Chicago is one of unfamiliar and, in some cases, unsafe areas of gang the districts that have initiated several previous rounds activity. Other groups questioned, among other things, of school closings, citing both low-performance and the formula used to determine whether a school was underutilization. underutilized and whether the schools receiving dis- 6 Faced with a reported $1 billion deficit, the Chicago Board of Education voted in May 2013 to close 47 underutilized elementary schools. At the time, it was the placed students were high performing enough to really improve students’ educational outlook. One of the most contentious aspects of the policy largest mass school closing in the nation’s history. 7 CPS was that the schools proposed for closure were primar- officials acknowledged how difficult this would be for ily concentrated in the city’s South and West sides, in families, but stated it was necessary due to fiscal con- depopulating neighborhoods struggling with high levels straints and declining student enrollment in schools lo- of crime and poverty. Critics feared that the closings cated in some of the city’s depopulating neighborhoods. would create more instability in the lives of children According to district officials there were 403,000 and families who were already among the district’s students enrolled in CPS, which had seats for 511,000— most vulnerable. Because of this vulnerability, critics a disparity that created a “utilization crisis” in which worried that these displaced students would be particu- sparse resources were spread too thin across too many larly likely to end up in poor educational environments schools with low enrollment. and suffer both emotionally and academically. 8 5 Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Memphis, and St. Louis are among those districts facing these challenges and closing schools. 6 Duncan (2009). 7 The Board of Education voted to close 49 schools, but two of Introduction them had a closing date later than June 2013. The decision also included the closure of a high school program in an elementary school. CPS labels a school as underutilized if the enrollment of the school is below 80 percent of its capacity. 8 Chicago Public Schools (2013, January 28). 5 In an attempt to address some of these concerns, performing schools? Our mixed-methods study aims CPS assigned all displaced students to a “welcoming to bridge that gap by answering the following primary school” that was rated higher-performing than their research questions: closed schools. CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett stated, “By consolidating these schools, we can focus on safely Where did students from the closed schools enroll the getting every child into a better performing school close following fall? to their home.” • Did families leave CPS at higher rates than in the past? 9 As the quote suggests, the district factored in not only performance but also distance and student safety when assigning welcoming schools. The district assigned welcoming schools that were within welcoming schools? • If families chose other schools, to what extent one mile of the school that closed and put resources into did they end up in higher-performing or lower- Safe Passage routes to provide students a safe walk to performing schools? and from school. In addition, they made investments that could be used toward enhancements such as air conditioning, science labs, and new programs. Implicit within the district’s policy rhetoric are two distinct underlying assumptions. The first is that if 6 • To what extent did families enroll in the assigned students attend higher-performing schools, they will, in fact, perform better academically. CPS’s policy, in part, was a response to prior research on school closings, Why did families enroll in designated welcoming schools or opt to enroll in other schools in the district? • Why did families end up in higher- or lower-performing schools than the schools CPS assigned to them? • What barriers did families face in deciding on a new school? As other districts look to shape closing policies that which found that only students who attended substan- will at once save money and optimize student learning, tially higher-performing schools had better academic it is imperative to understand whether CPS’s policy outcomes; yet, only a small portion of displaced stu- ultimately succeeded in sending students to higher-per- dents from past closings attended substantially higher- forming schools. Likewise, it is crucial to understand performing schools.10 why students ultimately enrolled in the schools they The second underlying assumption is that families did—whether higher- or lower-performing. Affecting would choose to send their children to the better- nearly 12,000 students, Chicago’s decision to close 47 performing welcoming schools to which they were schools provides a unique opportunity to study not only assigned, where the district would invest resources, the policy itself but also the mechanisms that facilitate add new programs, and create Safe Passage routes. or constrain families from enrolling their children in However, families may have had different criteria for higher-rated schools. determining which school would best serve their chil- Chapter 1 outlines key elements of the school closing dren and they may not have seen welcoming schools as policy. Chapter 2 examines where students from closed good options. They also may have faced specific barriers schools enrolled the following fall and the characteris- or constraints unknown to the district that led them tics of these schools using administrative data. Chapter to enroll in certain schools rather than others. Prior 3 uses interviews with families affected by this round research does not tell us why students who were dis- of school closings to understand why families enrolled placed by past school closings enrolled in the schools their children where they did. Chapter 4 concludes with they did—why didn’t more students attend better some implications of our findings. 9 Chicago Public Schools (2013, March 20). 10 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Engberg et al. (2012). UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago CHAPTER 1 Overview of School Closings Process On May 22, 2013, the Chicago Board of Education voted grade levels. These were schools that did not recently to close 47 underutilized elementary schools at the experience a significant school action and were not the end of the 2012-13 academic year. Earlier in the school top-rated schools in the district, meaning that their year, CPS announced that a total of 330 schools were accountability rating was below “excellent standing” under-enrolled and at-risk for closure. Throughout the (Level 1) and not on an upward trajectory.12 Other year, the district pared down the number under con- factors listed were the characteristics of the other sideration for closure until the final vote took place. elementary schools in the area. 11 In March, with the announcement of 54 elementary Each closed school was paired with one or more schools slated for closure, the district outlined plans designated welcoming school(s) that were higher-per- for the transition and identified which schools would forming, based on the 2012-13 performance policy rating be receiving the displaced students. In this chapter, we (see box entitled “CPS Performance Policy” ). In some describe different aspects of the policy and the process cases, the district chose welcoming schools that had CPS outlined for transitioning students into designated received the same performance rating level as the closed welcoming schools. See the box entitled “Timeline school, but were higher-rated on the majority of the per- Around School Closures Process and Related Events” formance policy metrics.13 In addition, these welcoming for more details. schools had to have enough available seats to enroll the CPS cited many different factors when selecting displaced students and be located within one mile of which schools to close; among them were enrollment, the closing school. Forty-eight schools were designated performance measures, and the overall condition of the as welcoming schools, with some of the schools associ- school buildings. The final closures list was comprised ated with more than one closed school. See Table A.1 in of schools with utilization rates below 70 percent, fewer Appendix A for a list of closed schools, their designated than 600 students, and not in the process of adding welcoming schools, and the characteristics of each. 11 In December 2012, the district announced that 330 schools 12 CPS identified schools that experienced a significant school were underutilized. By February 2013, the district named 129 elementary schools among those 330 that were still under consideration for closure. By the end of March 2013, a more definitive list of 54 schools was announced. The school board voted to close 47 elementary schools and one high school program by the end of that year and to phase out two more elementary schools within two years. Four schools were withdrawn from the list. Chapter 1 Overview of School Closings Process action as those that were designated welcoming schools in the past three years or were part of a co-location in the 2012-13 academic year. Chicago Public Schools (2013a, March 21). 13 The 2012-2013 Guidelines for school actions outlines in detail what the district determined to be higher-performing schools. Chicago Public Schools (2012). 7 Timeline Around School Closures Process and Related Events About School Closings October 2012 Related Events Barbara Byrd-Bennett is named the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). A CPS releases draft guidelines that will be used to determine decisions around school closures, consolidations, reassignment boundary changes, phase-outs, and co-locations. The public has 21 days to provide feedback on the draft guidelines. B November 2012 An independent Commission on School Utilization is formed to lead community engagement, gather information from the public, and provide a written report to guide CPS in making recommendations around school closures. The commission starts a series of six public hearings. C CPS is granted an extension until March 31 to announce all proposed school actions to be taken at the end of the current academic year. Under current law, the deadline for that announcement is on December 1. D December 2012 CPS releases a list identifying 330 schools that are underutilized, according to enrollment figures from September 2012. E CPS releases final guidelines with criteria to be used to determine various school actions. F January 2013 The Commission on School Utilization releases report with recommendations. H February 2013 A pared down list of 129 elementary schools that could be closed is released. High schools and high-performing (Level 1) elementary schools are eliminated from the original list of 330 schools, based on recommendations from the Commission on School Utilization. J March 2013 A final list of schools is released with 51 elementary schools closings, two phasing out, and one closure of a high school program. Student Safety Transition Plans are released for each closing school, with information on the designated welcoming schools and investments to be made in each designated welcoming school. K 8 April 2013 CPS leads a new round of community engagement meetings in each school network. I A third phase of community meetings starts for each school on the closing list to gather feedback from parents and community members. M State-mandated public hearings on each of the schools on the closing list start, presided by independent hearing officers. CPS staff present testimony followed by public comment. N May 2013 Applications for admission to schools for the 2013-14 academic year are due. G CPS updates transition plans for nine schools on the list, addressing specific issues uncovered during the public hearings. O The Chicago Board of Education votes on the proposed schools to be closed. Forty-seven elementary schools and one high school program are chosen to be closed by the end of the academic year, and two more elementary schools will be phased out within two years. Four elementary schools are withdrawn from the list. P Enrollment drives at closing and designated welcoming schools start right after the vote. Parents are also sent text messages, robo calls, phone banking calls, emails, letters, and mailers about enrollment in new schools.Q UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Illinois Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) is administered. L Notifications on whether students have been admitted to the schools to which they applied in December are mailed. About School Closings June 2013 Related Events After June 12, families that have not yet enrolled in a school are automatically enrolled in the district designated welcoming schools, although parents can also register their children in other schools with available seats up until the beginning of the school year. R July 2013 A second application process is offered for magnet schools and magnet cluster schools that still have space available through the End-of-Year Citywide Options Program. S August 2013 Start of the 2013-14 academic year A Chicago Public Schools (2012, October 12). B Chicago Public Schools (2012, October 31). C Chicago Public Schools (2012, November 2). D Chicago Public Schools (2012, November 26). E Ahmed-Ullah (2012, December 5). F Chicago Public Schools (2012). G Chicago Public Schools (2012, December 11). H Chicago Public Schools (2013, January 10). I Chicago Public Schools (2013, January 11). J Chicago Public Schools (2013, February 13). K The transition plans can be found at http://www.cps.edu/ qualityschools/Pages/Parents.aspx; Chicago Public Schools (2013, March 14); Chicago Public Schools (2013b, March 21); Chicago Public Schools (2013c, March 21); Lutton & Vevea (2013, March 21). L Illinois State Board of Education (2013). M Chicago Public Schools (2013, April 3). N Ahmed-Ullah (2013, April 15); Chicago Public Schools (2013, April 15); Chicago Public Schools (2013, April 29). Chapter 1 Overview of School Closings Process O Chicago Public Schools (2013, May 20). P Chicago Public Schools (2013, May 22). Q Chicago Public Schools (2013, May 30). R An individual document was created for each school and made available to parents on the Parents page of the CPS website (http://www.cps.edu/qualityschools/Pages/ Parents.aspx). The plan for John P. Altgeld Elementary School is used here as an example: http://schoolinfo.cps. edu/SchoolActions/Download.aspx?fid=2952 Chicago Public Schools (2013, July 12) and meeting with district staff on July 8, 2014. S Chicago Public Schools (2013, July 12). 9 CPS Performance Policy The Performance, Remediation, and Probation Policy was the district’s school accountability policy in place at the time of school closures. The purpose was to measure school performance every year and to determine which schools were placed on probation. Elementary schools were measured based on the following metrics: Performance levels on the Illinois Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT), performance trends on the ISAT, student academic growth on the ISAT, and attendance. Schools earned points for all these different metrics and an index was calculated based on the percentage of earned points. Schools were assigned one of three ratings: “excellent standing” or Level 1 if a school received at least 71 percent of available points, “good standing” or Level 2 10 Characteristics of Closed and Welcoming Schools Of the 47 schools that closed, 36 were on probation and if a school received between 50 and 70.9 percent, and “probation” or Level 3 if a school received less than 50 percent of available points. Not all schools were rated. In order to receive a rating, an elementary school must have had data for enough metrics. The schools were evaluated on the percent of points earned using the metrics available to that school. Every year the rating was based on the prior year’s data. For example, the 2012-13 performance policy rating used for decisions on school closures was based on 2011-12 data. In the 2014-15 academic year, CPS introduced a new school accountability policy called School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) for measuring annual school performance. policy points between a closed school and its associated welcoming school was 21 percentage points. As stated above, the designated welcoming schools 11 had a “good standing” rating or Level 2 (see Figure 1 had to have enough available seats to accommodate and Table A.1 in Appendix A). Among the 48 designated the influx of displaced students. In fact, 41 of the 48 welcoming schools, 13 were on probation, 23 had a “good designated welcoming schools were labeled underuti- standing” rating, and 12 had the highest rating of “excel- lized by district standards, with a utilization rate of less lent standing.” Of the closed schools, 22 were paired with than 80 percent, while seven of the designated welcom- a designated welcoming school of the same level, although ing schools were regarded as efficient in terms of their the performance policy points were higher in most cases. utilization rate. Since some welcoming schools were The smallest difference in performance ratings between also underutilized, 18 of them were on the February a closed school and an assigned welcoming school was 2013 list of 129 elementary schools under consideration between Mayo Elementary (the closed school) and Wells for closure. Preparatory Elementary School (the designated welcom- Another important element was the distance be- ing school). Both schools were on probation at the time the tween the designated welcoming school and the closed closings were announced and had the same performance school. The welcoming school had to be within a mile policy points (26 points). The biggest difference in ratings of the closed school. In fact, in 14 cases the designated can be seen between Bontemps Elementary School (the welcoming school relocated to the building of one of the closed school) and Nicholson Elementary School (the des- closed schools because CPS determined these buildings ignated welcoming school). Bontemps had a Level 3 rating were in better condition.14 In some other instances, with 17 points, while Nicholson had a Level 1 rating with the designated welcoming school was not the closest 81 points. On average, the difference in performance school to students’ residences or the closed school, even 14 In some instances, the district provided transportation for the students of the welcoming schools to attend their school at the new location. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago FIGURE 1 Most Designated Welcoming Schools had Higher Performance Policy Points Than Closed Schools, but the Differences Varied Substantially from No Difference to a Difference of 64 Points Level 1 Performance Points of Closed Schools and Their Designated Welcoming Schools 90 80 Level 2 70 60 50 40 Level 3 30 20 Closed Schools Closed School Emmet Peabody Key Ryerson Sexton Von Humboldt Duprey Pershing West Delano Armstrong Stewart Calhoun Goldblatt Paderewski Marconi Banneker Woods May Parkman Pope Trumbull Kohn 0 Lawrence Overton Bethune Herbert Stockton 10 Henson Near North Bontemps Garfield Park Williams MS Fermi Altgeld Lafayette Mayo Williams ES Dumas Owens Yale Buckingham Goodlow Ross West Pullman King Morgan Songhai Percent of Available Points Earned (%) 100 Designated Welcoming School Note: The data used in this graph were based on the 2012-13 performance policy scores. Data were downloaded from the following CPS website: http://cps.edu/SchoolData/Pages/SchoolData.aspx. In cases where a closed school had more than one designated welcoming school, the name of the closed school appears once with a bracket encompassing all of its welcoming schools. See Appendix A for characteristics of closed schools and designated welcoming schools. though the designated welcoming school was within a happened at six of the closed schools (Bethune, mile of the closed school. For example, students from Bontemps, King, Overton, Kohn, and Trumbull).17 the closed school of Morgan Elementary were assigned Transportation was only offered to current displaced to Ryder Elementary, which was the welcoming school. students through their graduation from elementary However, the geographic boundary that was previously school and not to kindergartners or new students who associated with Morgan was reassigned to Gresham recently moved into a school’s attendance area. It is and Westcott elementary schools.15 Some families lived important to note that the district’s transportation closer to Gresham or Westcott than to Ryder. Therefore, plan was calculated based on the distance between the the travel distance was further to reach the designated closed school and the designated welcoming school and welcoming school than it would have been to reach was not based on the distance from students’ resi- other neighborhood schools. dences. Buses picked up displaced students at a desig- When the designated welcoming school was beyond nated location—oftentimes their closed school and not 0.8 miles from the closed school, the district offered their homes—to take them to the designated welcoming transportation to the displaced students. school locations. 16 This 15 This means that Ryder, Gresham, or Westcott, depending on the student’s home address, were the new neighborhood schools for students living in the Morgan boundary; but only Ryder was the welcoming school. 16 In addition, transportation assistance continued to be offered to specific student populations (i.e., students with disabilities, Chapter 1 Overview of School Closings Process students in temporary living situations, and NCLB-qualifying students) based on the CPS transportation policy. 17 Two other bus routes were added, based on safety concerns for students of Parkman and West Pullman. The transportation was provided for one year, with the possibility of an extension based on the safety environment after that time. 11 Enrollment into Welcoming and Other CPS Schools stated that, between May 22 and May 31, CPS would hold Immediately after the final vote to close schools was enrollment drives at each of the closed and welcoming announced, CPS launched an enrollment campaign, schools. In addition, CPS would host enrollment fairs sending text messages, robo calls, phone banking calls, during the evenings to help parents select a school for emails, letters, mailers, and “backpack drops” with their children. At the drives and fairs, parents were able information about the end-of-year enrollment process. to select their designated welcoming schools or other The district encouraged families to enroll their chil- schools that had available open seats. There was also dren into welcoming schools as soon as possible. As a web-based tool for families that showed the schools CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett stated in the press re- that were within a mile of the closed schools. Staff from lease: “Early enrollment is key to a successful transition the CPS network offices and the Office of Access and for students at their new Welcoming Schools this fall.” Enrollment were in attendance at these enrollment The transition plans sent to parents and guardians 18 events to help parents enroll in new schools. After June In letters sent to parents in March, immediately 12, families that had not yet enrolled in a school were following the vote in May, and again in July, CPS outlined the plan for school closures and transitions. 12 19 automatically enrolled in the district designated wel- For closed schools with more than one associated wel- coming schools. Even still, they could try to enroll their coming school, families were assigned to one specific children in other schools with open seats until the start welcoming school based on their home address and the of the school year on August 28. The transition plans new or existing geographic boundary areas drawn by and information packets also included materials about the district. In the Summary of Action section of the the End-of-Year Citywide Options Program summer transition plan, CPS wrote: application process. Students affected by school closures were told that they would have first priority. Families are also encouraged to pursue other In addition to the above information about school educational options at CPS that best meet choices and enrollment, in the letters to families, CPS their student’s learning needs and family pri- included more information about the designated wel- orities. (Page 1 from the final CPS Transition coming schools, including safety and security measures, Plan sent to parents on July 12, 2013) internal supports for students and schools, transportation options, and detailed academic and social/emotional Letters to parents also explained policies regarding parents’ choice of schools. Because the final decision on learning plans for each of the welcoming schools. primary application deadline that took place in December Investments in Designated Welcoming Schools for enrolling in new schools. However, CPS provided infor- To provide safe travel to the welcoming schools for mation about a secondary application process at the end of displaced students, CPS expanded the Safe Passage the school year in transition plans. This included informa- program that was already active in 35 high schools and tion about dates of enrollment drives and the process for four elementary school communities to include new applying to the End-of-Year Citywide Options Program routes near designated welcoming schools. CPS officials application process for magnet, magnet cluster, and open spent an additional $7.7 million to hire 600 more Safe enrollment elementary schools that took place in July for Passage workers to stand along and patrol predeter- those schools that had any open seats. mined routes in areas where schools were closed. 20 closing schools came in May, many families missed the 18 Chicago Public Schools (2013, May 30). 19 Transition plans ranged from six pages to 66 pages, depending on how many welcoming schools were assigned to the closed school. 20 Ahmed-Ullah (2013, August 9). UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago CPS hired community-based organizations and vendors ing environment. Student-focused supports, such as to oversee the program. The job of Safe Passage workers tutoring, were intended to benefit students both inside was to make sure students were safe while they walked to and outside the classroom. Other supports, which were and from school. According to the New Hope Community tailored to more specific student populations, were Service website, the Safe Passage program has two pri- put in place to identify and address the unique needs mary goals: (1) Reduce the likelihood that CPS students of these students before the start of the school year. will become victims of violent incidents; and (2) create a Seventeen designated welcoming schools received new safe, secure, and supportive school environment. International Baccalaureate (IB), Science, Technology, 21 CPS mailed Safe Passage maps to every displaced student and Engineering, and Math (STEM), and fine arts programs. posted the routes on their website. The selection of welcoming schools and investments In addition, the district invested in the welcoming made in them were meant to attract families to these schools with capital support, academic support, and schools and to provide students with better educational other support to help specific student populations. opportunities. The next chapter discusses where stu- Capital supports, such as upgraded technology, were dents enrolled and whether or not those schools were introduced to help create a strong and supportive learn- the designated welcoming schools. 13 21 New Hope Community Service Center Website (n.d.). Chapter 1 Overview of School Closings Process CHAPTER 2 Enrollment Patterns After Schools Closed With the final decision on which schools to close students included in the analyses. Also see Appendix B having occurred at the end of May, and with the end of for the methods used and the box entitled “Following the school year just a few weeks away, the district and Younger Students” on p.19.) Table 1 shows some of the families affected by the school closings started the characteristics of the displaced students and compares process of enrolling in other schools for the 2013-14 them to all K-7 students in CPS and to the K-7 students academic year. The district wanted families to decide in the 129 underutilized Level 2 and 3 elementary quickly where to enroll their children in order to ensure schools that were originally targeted for potential a smooth transition. Because close to 12,000 students closures in February. were moving to a new school, many logistical issues had to be dealt with—such as moving furniture, hiring Students Affected by School Closures Were More teachers, and making budgetary projections. By June Disadvantaged Than Typical CPS Students. The data 3, CPS announced that 78 percent of students were en- presented in Table 1 show that the students affected by rolled in a new school for the 2013-14 academic year. closings were among the most disadvantaged students 22 Among families that had enrolled by June 3, CPS in CPS. However, other similar underutilized schools reported that 83 percent of students enrolled their were also serving vulnerable students. Compared to children in their designated welcoming school. 23 Recall the average CPS K-7 student, students affected by that only the district designated welcoming schools school closures were more likely to receive free or received resources for Safe Passage and other improve- reduced-price lunch, to receive special education ments to accommodate students from closed schools. services, and to be old for their grade; they were less This chapter explores where families enrolled and likely to have met the Illinois state standards on the how the new schools compared to the closed schools ISAT math test. Their families were also more likely in terms of performance policy ratings or points. This to have changed residences in the year prior to the chapter also begins to show some of the factors that ex- school closings announcement, which suggests that plain these patterns, while the next chapter goes into a they had less stability in housing. One-third of the more in-depth presentation of what families said about closed schools housed a cluster program for students enrolling students into new schools. with the most serious disabilities. 25 In addition, the Using administrative data, this study follows all of crime rate in the areas where the affected families the students who were enrolled in the 47 closed schools lived was almost double the average for CPS students in grades K-7 at the end of the 2012-13 academic year. and a greater proportion of male adults were unem- 24 These are the students who needed to reenroll into dif- ployed in these families’ neighborhoods. The vast ferent elementary schools in fall 2013. (See Appendix majority of students affected by school closures were B for a more detailed explanation of the sample of African American. 22 Chicago Public Schools (2013, June 3). 23 Chicago Public Schools (2013, June 3). 24 The closed schools were serving students from pre-kinder- students in eighth grade moved to high school, they are not part of the study. Students ages three and four are not part of the sample because the district implemented a new enrollment process for the fall of 2013. See box entitled “Following Younger Students” on p. 19 for information. 25 Karp (2013, November 21). garten (ages three and four) to grade eight. We focus on students in elementary grades (kindergarten and above) who needed to reenroll in a new elementary school. Because Chapter 2 Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 15 TABLE 1 Characteristics of K-7 Students Enrolled in CPS in May 2013 16 Students Enrolled in Closed Elementary Schools (10,708 students) Students Enrolled in 129 Elementary Schools Initially Considered for Closure (33,564 students) Percent African American 88% 88% 39% Percent Latino 10% 10% 46% Percent Receiving Special Education Services 17% 16% 13% Percent Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 95% 94% 85% Percent Old for Grade 16% 16% 8% ISAT Math (percent meeting/exceeding standards, Spring 2012) 29% 29% 47% Percent Changed Residences (May 2012–September 2012) 14% 12% 7% 23 22 13 60% 60% 75% Crime Rate in Students’ Neighborhoods (rate per 100 people) Percent Males in Students’ Neighborhoods Who Are Employed All K-7 CPS Students (235,067 students) Note: Based on CPS administrative data, census data, and police crime data. See Appendix B for a description of the variables. Students from all of the schools that were initially by September 2013 (see Figure 2). Even though this targeted for closure shared similar characteristics. The percentage is lower than what other CPS elementary schools that were underutilized and not in “excellent schools experienced the same year (96 percent), it is standing” served a larger share of vulnerable students comparable to previous years when, on average, 94 per- than other schools in CPS. As we mentioned, part of the cent of the student population attending those schools controversy surrounding the school closures was the deci- in May continued their education in the district. 26 sion to close schools in some of the most struggling areas in the city. This evidence confirms that the neighborhoods In the fall of 2013, more students attended a Level 3 most affected by closings show high levels of crime and (probation) school than were originally assigned to poverty. Consequently, this closings policy affected some them. In the 2012-13 academic year, when attending a of the most vulnerable students in the district. closed school, 78 percent of students attended a Level 3 school, 22 percent of students attended a Level 2 school, There was no increase in the number of families that and none of the students attended a Level 1 school (see decided to leave CPS after schools closed. A number Figure 3). These 10,062 students who reenrolled in CPS of students left the district after schools closed, but the were assigned to higher-rated welcoming schools. If all rate of transfers out of the district was similar to prior students had enrolled into their designated welcoming years at the closed schools. Of the students enrolled schools in the fall of 2013, 30 percent would have at- in grades K-7, 94 percent reenrolled in a CPS school tended a Level 3 school, 43 percent would have attended 26 See Appendix B, Table B.2, for a description of the statistical analyses carried out to determine whether there was an increase in the number of families leaving CPS after schools closed. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 After Schools Closed, 94 Percent of Students Reenrolled in CPS Schools—A Percentage That Is Comparable to Previous Years In the Fall of 2013, More Students Attended a Level 3 School Than Originally Assigned Through the Designated Welcoming Schools Distribution of Returning Students Among Schools with Different Performance Policy Ratings Percent of K-7 Students Enrolled in CPS Schools in May Who Reenrolled in CPS Schools in the Fall 100 100 98 90 94 94% 95% 94% 96% 92 90 88 86 16% 84 70 78% 43% 21% 41% 60 50 40 36% 30 30% 16% 20 10 82 80 27% 80 Percent of Students Percent of Students 96 22% 0 Students in 47 Schools That Closed End of 2012-13 Students in Other Elementary Schools Average Over Prior Three Years In Fall 2013 Closed Schools (2012-13) Designated Welcoming Schools Actual CPS Schools Attended Fall 2013 Level 1 (Excellent Standing) Level 2 (Good Standing) Level 3 (Probation) No Rating Note: Data come from CPS administrative records. We followed students who were enrolled in CPS schools in grades K-7 in May and checked how many reenrolled in any CPS school in the fall of the following academic year. Bars on the left represent students who attended the 47 closed schools, while the bars on the right represent students who attended other CPS elementary schools. The dark bars show the average reenrollment rates in the prior three years, while the light bars show the reenrollment rates in the fall of 2013, after school closures took place. Appendix B shows the statistical analysis carried out to test the hypothesis of whether fewer students reenrolled in CPS after schools closed. Note: Calculations using CPS administrative data based on 10,062 students who enrolled in a CPS school in fall 2013. Performance levels are those schools received in the 2012-13 academic year, based on school data from the 2011-12 academic year. a Level 2 school, and 27 percent would have attended a closed schools, they did not show improved performance. Level 1 school. However, the schools that many students In some cases, these students experienced adverse actually attended were rated lower than the schools to effects on their test scores after schools closed. 27 When which they were assigned. In reality, more students (36 Chicago closed schools in the summer of 2013, 21 percent percent vs. 30 percent) enrolled in a Level 3 school than of students from the closed schools attended a top-rated the district intended. A few students attended schools school (Level 1). However, it is a lower percentage than that did not have a performance policy rating; these what the district initially planned. were relatively new schools without enough data to get a rating. Recall that prior research has found that students A more nuanced picture of the differences between the performance of the district designated welcoming schools and other schools students enrolled in emerges who relocated from closed schools to substantially by examining the differences in performance policy higher-performing schools showed improvements in points. Table 2 shows the differences in performance their academic performance. However, when students policy points between closed schools, designated attended schools of similar performance levels as their welcoming schools, and the schools students actually 27 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Kirshner et al. (2010); Barrow et al. (2011); Engberg et al. (2012); Brummet (2014). Chapter 2 Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 17 TABLE 2 Most Students Attended Schools With Higher Performance Policy Points Than the Closed School, but Lower Performance Policy Points Than the Designated School Performance Policy Points Difference Between Designated School and Closed School Performance Policy Points Difference Between Attended School and Designated School Performance Policy Points Difference Between Attended School and Closed School 21 -3 18 39% 4% 36% 0% 23% 7% 10,062 9,896 9,896 Average Point Difference Students Designated/ Attended a Much Higher-Rated School (difference >= 20 performance policy points) Students Designated/ Attended a Lower-Rated School Number of Students Note: Calculations using CPS administrative data. Performance levels are those schools received in the 2012-13 academic year, based on school data from the 2011-12 academic year. There are fewer students represented in the last two columns because some students enrolled in a CPS school with no performance policy rating. 18 attended. On average, students were assigned to schools One-quarter of displaced students enrolled in a neigh- with a performance policy rating that was 21 points borhood elementary school other than their designated higher, with all students assigned to higher-rated or welcoming school, 4 percent found seats in charter equally-rated schools. Moreover, 39 percent of students schools, and 4 percent enrolled in magnet schools. were assigned to schools that were at least 20 points Besides the 48 designated welcoming schools, the K-7 higher than the closed school. students from closed schools enrolled in 311 other CPS Nearly all displaced students (93 percent) attended schools with higher performance policy points than the elementary schools across the city. Among the strongest factors that explained the vari- closed schools, with 7 percent of students attending a ation in the enrollment rates in designated welcoming school with lower points than their school that closed. schools was whether the designated welcoming school However, only about one-third of displaced students moved into the building of the closed school so that the attended schools with at least 20 performance points commute to school was not affected for these families. higher than the closed school. Of students in this situation, 83 percent attended their Students who enrolled in other CPS schools were more designated school. In contrast, only half of the students likely to attend lower-rated schools. A small group of who had to travel to a new building for their welcoming students (4 percent) enrolled in schools with at least 20 school enrolled in that school. Similarly, the closer performance points higher than the designated welcom- the designated welcoming school was to a student’s ing school. But a sizable group of students (one-quarter) residence, the more likely that student would enroll in attended schools that had fewer performance policy the designated school. Seventy-six percent of students points than their designated welcoming school. enrolled in their designated school when the designated Enrollment into Designated Welcoming Schools Of the 10,062 students who reenrolled in CPS in the school was 0.5 miles or less from students’ residences, vs. 53 percent when the distance was longer than 0.5 miles (see Figure 4). Families were more likely to enroll into designated fall of 2013, 66 percent enrolled into their designated schools where reported safety levels were higher than welcoming school. This rate of enrollment into desig- the district average, compared to designated schools nated welcoming schools varied greatly from one closed with average or below-average safety levels. 28 Among school to another, ranging from 6 percent to 90 percent. students assigned to a designated welcoming school UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Following Younger Students There were 1,753 students enrolled in pre-K in the 47 schools that closed in 2013. We have not included these three- and four-year-old students in the main analyses because their enrollment process changed that year and because they do not tend to follow the same patterns as older elementary school students— meaning that they enrolled in lower numbers in the same school the following year. An analysis of their enrollment patterns indicates that these families were less likely to reenroll in a school in the district (83 vs. 94 percent for students in grades K-7). However, this reenrollment rate for pre-K students was similar to the average rate for three- and four-year-old students in these schools in prior years. Of the families that reenrolled their children in a CPS school, 61 percent did so in the designated welcoming school. This number is lower than the 66 percent observed for students in elementary grades. The percent of students enrolling in their designated welcoming school is much lower for four-year-old students, who were moving from a pre-K program to a kindergarten program as part of a regular elementary school. This reenrollment rate for four-year old students was 52 percent. All 3- and 4-Year-Olds (1,753 students) 3-Year-Olds (799 students) 4-Year-Olds (954 students) - Fall of 2013 After Schools Closed 83% 75% 90% - Prior Three Years in the Same Schools 85% 81% 89% 61% 73% 52% Percent Reenrolling in CPS Schools Percent Enrolling in Designated Welcoming Schools (among those who reenrolled in CPS) with an above-average safety level, 79 percent of attracted more families to these schools and whether students enrolled in the designated school compared being on the previous school closing list made families to 56 percent who were assigned to schools with less likely to enroll in these schools. None of these average or below-average levels of safety. characteristics were related in a statistically significant Families that were more mobile and those with a residence outside the attendance area of the closed way to the likelihood that a student enrolled in the designated welcoming school (see Appendix B). school were less likely to enroll in the designated wel- Two designated welcoming school characteristics coming schools. These families were more likely to be were significantly related to enrolling in the designated further away from the designated welcoming schools welcoming school: the difference in performance policy than others; but, even after distance is taken into ac- points between the closed school and the designated count, they were still less likely to enroll. The next school and whether transportation was offered. It was chapter will describe in more detail some barriers fami- somewhat surprising that students were less likely to lies faced when enrolling into designated welcoming attend schools that offered transportation from the schools associated with mobility and attendance areas. closed school. Recall that the district offered transpor- Not many of the other designated welcoming school tation when designated schools were 0.8 miles from the characteristics we examined made a difference in closed school, as well as for a couple of closed schools explaining whether families enrolled into these schools less than 0.8 miles away from their designated welcom- or not. Among them, we examined whether having a ing school, owing to safety concerns. This transporta- STEM or International Baccalaureate (IB) program tion was usually offered from the closed school, not the 28 These reports on safety come from student responses to My Voice, My School surveys. See Appendix B for an explanation of this variable. Chapter 2 Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 19 FIGURE 4 Convenience and Distance Were Top Factors Contributing to Whether Students Enrolled in Designated Welcoming Schools or Not Percent of Students Enrolling in Designated Welcoming Schools Designated Welcoming School Stayed at Current Location Designated Welcoming School Moved to Location of Closed School 53% 83% Designated Welcoming School More Than 1/2 Mile Away from Student's Residence 53% Designated Welcoming School Within a 1/2 Mile from Student's Residence 76% Average or Below-Average Safety at Designated Welcoming School Above-Average Safety at Designated Welcoming School 56% 79% Families Experienced Residential Mobility 57% Families Did Not Experience Residential Mobility 20 67% Families That Did Not Live in Attendance Area of Closed School 61% Families That Lived in Attendance Area of Closed School 68% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: Calculations using CPS administrative data and survey data. Appendix B shows the statistical analysis predicting whether families enrolled in designated welcoming schools or not. Variables shown here are the ones that were statistically significant in the model. students’ residences. Perhaps the offer of transportation to send their children to a new school, as well as what could not offset the problems of sending children to dis- barriers and constraints they faced in the process. tant, unfamiliar neighborhoods. As will be described in In addition, families that lived in neighborhoods Chapter 3, proximity to school and familiarity with the with more schools in the vicinity (especially Level 1 neighborhood were common factors that families con- and 2 schools) were less likely to enroll in the desig- sidered when deciding on new schools for their children. nated welcoming school. We do not know whether It was also surprising that students assigned to these schools had available seats; this reflects only higher-rated schools were less likely to attend those that there were other schools near their residences. schools; the larger the difference in performance policy However, it does suggest that these families had more points between the closed school and the designated options within their neighborhood. one, the more likely students were to attend schools It is worth noting that no student characteristics other than their designated welcoming school. This may helped explain why students enrolled into designated seem counterintuitive. If these ratings are good indica- welcoming schools or chose other schools. Whether stu- tors of school performance, one should expect that dents had above or below average test scores, whether families would be more likely to enroll in the highest- they were receiving special education services, or rated schools. But as discussed in Chapter 3, families whether they were receiving free or reduced-price lunch judge school quality on more than performance points. were not significantly related to their likelihood of at- In addition, some families really wanted their children tending the designated welcoming schools. Enrollment to attend these schools but encountered some barriers patterns rested more on school characteristics than on to enrolling into them. Chapter 3 describes what factors student characteristics. families considered and weighed when deciding where UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Enrollment into CPS Schools That Were Not Designated Welcoming Schools FIGURE 5 Most Students Who Did Not Attend Their Designated Welcoming School Enrolled in Lower-Rated Schools Distribution of Students Attending Other CPS Schools By Performance Policy Ratings This section examines the 3,464 students who enrolled in CPS schools that were not designated welcoming 100 90 ment in higher- or lower-rated schools. These students 80 enrolled in 311 schools across the city, 20 percent in Level 1 schools—the highest rated schools—35 percent in Level 2 schools, 39 percent in Level 3 schools, and 6 percent in schools with no available rating (see Figure 5). As we saw in the previous section, these students were more likely to have been assigned to Percent of Students schools and explores the factors associated with enroll- 0 be higher-rated than their closed school (see Table 3). 39% 30 rolled in schools with lower performance policy points nated one, the school they attended was more likely to 44% 40 10 Even though students who attended other CPS 35% 50 enrolled in the designated welcoming schools. Most en- schools enrolled in lower-rated schools than the desig- 81% 60 20 were particularly likely to attend a Level 3 school. 20% 35% 70 higher-rated schools than the students who actually than their designated welcoming school. These students 19% 16% 21% Closed Schools (2012-13) Actual CPS Schools Attended Fall 2013 Designated Welcoming Schools Level 1 (Excellent Standing) Level 2 (Good Standing) Level 3 (Probation) No Rating Note: Calculations used CPS administrative data for the 3,464 students who enrolled in other CPS schools. Performance levels are those schools received in the 2012-13 academic year, based on school data from the 2011-12 academic year. TABLE 3 More Than a Fifth of Students Who Did Not Enroll in Their Designated School Attended Schools That Had Lower Performance Policy Points Than the Closed Schools Average Difference Students Designated/ Attended a Much Higher-Rated School (difference >= 20 performance policy points) Students Designated/ Attended a Lower-Rated School Number of Students Performance Policy Points Difference Between Designated School and Closed School Performance Policy Points Difference Between Attended School and Designated School Performance Policy Points Difference Between Attended School and Closed School 25 -9 16 49% 9% 40% 0% 64% 22% 3,464 3,298 3,298 Note: Calculations using CPS administrative data for the 3,464 students who enrolled in other CPS schools. Performance levels are those schools received in the 2012-13 academic year, based on school data from the 2011-12 academic year. There are fewer students represented in the last two columns because some students enrolled in a CPS school with no performance policy rating. Chapter 2 Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 21 On average, students attended a school 9 performance FIGURE 6 points lower than their designated one, but 16 perfor- Students Who Lived in Neighborhoods With Fewer High-Rated Schools Were More Likely to Attend Other CPS Schools With a Level 2 or 3 Rating mance points higher than their closed school. However, as we described in the earlier section, a group of Distribution of Students Attending Other CPS Schools by Performance Policy Ratings and by Whether Neighborhood Had High-Rated Options students (22 percent of students among those in nondesignated schools) attended lower-rated schools than 100 the closed school. high- rated schools were more likely to attend nondesignated welcoming schools with a Level 3 rating. One factor that explains the fact that families ended up in lower-rated schools has to do with the number of school options in the neighborhood (see Appendix B 22 50 32% 30 10 students did); only 10 percent of these students enrolled 45% 40 ment in different schools by the availability of different more likely to enroll in a Level 3 school (45 percent of 29% 60 20 no Level 1 school within half a mile of their home were 40% 70 for the statistical analyses). Figure 6 shows the enrollschool options within half a mile. Those families with 33% 80 Percent of Students Students who lived in neighborhoods with few 10% 90 0 16% 5% 6% Students in Neighborhoods With No Level 1 Schools Within a 1/2 Mile of Their Home Students in Neighborhoods With One or More Level 1 Schools Within a 1/2 Mile of Their Home in a Level 1 school. In contrast, of those families with Level 1 (Excellent Standing) Level 2 (Good Standing) at least one Level 1 school within half a mile, one-third Level 3 (Probation) No Rating enrolled in a Level 1 school while one-third enrolled in a Level 3 school. Note: Calculations used CPS administrative data. Appendix B shows the statistical analysis behind whether families that did not enroll in designated welcoming schools attended schools with different levels of performance. A school’s location played a role in families’ decisions about whether to enroll their children into designated students attended a higher- or lower-rated school. Half welcoming schools or into other CPS schools. It was of the students who attended a school that was higher- important for families to attend a school that was in rated than their designated school were 0.51 miles from close proximity to their residence (see Chapter 3). This the school attended in the fall; half of the students who was true for many families—whether they attended the attended a lower-rated school than the closed one were designated welcoming school, whether they attended 0.54 miles from the school attended in the fall. another CPS school that was higher-rated than the The next chapter describes the reasons families’ designated one, or whether they attended another CPS offered for enrolling in new schools and what barri- school that was lower-rated than the designated one. ers, if any, they faced. In particular, we will learn more Looking at the distances from families’ residences to about how distance, safety, and transportation factored schools attended (if not at the designated one), there into families, thinking about selecting a new school for was virtually no difference regardless of whether their children. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago CHAPTER 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed In theory, the school closings policy offered families a To answer these questions, we interviewed 95 choice to send their children to the district designated families affected by the school closings and asked them welcoming school or to other schools with open seats. about the information they received, the barriers and The process, however, was more akin to an orchestrated limitations they faced, and their decision-making choice—by assigning students to higher-rated schools process around enrolling their children into a new within a mile of their closed school, CPS anticipated school. The 95 families we spoke with were from 12 that families would choose to enroll in these welcom- closed schools (six to eight families per school). More ing schools. To make them more appealing to families, details about the families we interviewed are provided CPS also invested resources in these welcoming schools in Table C.1, along with a more thorough description of for new programs, air conditioning, and technology in our qualitative sample and analysis in Appendix C. addition to providing Safe Passage routes. Although the cent of displaced families enrolled their children into Why Did Families Enroll Their Children into Designated Welcoming Schools? other schools in the district. According to the families we interviewed, children were majority of students did enroll into their designated welcoming school, we learned in Chapter 2 that 34 per- Why did students end up either in designated enrolled into a designated welcoming school for one of welcoming schools or in other schools in the district? three reasons: (1) Parents/guardians actively chose to We know from other research on school choice, more enroll their children into the welcoming school because generally, that families factor in school quality, but it matched the criteria they were looking for in schools; also consider a variety of other criteria prior to (2) parents/guardians believed they did not have a making their final school decisions. These criteria choice to enroll their children elsewhere; or (3) parents/ range from the distance between homes and schools, guardians faced constraints or barriers that limited to peer group preferences, racial composition of schools, their options for other schools. and availability of transportation. See box, “What Many families chose to enroll their children into their Families Considered When Selecting a New School for Their Children,” on p.25 for a visual highlighting what factors the families we interviewed considered. designated welcoming school because the school 29 matched the criteria they were looking for in schools. Some displaced families may have also faced barriers When asked why they ultimately enrolled their children or constraints that prevented them from enrolling in into the designated welcoming schools, many inter- certain schools. In this chapter, we describe the reasons viewees said that their designated welcoming schools families either enrolled their children into a designated fit their children’s needs and family priorities. These welcoming school or opted for other CPS schools. What priorities included being close to home, having personal criteria mattered to families when thinking about new connections to the school, and academics. schools for their children? What barriers did families Close to Home. Most of the families that chose face when trying to enroll their children into desired to send their children to their designated welcoming schools? school did so because the school was close to their home. 29 Hastings, Kane, & Staiger (2005); Rothstein (2004); Sikkink & Emerson (2008); Tedin & Weiher (2004). Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 23 Having a school close to home was more than a matter Having the continuity of care and familiarity with of convenience; many families considered it to be a the closed school staff in the new environment was necessity. For example, one family member described particularly important for families with special needs why she chose the school closest to her mother’s home: children. Several interviewees said that they picked the designated welcoming school primarily because I wanted to have a support system in place. the closed school’s special education teachers would If I need my mom to pick my daughter up, be at the new school. These families worried less about [the designated welcoming school] would getting the necessary supports and services in the new be closer to my mom’s. If for any reason school if they had the same teachers or support person- I couldn’t pick her up, I wanted to have a nel than they would have with unfamiliar staff. Having support system in place. If I get stuck in that personal connection put their minds at ease. snow coming from school, you know, my In a similar vein, some families chose their mom could take a cab, pick her up, and zip designated welcoming school because they had back because it’s just that close. And that’s family connections to the school. For example, some the reason I chose that [school]… interviewees had family members who worked at the welcoming schools or had nieces and nephews or other Being close to home was not only about convenience 24 family members that attended the schools. As one but also about families’ realities. Parents and guardians interviewee stated, “I didn’t want to send my daughter worried about being able to get children to and from school anywhere else where she didn’t know anybody, period.” when the weather was bad or when their children got sick. Personal Connections to the School. The second Academics. Some families picked their designated welcoming school because they had higher test scores most common reason families chose to enroll their than other options in their neighborhood or had specific children into designated welcoming schools was academic programs that suited their children’s inter- because of personal connections to the school. For ests and needs. For example, one family member stated instance, families talked about staff and students that she would not send her child to another Level 3 from the closed schools transferring to the designated school. Instead, she said, “I just wanted to make sure welcoming schools (see Vignette, “Familiar Faces that when it came to her eighth-grade year she was able to Make New School Feel More Welcoming” on p.27). achieve the scores and do whatever it is that she needed to One mother wanted her child to see a familiar face do.” Similarly, another interviewee talked about choos- so that the school did not feel like a completely new ing the welcoming school because it had higher test environment. Besides having the connection with scores than many other options in the area. She also others in the school and the continuity of having heard good things about the school academically from some of the same staff in the welcoming schools, her social network. She ultimately chose the welcoming overwhelmingly parents talked about feeling more school for her daughter, she said, because, “I think they comfortable sending their children to a school where had more to offer her—their grading, scores, more struc- they already knew other adults and students. For ture—so that she would get more of what she needs.” Some example, one mother said: families decided to enroll their children into the designated welcoming school because they liked specific They [the designated welcoming school] classes or particular academic programs, such as STEM allowed most of the staff [from the closed or IB. Other families chose the welcoming school based school] to come there, and allowed them on after-school programs or enrichment activities. to work there as part of their staff. It was a Besides having higher test scores and specific aca- lot of [closed school] staff that I knew, that I demic offerings, several interviewees said they chose the felt comfortable with my child being around designated welcoming school because they thought their people that he knew… children would receive more individualized or one-on-one UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago What Families Considered When Selecting a New School for Their Children The following image is a word cloud that captures all of the criteria or factors that families said mattered to them when considering schools for their children. The font sizes are related to how many times families mentioned a particular criterion or factor, with the largest fonts representing the most talked about factor. For example, a safe commute was mentioned by the majority of families while diversity of the school community was less frequently raised. Overall, finding a school close to home was the most important consideration for families. In addition, safety was vital, along with connections to people at the new schools and individualized academic support for children. As families talked about what mattered to them as they considered schools for their children, four primary categories emerged: 1. Practical considerations, such as finding a school close to home with a safe commute and/or affordable transportation options; 2. Personal connections with the new school, including friends and staff from closed schools who transferred to the new schools; 3. Academic considerations, like special programs/ services or supports, individual instruction or academic attention from teachers, high tests scores, or other official academic performance measures; and 4. School culture indicators, such as discipline policies, good communication practices between staff and families, and welcoming school environments. 25 academic attention from teachers in these schools. Many designated welcoming school because the school fit with families wanted to make sure their children received the their priorities and needs, some families did so because support and attention they needed to learn and improve they believed they did not have a choice. These family their grades and test scores. Families used the terms members indicated that the reason their children en- “catered to children,” “top performing,” “good school,” and rolled at one of the district designated welcoming schools “caring teachers” to describe the academic environment at was because they “had to” attend the school the district their designated welcoming school. picked for them. When parents read the letters or heard information about the district assigning welcoming Some families believed they did not have a choice. schools to families, many believed that meant other Although many families enrolled their children into the options were off the table. As one mother explained: Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed We were basically just told all the kids that was closest to their homes and/or the district provided went to [closed school], they all have to Safe Passage routes for families enrolled at welcoming go to [the district designated welcoming schools. For instance, when asked why she did not school] now. And I was not happy about consider other schools in her area, one mother said: that. My children were not happy about it. I basically thought I wasn’t given a list of Neither one of those schools are in good options at all, other than that school. And I’m areas, I mean I don’t know too much about not satisfied with that school. So I kind of feel the school, but I know it’s a lot of fighting like I was forced to put my kids over there, and a lot of gang-related stuff, and I just like the decision was made for me, basically. didn’t even want to be bothered with that, so And that was the only decision I had. [the welcoming school] was still close to my house, in walking distance. This mother said she would have considered other options had she known that they were available to her. 26 Safety for many parents/guardians was not just Another mother expressed a similar sentiment, saying about crime statistics and gang activity. Family prefer- that she did get the letter about the welcoming school ences for proximity to home and safety stem not only and knew that her children would be automatically from spatial aspects of geography (i.e., commute times) enrolled at the welcoming school. When asked if she had but also from the deep connections families have to considered other schools for her children, she stated, their neighborhoods and communities. 30 For instance, “No, they told us that we needed to go to that school. We when asked about any concerns she had sending her may have wanted to go to a different school, but they son to schools she was considering, one mother said, gave us that one.” She went on to say that her daughters’ “…my seventh-grader is almost six feet tall, and I don’t names were already at the district designated welcom- want anybody confusing him [for a gang member].” ing school; so, therefore, she did not believe that she had Because of her social network and neighborhood an option to send them elsewhere. connections, she felt safer sending her son to the designated welcoming school that was close to home Other families faced constraints or barriers that where everyone knew who he was and knew that he was limited their school options and made them feel like not a troublemaker. At the same time, she felt she had they had no choice. Families that believed that the no other real options because of where she lived. district designated welcoming school was “chosen” for Lack of Transportation. Many families said that them did not take the time to consider other schools their options were limited primarily because the dis- because they thought they had no other options. Other trict did not provide transportation to other schools. families, however, talked about having no agency or One mother explained that she was worried about send- choice in the process because they were limited by the ing her children to the district designated welcoming lack of options in their community or faced constraints school in terms of safety; but, because she did not have or barriers getting into other desired schools. a car or a job, she could not afford to get her children to Safety Concerns. Some family members said that a different school. Another father expressed a similar the welcoming school was the only decent option in sentiment saying, “I really didn’t get any choices. their area because of safety concerns. In some neigh- I didn’t get any choices because we already lived so far.” borhoods, drug trafficking and gang issues are major Not being able to afford transportation costs limited concerns. For these families, the welcoming school many families to schools directly in or very near their may have been seen as the only safe choice because it neighborhoods. As one mother explained: 30 Bell (2007). UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago MRS. BAKER: A VIGNETTE Familiar Faces Make New School Feel More Welcoming Mrs. Baker (a pseudonym) has three children, two of whom were directly affected by the school closings. The children were in grades three and seven when they found out that their school was on the potential closings list. Mrs. Baker was saddened when she heard the news because the teachers and staff were like a “family” to her children. Everyone—from the security guard to the teachers and the principal to the secretary—knew her children’s names. She liked that the teachers were on top of her kids if they routes. When the phone was answered, she was very were struggling academically, would call her when they pleased to hear a familiar voice on the other end of the were concerned, and would get them tutoring or pull out line. She explained: services when necessary. When her children heard that their school was on the potential closing list, they partic- When I called, the secretary from [the closed ipated actively in protests and meetings to try to keep the school] is the one that answered the phone, school open. Once the final list of schools was announced and I said, ‘oh my God, you’re there, do you and their school was on it, the staff turned toward keep- work there?’ She’s like ‘yeah, security came ing parents informed about their options and stayed on here, a lot of teachers came this way.’ And I top of making sure every child had signed up for the new was like, ‘you know what, I’m not even going school they would attend the following fall. to ask any more questions, like my kids are Because her children had a very hard time dealing going there!’ I felt so much better knowing with their neighborhood school closing, Mrs. Baker was that a lot of the staff from [the closed very intent on finding the right school for her children. school] went to [the designated welcoming Her main concern with the school was safety. She said, school]. “I do know it’s a little bit of a bad neighborhood, there are a lot of gang bangers that stand on the corner…So that was my main concern.” At first, Mrs. Baker considered putting her children The secretary was able to give her all of the details about the new school and talked her through how the Safe Passage routes worked, so Mrs. Baker felt much into a Catholic school close to her home because the more at ease. In the end, Mrs. Baker chose to send her class sizes were small and she believed that students children to the designated welcoming school because would get more one-on-one attention from teachers. she felt that having the connection and continuity Financially, however, she and her family could not with the closed school staff would be beneficial for afford it. After ruling out the private school, Mrs. Baker her children: “When I heard her voice and then she told called the designated welcoming school to ask some me everybody else was there, I was like, you know what… questions about the transition process and Safe Passage when do they start? They’ll be there.” Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 27 Everything else [my children] would have displaced families from these closed schools were con- to take public transportation, and then you fused when they were assigned to one of the designated know, it’s kind of hard getting six children welcoming schools and were not able to choose among around on a CTA bus, you know? And paying the list of other welcoming schools. For example, one bus fare and everything without being able interviewee said that her closed school had three differ- to provide a school bus for the children. ent designated welcoming schools. She believed that she had “three choices” but, when she approached one of the Supports and/or Services for Children with IEPs. welcoming schools, she was told that the school was not Families that have children with IEPs talked about hav- her designated welcoming school and was outside of her ing limited options and a harder time finding schools attendance area—even though it was closer to her home with the adequate supports and services needed for their than the welcoming school the district assigned to her. children. One interviewee said her son was assigned to Many of these families thought that they should have the designated welcoming school, but she worried that been able to choose from among the welcoming schools the school would not have what he needed. Other families rather than the district assigning one to each family with special needs children had to rule other schools out (see Table A.1 in Appendix A showing which closed because they did not have the services and supports: schools had more than one designated welcoming school and also which designated welcoming schools were 28 I actually had a list of the schools, but when located outside of some families’ attendance area bound- I counted out the schools that I tried for aries). In some cases, families were allowed to enroll into him to go to, they didn’t have programs for a welcoming school that was neither their designated special needs…later I see like five schools in welcoming school nor in their attendance area; in other the area that I know have these programs, so cases, families were told that they had to enroll their to speak, but it’s too far. It’s too far. children into a specific designated school. This inconsistency was confusing to many families. Attendance Area Boundaries. In addition to trans- Limited Time to Pick New Schools. Many families portation costs and limited options for families with said that their options were limited based on a lack of special needs children, interviewees also talked about time to look for other schools because the final announce- enrolling into their district designated welcoming ment of closed schools came late in the school year. In schools by default, not by choice, simply because it was addition, because the timeframe to look for other options the only school in their neighborhood that they could was truncated, families faced barriers getting into other get into. This parent put it succinctly, saying: schools because the lottery application for some schools had passed and because of limited open seats at other Because CPS always had some type of schools in their area. One family member said she felt she boundary area around these schools and the did not have time to actively seek other school options for school that they select for you isn’t always her children, explaining, “I think I would have taken them the greatest school, it’s what’s left…there out [of the welcoming school] if I could have gotten them to wasn’t anything else really to choose from, another options school, but I just, it was just over, there were you know, if you wanted your kids really to no options for me.” Another interviewee also talked about have an education. the lack of time to look for other schools, saying, “It’s kind of too late to put them anywhere else.” This parent said he was turned away at other schools Overall, we heard two divergent messages from in the community because they were outside of his at- families that enrolled into welcoming schools—fami- tendance area and did not have enough available seats. lies either actively chose their designated welcoming In addition to the above, in cases where closed schools had more than one designated welcoming school, some UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago school or they felt they had no choice, either because they were misinformed about having options or because they faced barriers or constraints getting into other designated welcoming school also happened for families schools they were considering. For some families, the that did not move but were already living outside of the school that CPS designated for them happened to have attendance area boundary of the closed school when the what that family wanted in a school; whereas, for other closing was announced. As one parent who lived outside families, the welcoming school did not necessarily fit, of the attendance area of the closed school explained, but there were no other options. “…they didn’t accept [her daughter] to go to the [designat- Why Did Families Enroll Their Children In Other CPS Schools? By assigning welcoming schools to each closed school, the district encouraged families to enroll in these ed welcoming school] because of the area we lived in.” Her daughter ultimately ended up attending her new neighborhood school, which happened to be a higher-rated school than the district designated welcoming school. Not all families that were turned away from their schools that had higher performance policy ratings designated welcoming school were able to enroll into and where investments were made. But why did some higher-rated schools. As one mother whose children families enroll their children into other CPS schools? ended up in a school that was lower-rated than the Similar to families that attended welcoming schools, designated welcoming school explained: some parents arrived at other CPS schools because they faced constraints or barriers getting into their I tried to enroll my children in two other designated welcoming schools while others chose schools before they were at their current to enroll their children into other CPS schools. school and neither one of the schools would accept my children, saying that they were out Some families enrolled into other CPS schools be- of the area, which I feel like it shouldn’t have cause they faced constraints or barriers getting into mattered if they were out of the area when their designated welcoming schools. Among our inter- you got this other school that is closing down. viewees, approximately half of the families that enrolled their children into schools that were higher-rated than Many of these families ended up at higher- or lower- their welcoming schools and about a third of families rated schools simply by chance. In other words, their that enrolled into schools that were lower-rated than neighborhood school happened to be either a higher- their welcoming schools did so because they faced con- or a lower-rated school than their designated welcom- straints or barriers getting into their welcoming schools. ing school. One of these parents, when asked why she The major barrier these families faced was that they enrolled her son at their current higher-rated school, moved out of the attendance area of the closed school simply said that her family “moved out of the neighbor- or they did not live in the attendance area of the closed hood into another neighborhood, and [I sent] him to the school in the first place. Other families that lived outside neighborhood school.” of the attendance area of the closed school could get into Distance and Transportation Costs. As we saw in the their welcoming schools, but either they could not afford welcoming schools section, distance and transportation transportation costs to get to the school or they felt that costs were barriers for many families. Figuring out how the commute to school was too far and unsafe for their to get to and from school was a practical constraint that children because the welcoming school was even further limited many parents’ choice sets. The previous section away from their residence than the closed school. showed that these constraints led parents to consider Moving Out of, or Not Living in, Attendance Areas only the welcoming school. Likewise, many families of Closed Schools. Some families that moved out of the that enrolled their children into other CPS schools attendance area of their closed school were turned away were unable to consider enrolling in their designated from enrolling into the district designated welcom- welcoming schools for the same reasons—either the ing school because their new address fell outside of the designated welcoming school was too far away or the attendance area boundary. Being turned away from a cost of getting there every day was too great a burden. Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 29 Many of these families had either moved further away school from being an option—other families deliberately or already lived far from the designated welcoming chose to send their children to another CPS school. school and felt that the longer commute to the welcom- Among families that felt they had a choice in schools, the ing school would be too far and unsafe for their chil- primary reasons why families enrolled their children dren. For example, one parent said, “…well he’s gonna be into their school differed considerably between those on the bus, walking, you know, that, and with that being so who chose a higher- vs. a lower-rated school. unsafe, I just don’t wanna chance it.” Her son ultimately ended up at a higher-rated neighborhood school closer Overwhelmingly, families that chose to enroll into to her home. higher-rated CPS schools did so because of academic For families that originally did not live in the 30 quality. Almost all of the interviewees who enrolled attendance area of the closed schools, or moved outside into a school that was higher-rated than their assigned of the attendance areas of the closed school, many of the welcoming school said that school academic quality designated welcoming schools were much further away was the driving factor. Having high academic quality, from their homes than their closed schools. Therefore, however, meant different things to different parents. some schools were just too far away for parents to Most often, these families relied on “official” informa- consider. One family member who enrolled her children tion gleaned from the district website, including test into a lower-rated neighborhood school close to her new scores and test gains, performance policy ratings, high home explained: school acceptance rates, and attendance rates. Families wanted schools with higher academic quality so that The staff notified me to let me know right their children would be challenged academically and then and there that you could send your progress in their schooling. One parent described her children there [to the designated welcoming search process by saying: school], but they would not be bused there. That was a problem for me, because at the Well I went according to her grades and I time I didn’t have transportation, so I didn’t picked it [the new school] due to their…, have any means of getting them to the the stats, they had high numbers in their schools where I really desired for them to magnet school. She’s really smart so that’s go. So I had to put them in a school that was how I picked it, according to their numbers. a little closer to their neighborhood so they I looked on their website and just saw the could be in walking distance of the school. different numbers—the attendance rate, parental involvement—like you can really Access to transportation and the cost of transportation to and from welcoming schools was prohibitive for get a breakdown of everything that goes on, so that’s how I picked it. many of the families. Several parents said that because the district did not provide busing for their children In addition to the official academic markers to their designated welcoming schools, or help enough described above, many of these parents/guardians with public transportation funds, that they had to rule also talked about wanting a school with small class out the designated welcoming school because they could sizes, which to them meant a better chance for their not afford it. children to get individualized academic support and attention from teachers and other school staff. Some families chose to enroll their children into other Prioritizing academics also meant that many families CPS schools because they better met their children’s were attracted to particular types of schools or pro- needs and family priorities than the designated wel- grams, such as magnet schools, language academies, coming school. Although some families felt they did not International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, and have a choice—circumstances prevented the designated STEM programs. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago On the flip side, the most common reason why these so they figured, “Since they were going to be going to a families ruled out their designated welcoming schools new school anyway, you know, just have them stay in the was because they believed they were of lower academic neighborhood...” quality. As one parent explained about her decisionmaking process: Additionally, several families in our sample moved the summer after the school closings announcement. These families were trying to navigate through their Neither one of them [the welcoming schools] new neighborhoods and wanted to keep their children could compare academically to what I was close. As previously discussed, parents often valued looking for my children, as far as like I said schools that were close in proximity to their homes, academic-wise. The thing is that academi- not only for convenience but also for practical consid- cally, it [designated welcoming school] was erations. These parents wanted to ensure that they not any different than [the closed school] in could easily get to their children when needed. As one terms of like, ranking wise or grade point av- interviewee expressed it, “I don’t like putting my kids erage wise, it wasn’t any different. So if you where it’s far away from home, in case of unexpected—in close schools, why would I send my child out case of weather.” of [there] and send him to a school that you As mentioned above, safety also figured prominently was just about to close, and that we were all in why parents wanted to keep their children close to at meetings together, and that is doing less home. The interviewee below discussed why she was well academically than what my child is at? against sending her child to the district designated No thanks. So that was a no. welcoming school: Although low academic quality was the primary Because—well, see I was against it because reason why these families shunned their designated when you go in the route that we’re sup- welcoming schools, interviewees also mentioned other posed to be following just to get to that deterrents, including some safety concerns, hearing school, when you pass [a street] up in the negative things about the welcoming schools from fami- middle of that, going to that school it’s like lies and friends, and not wanting to send their children a lot of 7-Elevens, a lot of people outside to any schools that were on potential closings lists. selling drugs.…There’s always shooting down there, and police are always down Overwhelmingly, families that enrolled in lower-rated there with their lights, so, it’s like, havoc. CPS schools did so because of proximity to home. The deciding factor for families that enrolled into Fear of gangs, drugs and drug dealers, guns, and schools that were lower-rated than their assigned wel- violence were common concerns for parents who were coming school was the close proximity of the school to worried about their children’s safety as they commuted their home. Although these parents also talked about to new schools. Similar to families who opted for their wanting schools that met their children’s academic designated welcoming schools, the distance from fami- needs, distance was prioritized over other consider- lies’ homes to the designated welcoming schools was ations—oftentimes because of safety concerns. Many linked with a sense of community within the neighbor- families restricted their school search only to schools hood and safety concerns. For example, one parent said, within a certain distance from their homes. As one “But it’s in gang territory and it’s almost fifteen blocks family member stated, “I had just really looked in the from my house…And I wasn’t going to send my son to area that I live in and just seeing what school was the anywhere like that.” These families believed that choos- best option at that particular moment. Because I didn’t ing a school close to their homes was the safer option, have any idea on what school it was going to be.” Other even if it meant sending their children to a school with families were not sure about the welcoming school, lower test scores. Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed 31 Academics mattered for families that enrolled into Other family members prioritized giving their chil- lower-rated schools, but their definition of academic dren opportunities to learn outside the classroom. For quality often differed from that of the district. instance, one grandparent said that she was initially Although safety and proximity to home were the top attracted to a school because of all the opportunities her considerations for families that ultimately enrolled granddaughter would have to keep busy with sports and into lower-rated schools, many of the interviewees also enrichment programs. Additionally, some parents were mentioned academic quality as a reason why they either focused on the name of the school or program and believed ruled out their designated welcoming school or actively that “academy,” “magnet,” or “charter” signified something chose to enroll into their current schools. Even though meaningful about the academic quality of the school their designated welcoming school was ranked higher (see the Vignette, “Differing Definitions of Academic the year that the schools closed, the way many parents Quality Lead One Family to a Lower-Rated Magnet defined academic quality did not match the district School” on p.34). For example, one interviewee said he performance policy system. For instance, one parent chose a different CPS school for the following reasons: worried that her children would go from a school where they were succeeding to one where they would languish: Because it had changed into a language academy, and they also have a good 32 The school they wanted them to go to academic program…the teaching and the [designated welcoming school] was a learning process that they have. The many low-functioning school. And I wasn’t going things that they teach the kids, like Spanish, to let them come out of that school where different language and computer rooms, they had just excelled at, and go to a school resources, you know, those types of things. where, you know, no acceleration there. I wasn’t going to do that. This particular school was significantly lower-rated than the district designated welcoming school. This parent decided to send her child to a much Only a few of the families that enrolled into lower- lower-rated school, but she felt that her child ultimately rated schools talked about “official” markers of academ- would do better academically in an environment that ic quality. Those that did sometimes recognized that the was different than the one the district assigned. welcoming school did not have strong performance and Academic quality for these families meant anything might not be the best learning environment for their from schools having after-school programs, to having children. One interviewee, for example, spent time on certain curricula and courses, small class sizes, and one- the CPS website researching the designated welcoming on-one attention from teachers in classes. In addition, school and perceived the school to be on a downward several parents stressed the importance of enrolling trajectory, noting that the school “hasn’t been really their children into schools that were not overcrowded. a good school since 2008, maybe, or 9. I think those are One interviewee explained why this was important to their highest test scores.” This welcoming school’s policy her: “I wanted them to get a better environment and to points actually were on a downward trajectory over the have a better chance of the teachers and the staff giving years, and this parent noticed the trend. This family attention, you know, to their needs, being willing to help chose a school that was very comparable to their desig- them.” This particular family chose a school that was nated welcoming school but ranked slightly lower the only slightly lower-rated than their designated wel- year that the school closings were announced. Another coming school. Many of these same parents expressed parent was concerned with school probationary status concern over larger class sizes at the welcoming schools of the welcoming school. She said: and wondered whether their children would be able to get what they needed from their teachers. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Well basically I was online looking through district designated welcoming schools and families schools and researching their report cards that enrolled into other CPS schools. Some families and you know, probationary period and all were able to exercise choice and picked schools they that, you know. I did a thorough research believed fit their family circumstances and priorities, before I made the decision that [their current while other families felt they had no choice and faced charter school] was the best fit for my kids. barriers getting into schools that they believed were better suited for their children. Families that delib- The charter school in which this parent enrolled erately enrolled into higher-rated schools prioritized her children was actually significantly lower-rated official academic indicators when choosing schools for than the district designated welcoming school in terms their children, although proximity to home and safety of the performance policy points. However, the school were also at the forefront. Those who deliberately had not existed long enough to have been assigned a enrolled in lower-rated schools prioritized proximity performance level. to home and safety; more often they used academic Overall, a very similar dichotomy emerges regarding indicators that were unofficial instead of official. choice vs. constraints among families that enrolled into Factors that Mattered for Families Other than Location, Academics, and Safety The displaced families we interviewed prioritized schools’ academics, safety, and proximity to home, but they also valued and considered these other factors: Recommendations from Social Networks. Some parents relied on their social networks for information about the quality of schools. Prior Experiences. A few families had prior experiences with school staff or students and either strongly considered or ruled out schools based on these prior experiences. Personal Connection to Schools. Simply knowing about a school through a personal or family connection often put that school into consideration. Special Education Supports. Some children needed very specific kinds of supports or programs that were not offered at every school, and many of these families had to actively look for schools that met their children’s needs. Chapter 3 Understanding Enrollment Patterns after Schools Closed Juggling Multiple Children’s Needs. Families with multiple children had more complicated choice sets because these families often prioritized keeping their children together, and they tried to find one school to meet all of their children’s needs. Affordability of Fees. A few families had to rule out charter and private schools they were considering because they could not afford the fees. They also cited uniforms or other costs. Racial Composition of Schools. Some parents wanted their children to move to a more racially diverse school because they wanted their children to be exposed to multiple cultures. Others ruled out some schools if they believed their child would in the racial minority. Safety and Security Within Schools. Parents not only wanted their children to have a safe commute to and from school, but they also wanted them to feel safe while at school. For example, many families talked about wanting strict discipline practices and clear safety measures. 33 MRS. EDWARDS: A VIGNETTE Differing Definitions of Academic Quality Lead One Family to a Lower-Rated Magnet School Mrs. Edwards (a pseudonym) has two young children. Her son was in kindergarten and her daughter was in second grade when it was announced their elementary school would close. Mrs. Edwards stressed that she liked everything about the closed school. She liked the teachers because they emphasized responsibility in their classrooms and she appreciated that the office staff treated everyone equally. Preliminary Draft — Not for Circulation 34 Mrs. Edwards found everyone to be very welcoming and much better than neighborhood schools or responsive to her and her children. This was especially open enrollment schools. Because you just important to her because she is a self-proclaimed don’t get admission into magnet schools. “foreigner.” She explained: Despite applying to over 20 schools before the official …these kids came in with accents. And closings announcement, both Edwards children were of- sometimes they [school staff] don’t really fered admission to only one magnet school. Mrs. Edwards understand [the children]. Both of them describes the school as “still not good.” But keeping the speak English from home; they understand children together and getting them out of a traditional English perfectly well, but the accents… neighborhood school were priorities. they’re in a new environment. Even though Mrs. Edwards did not seriously consider sending her they came in new, they accepted them children to their designated welcoming school for several wholeheartedly, and they treat them nice. reasons. Strong academics were important and she did not believe the welcoming school was a good option. She The Edwards family immigrated to the United explained, “I can’t take my kids there. I can’t take my kids States the year the closings were announced. They had to Level 3—from Level 3 to Level 3.” She also prioritized enrolled at their neighborhood school in December, smaller class sizes and schools, saying, “I didn’t pick after lists of potential closings had been released and [the welcoming school] because they’re highly populated.” rumors of closings were circulating. Right away, Mrs. Distance from home also drove her decision: The desig- Edwards began to search for new schools, applying to nated welcoming school was not within walking distance, over 20 magnet and selective enrollment elementary whereas the school she selected was much closer. schools and programs. She believes if you want your Though the magnet school her children were admit- children to go to college, then they must be in magnet ted to was lower-rated than the designated welcoming or selective enrollment programs. In her words: school, in Mrs. Edwards’ opinion it was a better school for her children. To her, the word “magnet” meant strong Because I have this general belief that academic performance—even though the test scores and magnet schools are good schools. They are performance policy ranking did not reflect that. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago CHAPTER 4 Interpretive Summary While school closures may have potentially positive financial and academic effects, they are inevitably disruptive and burdensome for families and communities. This is particularly true in a “choice” system, where families may opt to send their children to schools outside of their attendance area boundary. In such systems, when schools close, families by defini- A choice policy predicated on sending students to tion are faced with a forced transition to a new school. higher-performing schools is constrained by the How districts guide and support families through the availability of high-quality seats. While the CPS policy process—deciding on a new school and transition- did succeed in sending the vast majority of students to ing—can determine the success or failure of the policy. schools that were more highly-rated than their closed The theory underlying CPS’s closing strategy was that schools, only 21 percent managed to attend a Level 1 students would do better if they moved to higher- school. 31 This is potentially problematic because past performing schools. To maximize the likelihood that research found that students’ achievement improved students would attend better schools, CPS assigned only if they moved to a substantially higher-performing students to higher-rated welcoming schools, invested school than the one they left. 32 Though CPS assigned all additional resources in the welcoming schools, provided students to a higher-rated school, just 27 percent were families with information about their school options, assigned to a Level 1 school (the district’s highest rating). and offered some level of support around safe passage to Meanwhile, 30 percent were assigned to a Level 3 school new schools. Ultimately, two-thirds of families followed (the district’s lowest rating). This suggests that there the district’s plan for them by attending the welcoming were simply not enough available seats in higher-rated school to which they were assigned. Another one-third schools in these neighborhoods to accommodate all of opted for different schools—often attending schools the displaced students. In cases where families lived in that were lower-rated than their assigned welcoming neighborhoods with few high-rated schools and limited school. How this reshuffling played out offers impor- transportation options, they had a harder time attend- tant lessons for other districts considering closing ing higher-rated schools. Without strong schools in schools—and, more broadly, for all districts operating these neighborhoods or access to affordable transporta- within a choice system. tion, the goal of sending students to better-performing schools might be hard to achieve. 31 Prior to the school closures, none of the displaced students attended Level 1 schools. 32 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Engberg et al. (2012). Chapter 4 Interpretive Summary 35 What may appear to be a “poor choice” based solely Access to transportation may help alleviate some safety on performance policy ratings may, in fact, be a concerns, and some families may benefit from help with nuanced choice by families based on the needs of logistical issues and financial burdens. Working with their children. Two-thirds of those students who did communities and families to develop a tailored neigh- not attend their designated welcoming school attended borhood safe passage plan may also help. schools with lower-performance policy points than 36 their assigned welcoming school. Some may interpret Many of the families we interviewed simply felt this finding as a failure on the part of parents/guard- overwhelmed and without the support they needed ians by suggesting they did not make “good” academic to make informed decisions on a critical aspect of choices. their children’s lives—a new school. Two issues con- 33 However, the majority of families we spoke to chose schools based on other factors that they tributed to this: The information they received from the thought would better fit their children’s needs. The district and from other sources and the timing of the majority of interviewees also put a lot of thought and school closings decisions. As mentioned in Chapter 1, effort into finding the right schools for their children. the district sent families multiple written forms of com- When deciding on schools, families think about a munication—transition plans and letters—and made range of school characteristics that may meet their indi- these documents available on their website. However, vidual children’s learning needs. Some families said that some families said they never received the informa- the assigned welcoming schools did not meet their chil- tion. For other families that successfully received the dren’s needs—in these cases, it is appropriate to question information, it appears that the critical components— whether the district’s performance policy rating system such as the name of the designated welcoming school, is the best rubric by which to judge school quality for the fact that families had other options, or enrollment every student. Some students may fare better in schools dates—did not come across as clearly and accurately with a more supportive environment, for example, or as families needed. This confusion is not surprising, with a more robust arts program, or with more active given the amount of information sent to parents in a parent involvement. Of course, these qualities are not very short period of time. Moreover, the information mutually exclusive of strong test scores—a high-ranking provided about the designated welcoming schools was school, for example, may also have a renowned music inconsistent—some, but not all, welcoming schools pro- program—but the performance policy rubric would cap- vided detailed information about program offerings and ture only one dimension of that school’s strengths. academic support plans for students. In other words, different families received different kinds and amounts Confidence in children’s safety trumps many other of information. For many families, the information things that schools might be able to offer. Children’s proved overwhelming and/or unclear. safety was a big concern for families, not only inside the Although CPS produced a plethora of written infor- school building but also for their children’s commute to mation about the designated welcoming schools, they and from school. If children’s safety is key for families, did not supply information directly about other schools can something be done to help them feel that schools in the district. Some families did receive information (other than the nearby school) are safe choices? The about other schools near their closed school (some Safe Passage program helped some families feel safe school staff put together information packets for on the way to the new school. But for other families, families), or by attending open-enrollment fairs or by it was not enough. Families often addressed the issue using the “find a school” application on the CPS website. of safety by keeping children in a nearby school. This However, families said they wished they had received meant that some students attended higher- or lower- more digestible information in multiple formats (written rated schools simply because of where they lived. and verbal) about all of their available school options. 33 Asimov (2003); Holme (2002). UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Families we interviewed said they wished they had Families with children who have IEPs faced particular more time to research available options and make challenges in finding schools with the necessary sup- informed decisions. Many parents/guardians felt that ports and services for their children. As we illustrated CPS failed to provide them with the time required in this report, the closed schools served more vulnerable to make such a complex and important decision as students than the district average—in particular, these finding a new school for their children. With more schools were more likely to have served students with time and the ability to participate in the regular appli- IEPs. In fact, one-third of closed schools had special cation process, families would have felt less pressured education cluster programs. These cluster programs, processing the details and options that CPS provided. which were more likely to have been in underutilized Prior research has shown that the most negative impact schools, provided services to children with serious of school closings, as measured by reading and math disabilities. In our interviews, the parents of children test scores, occurs the year of the closings announce- with special needs and/or IEPs prioritized the special ment. needs of their child. They wanted their children to get 34 Normally, announcements on school closings are required to take place by December 1. CPS was the supports they needed to learn and grow, and they granted an extension until the end of March in order wanted their children to be in close proximity to their to have “an extensive community engagement process.” homes. But these parents had limited information on In addition, CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett said that how the designated welcoming schools would serve their extending the deadline would allow schools to concen- children. The transition letters stated simply that their trate on preparing students for the annual ISAT tests children would receive the same supports at the welcom- at the beginning of March. 35 However, the delay in ing schools, and that someone from CPS would contact the announcement had repercussions for the families them to talk about the welcoming schools and answer affected by closings. They reported wishing that the questions. The transition plans also stated that CPS district had made the decision earlier and given their would provide network offices with additional resources family more time, which would have allowed them to work directly with families to explain school options. to deal with the emotional toll of losing their school In some cases, families realized that the supports at the community and prepare to make a transition. Families designated welcoming school were not adequate and also said that if they had more time they could have had to look for other schools in the district to meet their researched and gathered more information about other children’s needs. Giving parents more information about school options for their children—schools that might how these schools would serve their children and more have better met their children’s needs. Families time to digest that information, research on their own, said they could have visited more schools they were and prepare their children for a school transition, might considering and better worked through the logistics have helped these parents/guardians enroll their chil- they needed to figure out how to send their children dren in schools that met their childrens’ specific needs. to the school they wanted. Additionally, families could have applied to schools and programs that When closing schools, trying to send students to better- require applications and or lotteries for acceptance. performing schools is a sensible goal; it is consistent Sticking to the December deadline certainly would with research on what matters for improving learning. have given families more time—almost six more It is important to consider in a “choice” system, how- months—and it might have provided them with the ever, that families value many school characteristics in necessary time to research more options for their addition to test scores when deciding where to enroll children and to apply to the schools and programs their children. In an ideal setting, families would be within application deadlines. able to choose from any school in the district that meets 34 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Barrow et al. (2011). 35 Ahmed-Ullah (2012, November 2). Chapter 4 Interpretive Summary 37 their children’s needs. In reality, however, the choice More research is needed to examine how the transi- sets for families are limited by practical constraints— tion year went for families and students. It is important where they live, budgetary limitations, the availability to investigate how affected students do academically, of transportation, the number of “good” options in their socially, and behaviorally in their new school settings neighborhood, etc. 36 These mitigating factors make and to unpack which school characteristics matter it more difficult for some families to enroll into better most for improving student outcomes. Lastly, not much schools. In some cases, constraints and barriers leave is known about how closing schools affects teachers families with no choice or agency in the process at all. and other staff or the impact closing schools has on the As other districts look to shape closing policies that will composition of the entire school staff. Cultivating a at once save money and optimize student learning, it is better understanding of the impact of closing schools on imperative to understand the mechanisms that facilitate families, students, and school staff could help districts or constrain families from enrolling their children in facilitate better educational experiences and student higher-performing schools that also meet their needs. outcomes in the future. 36 For more information about the concept of “choice-sets” see Bell (2007 and 2009). 38 UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago References Ahmed-Ullah, N. (2012, November 2). Chicago Public Schools. (2012, October 12). tribune.com/2012-11-02/news/chi-cps-wants-more-time- Spotlight362.aspx to-compile-school-closing-list-20121102_1_school- Chicago Public Schools. (2012, October 31). CPS wants more time to compile school closing list. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicago closings-school-actions-cps-officials Ahmed-Ullah, N. (2012, December 5). CPS lists 330 underutilized schools. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/201212-05/news/chi-board-of-education-releases-enrollment- Mayor Emanuel names Barbara Byrd-Bennett new CEO. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/spotlight/pages/ CPS releases draft school actions guidelines that integrate community feedback. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/Pages/10_31_2012_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2012, November 2). nett-school-closings-charter-schools CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett to launch thorough community engagement process on school actions. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/ Ahmed-Ullah, N. (2013, April 15). Pages/11_02_2012_PR1.aspx schooluse-figures-20121204_1_ceo-barbara-byrd-ben- At Chicago school closing hearings, crowds fade. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune. com/2013-04-25/news/ct-met-cps-closing-hearings20130426_1_schools-chief-barbara-byrd-bennett-finallist-two-community-meetings Ahmed-Ullah, N. (2013, August 9). CPS releases maps of ‘safe passage’ routes. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune. com/2013-08-09/news/chi-cps-releases-maps-of-safepassage-routes-20130809_1_safe-passage-program-ceobarbara-byrd-bennett-rival-gang-territories Asimov, N. (2003, October 9). Few parents seize chance to transfer schools ‘No Child Left Behind’ made offer mandatory. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1. Barrow, L., Park, K., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2011). Chicago Public Schools. (2012, November 26). CPS announces five-year moratorium on facility closures starting in fall 2013. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/Pages/11_26_2012_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2012, December 11). CPS reminds families to explore academic offerings as application process deadline approaches. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/12_11_2012_ PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, January 10). Statement from CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett on release of commission on school utilization report. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/01_10_2013_ PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, January 11). Assessing the impacts on students of closing persistently failing schools. Working Paper. CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett announces 2nd round of community engagement on school utilization. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/ Bell, C.A. (2007). Pages/01_11_2013_PR1.aspx Space and place: Urban parents’ geographical preferences for schools. The Urban Review, 39(4), 375-404. Bell, C.A. (2009). All choices created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 191-208. Brummet, Q. (2014). The effects of school closings on student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 119, 108-124. Chicago Public Schools. (2012). 2012-2013 Guidelines for school actions. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/ABOUT_CPS/ POLICIES_AND_GUIDELINES/Pages/2013Guidelinesfor SchoolActions.aspx References Chicago Public Schools. (2013, February 13). Based on community feedback, CPS releases detailed criteria to help guide decisions on district’s utilization crisis. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/ Pages/2_13_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, March 14). CPS outlines comprehensive student safety transition plan. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/ Pages/3_14_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013a, March 21). Media briefing. Retrieved from https://cbschicago.files. wordpress.com/2013/03/cps-briefing.pdf. 39 Chicago Public Schools. (2013b, March 21). CPS CEO Byrd-Bennett announces nearly twenty new IB, STEM and fine arts programs will roll out in welcoming schools next fall. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/Pages/3_21_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013c, March 21). Significant new investments to provide quality, 21st century education for CPS students transitioning from underutilized schools this fall. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/Pages/3_21_2013_PR2.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, April 3). Third phase of community meetings around CPS school utilization begins this Saturday. Retrieved from http://cps. edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/4_3_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, April 15). Public hearings on consolidating underutilized schools and other actions begin Tuesday. Retrieved from http://cps. edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/4_15_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, April 29). 40 Public hearings on consolidating underutilized schools and other actions continue this week. Retrieved from http://cps. edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/4_29_2013_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, May 20). CPS releases updated draft transition plans to address specific issues identified in hearing officer reports. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/News/Press_Releases/Pages/ PR1_05_20_2013.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, May 22). Nearly 50 percent of students at sending schools enroll early for SY 13-14. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/Press_ releases/Pages/PR_05_30_2013.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, May 30). Chicago board of education votes to consolidate underutilized, under-resourced schools. Retrieved from http://cps. edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/PR1_5_22_2013.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, June 3). Parents enroll 78 percent of students during early enrollment for new schools. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/Pages/PR1_06_03_2013.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2013, July 12). Transition plan as of July 12, 2013, for the closure of John P. Altgeld Elementary School. Retrieved from http://schoolinfo.cps.edu/SchoolActions/Download. aspx?fid=2952 de la Torre, M., & Gwynne, J. (2009). When schools close: Effects on displaced students in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Duncan, A. (2009, June 30). Turning around the bottom five percent. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Conference Engberg, J., Gill, B., Zamarro, G., & Zimmer, R. (2012). Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed? Journal of Urban Economics, 71(2), 189-203. Hastings, J.S., Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2005). Parental preferences and school competition: Evidence from a public school choice program (No. w11805). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Holme J.J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-207. Illinois Board of Education. (2013). 2013 Illinois State Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/Chart2013.pdf Karp, S. (2013, November 21). After closings, questions linger on special ed programs. Catalyst Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.catalystchicago.org/news/ Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni, K. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 407–429. Lutton, L., & Vevea, B. (2013, March 21). Chicago proposes closing 53 elementary schools, firing staff at another 6. WBEZ. Retrieved from http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-proposes-closing53-elementary-schools-firing-staff-another-6-106202 New Hope Community Service Center. (n.d.). About safe passage. Retrieved from http://www.nhcsc.org/ safe.html Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Rothstein, J. (2004). Good principals or good peers? Parental valuation of school characteristics, Tiebout equilibrium, and the effects of inter-district competition (No. w10666). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Sikkink, D., & Emerson, M.O. (2008). School choice and racial segregation in US schools: The role of parents’ education. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(2), 267-293. Tedin, K.L., & Weiher, G.R. (2004). Racial/ethnic diversity and academic quality as components of school choice. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1109-1133. Appendix A Closed Schools and Designated Welcoming Schools Table A.1 shows the 47 closed schools and their des- which schools were closed and which were designated as ignated welcoming schools. It also offers information welcoming schools. Numbers in darker shaded columns on their utilization rates, performance data, and other refer to welcoming schools. characteristics related to the process of determining TABLE A .1 Characteristics of Closed Schools, Designated Welcoming Schools, and Other Information Closed School Altgeld Welcoming School(s) Wentworth Utilization Rate 48% 41% 2012-13 Performance Level Level 3 (26%) Level 3 (45%) Other Information Wentworth moved to the location of Altgeld. Bond’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Altgeld’s attendance area. New STEM program at Wentworth. Transportation provided for current Wentworth students to new Wentworth location. Armstrong Leland 36% 81% Level 2 (62%) Level 1 (93%) Leland moved to a new location (at Mays’ old location). New STEM program at Leland. Banneker Mays 49% 64% Level 3 (43%) Level 3 (45%) Mays moved to the location of Banneker. Bethune Gregory 48% 37% Level 3 (36%) Level 1 (81%) Jensen’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Bethune’s attendance area. Transportation provided for students welcomed at Gregory. Bontemps Nicholson 46% 50% Level 3 (17%) Level 1 (81%) New STEM program at Nicholson. Transportation provided for students welcomed at Nicholson. Buckingham Montefiore 54% 13% Level 3 (31%) Level 3 (39%) Transportation provided for those who received transportation at Buckingham. Current Buckingham students with bus aides based on IEPs have this support continued. Montefiore’s attendance was redrawn to accommodate students from Near North. Calhoun Cather 46% 30% Level 2 (69%) Level 1 (76%) Delano Melody 37% 34% Level 2 (55%) Level 2 (62%) Melody moved to the location of Delano. Hefferan’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Melody’s attendance area. Transportation provided for current Melody students to new Melody location, to be reevaluated after the 2013-14 school year. Dumas Wadsworth 36% 46% Level 3 (26%) Level 3 (45%) Wadsworth moved to the location of Dumas. New STEM program at Wadsworth. Duprey De Diego 28% 71% Level 2 (50%) Level 2 (57%) New IB program at De Diego. Emmet DePriest 66% 61% Level 3 (48%) Level 2 (57%) New IB program at DePriest and Ellington. Ellington Fermi Appendix A South Shore 43% 53% 79% Level 1 (71%) Level 3 (24%) Level 3 (44%) Wadsworth’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Fermi’s attendance area. 41 TABLE A .1: CONTINUED Characteristics of Closed Schools, Designated Welcoming Schools, and Other Information Closed School 42 Welcoming School(s) Utilization Rate 2012-13 Performance Level Other Information Garfield Park Faraday 39% 47% Level 3 (17%) Level 1 (74%) Goldblatt Hefferan 30% 40% Level 2 (69%) Level 1 (74%) New STEM program at Hefferan. Goodlow Earle 60% 43% Level 3 (31%) Level 3 (36%) Earle moved to the location of Goodlow. O’Toole’s and Bass’ attendance areas were redrawn to accommodate part of Earle’s attendance area. New STEM program at Earle. Henson C. Hughes 32% 56% Level 3 (10%) Level 2 (57%) Herzl’s and Webster’s attendance areas were redrawn to accommodate part of Henson’s attendance area. Herbert Dett 44% 25% Level 3 (38%) Level 2 (52%) Dett moved to the location of Herbert. Cather’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Dett’s attendance area Key Ellington 57% 43% Level 2 (50%) Level 1 (71%) New IB program at Ellington. King Jensen 43% 45% Level 3 (33%) Level 1 (83%) Transportation provided for students welcomed at Jensen. Kohn Lavizzo 37% 61% Level 3 (36%) Level 1 (71%) New STEM program at L. Hughes. Transportation provided for students welcomed at Cullen. L. Hughes 48% Level 3 (48%) Cullen 68% Level 2 (67%) Lafayette Chopin 36% 37% Level 3 (26%) Level 1 (76%) Lawrence Burnham 47% 89% Level 3 (36%) Level 2 (55%) Burnham moved to the location of Lawrence. Marconi Tilton 41% 39% Level 3 (43%) Level 2 (50%) New STEM program at Tilton. May Leland 45% 81% Level 3 (45%) Level 1 (93%) Leland moved to the location of May. Leland’s attendance boundaries redrawn to also accommodate part of Armstrong’s attendance area. Mayo Wells 59% 51% Level 3 (26%) Level 3 (26%) Wells moved to the location of Mayo. New IB program at Wells. Morgan Ryder 31% 44% Level 3 (33%) Level 3 (36%) Gresham’s and Wescott’s attendance areas were redrawn to accommodate part of Morgan’s attendance area. Near North Montefiore 53% 13% Level 3 (17%) Level 3 (39%) All Near North students received transportation and continued to receive transportation to Montefiore. All current Near North students with bus aides based on IEPs continued to receive that support. Overton Mollison 51% 44% Level 3 (36%) Level 3 (48%) Burke’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of Overton’s attendance area. Transportation provided for students welcomed at Mollison. New IB program at Mollison. Owens Gompers 68% 55% Level 3 (27%) Level 3 (43%) New STEM program at Gompers. New STEM program and curriculum at Leland. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago TABLE A .1: CONTINUED Characteristics of Closed Schools, Designated Welcoming Schools, and Other Information Closed School Paderewski Welcoming School(s) Cardenas Utilization Rate 30% Castellanos 84% 2012-13 Performance Level Level 3 (45%) 91% Level 1 (77%) Other Information Penn’s and Crown’s attendance areas were redrawn to accommodate part of Paderewski’s attendance area. Level 2 (52%) Parkman Sherwood 41% 55% Level 3 (45%) Level 2 (52%) Peabody Otis 47% 60% Level 3 (48%) Level 2 (69%) Pershing West Pershing East 27% 92% Level 2 (52%) Level 2 (60%) Pope Johnson 34% 58% Level 3 (45%) Level 2 (67%) Ross Dulles 37% 61% Level 3 (31%) Level 2 (64%) New pre-K program at Dulles. Ryerson Ward, L 58% 55% Level 2 (50%) Level 2 (64%) Ward moved to the location of Ryerson. New STEM program at Ward. Sexton Fiske 41% 41% Level 2 (50%) Level 2 (64%) Fiske moved to the location of Sexton. New IB program at Fiske. Songhai Curtis 44% 53% Level 3 (33%) Level 2 (52%) Stewart Brennemann 41% 51% Level 2 (64%) Level 2 (67%) Stockton Courtenay 45% 85% Level 3 (38%) Level 2 (64%) Courtenay moved to the location of Stockton. Trumbull Chappell 54% 71% Level 3 (43%) Level 1 (88%) Peirce’s attendance area was also redrawn to accommodate part of Trumbull’s attendance area. Transportation provided for students welcomed at McPherson and McCutcheon. McPherson 63% Level 2 (57%) McCutcheon 89% Level 2 (67%) Transportation provided for students welcomed at Sherwood, service to be reevaluated after 2013-14 school year. Pershing East moved to the location of Pershing West. Von Humboldt De Diego 40% 71% Level 2 (50%) Level 2 (57%) New IB program at De Diego. West Pullman Haley 44% 61% Level 3 (31%) Level 2 (55%) Metcalfe’s attendance area was redrawn to accommodate part of West Pullman’s attendance area. Transportation provided for students welcomed at Haley, service to be reevaluated after the 2013-14 school year. Williams ES Drake 66% 35% Level 3 (26%) Level 3 (43%) Drake moved to the location of Williams. Williams MS Drake 53% 35% Level 3 (21%) Level 3 (43%) Drake moved to the location of Williams and co-located with Urban Prep. Woods Bass 46% 41% Level 3 (43%) Level 2 (60%) Langford’s and Nicholson’s attendance areas were redrawn to accommodate part of Woods’ attendance area. Yale Harvard 27% 70% Level 3 (29%) Level 3 (43%) New pre-K program at Harvard. New Fine and Performing Arts program at Haley. Appendix A 43 Appendix B Quantitative Data, Sample, and Analyses Data crime reports from the Chicago Police Department, and Data for the analysis come from CPS administrative re- data on neighborhoods from the U.S. Census at the block cords, including information on demographics, students’ group level. All of these data sources are linked together residential address, school enrollment, and test scores; using a unique student identifier, with crime and census surveys about students’ school experiences, neighborhood data linked to each student’s home address. TABLE B.1 Description of Variables Student Variables Demographic variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, special education status, limited English proficiency, old for grade (suggesting the student has been retained), attending attendance area school, and change in residences (it is not possible to calculate residential mobility for every student; we create a variable with three possible values: moved, did not move, no data) Neighborhood Characteristics Student addresses allow for linking of students to their census block group characteristics. We use two socio-economic metrics based on these block groups. The first is a measure of concentration of poverty in the census block group and includes the percent of adult males unemployed and the percent of families with incomes below the poverty line. The second is a measure of social status in the census block group and includes the mean level of education of adults and the percentage of employed persons who work as managers or professionals. These measures are created from the 2000 Census (for the 2008 and 2009 cohorts) and from the American Community Survey (for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts). 44 An indicator based on Chicago Police Department incident statistics provided by address, and is calculated as the log of the crime rate, where the crime rate is the ratio of total number of crimes to the total population by census block. Crime data are updated for each year. Test Scores Student performance on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) in math. Scores are standardized within grade and then 5 groups are formed, based on quintiles, well below-average, below-average, average, above-average and well below-average. The majority of students in grades 3 through 8 take this test. Safety Rasch scale made from the items students answered in My Voice, My School survey and then aggregated to the school level. How Safe Do You Feel… • Outside around the school? • Traveling between home and school? • In the hallways and bathrooms of the school? • In your class? (Possible answers: Not Safe, Somewhat Safe, Mostly Safe, Very Safe) Distance Shortest distance from geocoded students’ addresses to geocoded schools’ addresses Other School Options Within 1/2 Mile Number of CPS elementary schools within a radius of 1/2 mile of a student’s residence. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago Sample 2013. This is a group of 10,708 students. 37 Almost all There were 13,878 students enrolled in the 47 closed students who were in eighth grade in May 2013 enrolled schools at the end of May 2013. These schools were serv- in CPS high schools. The rest were young children en- ing students from pre-kindergarten to eighth grade. For rolled in pre-kindergarten. Table B.2 shows the charac- our study, we followed students in elementary grades teristics of these students, as well as of all CPS students who had to reenroll in elementary grades—basically and students attending the 129 elementary schools that students in kindergarten through seventh grade—to were considered for closing earlier in the year. The 47 understand where they attended school in the fall of schools that eventually closed were on that list. TABLE B. 2 Characteristics of K-7 Student Population Enrolled in CPS Schools in May 2013 Students Enrolled in 47 Closed Elementary Schools (10,708 students) Students Enrolled in 129 Elementary Schools Initially Considered for Closure (33,564 students) All K-7 CPS Students (235,067 students) Percent African American 88% 88% 39% Percent Latino 10% 10% 46% Percent White 1% 1% 10% 17% 16% 13% 5% 5% 21% Percent Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 95% 94% 85% Percent Old for Grade 16% 16% 8% ISAT Math (% meeting/exceeding standards–Spring 12) 29% 29% 47% 53% 54% 54% 64% 64% 63% 14% 12% 7% 24% 23% 21% 23 22 13 60% 60% 75% Percent Receiving Special Education Services Percent English Language Learners Percent with Missing Test Score Data Percent Living in Attendance Area of School Percent Changed Residences (May 2012–September 2012) Percent Changed Schools (May 2012–September 2012) Crime Rate in Students’ Neighborhoods (rate per 100 people) Percent Males in Students’ Neighborhood Who are Employed 37 Among the students in our sample, there are some ungraded special education students for whom it is not appropriate to Appendix B be in a particular grade, who were older than four years by September 2012. 45 Quantitative Analyses dummy variable indicates that students were more likely to reenroll in CPS schools in the fall of 2013 than in pre- Reenrolling in the District vious years. The negative estimate on the cross product We used data for the three years prior to the school of 2013 and the dummy variable for the closed schools closings— 2010, 2011, and 2012—and 2013, the year indicates that the students in these schools were less of closing. The population in the analysis is based likely to reenroll in CPS than students in other schools, on students enrolled in grades K-7 in CPS schools in but the difference is not statistically significant. These May of those years. We created a variable coded 1 if results suggest that students did not leave the district at students reenrolled in any CPS school in the fall of higher rates after the schools closed. that year, 0 otherwise. That is the dependent variable school fixed-effects and a dummy variable representing Enrolling in the Designated Welcoming School the observations in the year 2013 to capture the differ- The sample of students for this analysis was based on the ence in the reenrollment rates in 2013 compared to 10,062 displaced students who reenrolled in a CPS school the prior three years for each school. We also used a in the fall of 2013. The dependent variable in this analy- dummy variable for whether the student was enrolled sis was coded as 1 when a student enrolled in the desig- in a closed school to compare the changes in district nated welcoming school, 0 otherwise. We included in reenrollment in other CPS schools and the 47 schools the model variables about student characteristics, their affected by the closures. We ran the model with no neighborhood, and the designated welcoming school. controls for student characteristics and again with We used a logistic regression and clustered the standard such controls in case the student population in the errors on the 53 clusters formed by the closed schools schools had changed over time and could account for and their respective designated welcoming schools (43 any differences. We clustered the standard errors to closed schools were assigned one welcoming school, two account for the nesting of students within schools. closed schools had two welcoming schools and two closed in the analysis. We ran a logistic regression model with 46 Table B.3 shows the estimates and p-values produced by this model. The positive coefficient for the 2013 year schools had three welcoming schools assigned to them). Table B.4 shows the results of the estimation. TABLE B.3 Analyses of CPS Reenrollment Rates: Logistic Regressions With Fixed Effects and Clustered Standard Errors at the School Level (p-values in parentheses) Logistic Regression Dummy variable for 2013 Dummy variable 2013 x Dummy for Closed School Number of Student-Year Observations Number of Schools UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago With No Student Controls With Student Controls 0.145 (<.00010) 0.163 (<.00010) -0.138 (0.07) -0.138 (0.06) 949,446 946,729 629 629 TABLE B.4 Analysis of Whether Students Enrolled in Their Designated Welcoming School Intercept Estimate P-Value 0.199 0.6526 0.2878 0.0705 Student Characteristics Latino Student White Student Male Student 0.1901 0.5676 -0.0084 0.8686 IEP Student 0.1384 0.1543 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Student 0.0103 0.9467 Test Scores Unknown 0.3714 0.1882 Well Below-Average Test Scores -0.0817 0.4246 Below-Average Test Scores -0.1169 0.2791 Above-Average Test Scores 0.0559 0.5610 Well Above-Average Test Scores -0.2272 0.0851 Grade K -0.0149 0.8732 Grade 1 -0.0316 0.7412 Grade 3 0.4287 0.1181 Grade 4 0.2449 0.3702 Grade 5 0.3831 0.1389 Grade 6 0.4383 0.1026 Grade 7 0.6514 0.0172 Location and Residential Variables Lives in Attendance Area of Closed School Changed Residence Summer 2012 0.2427 0.0059 -0.3808 0.0002 Missing Data on Residential Moves -0.2813 0.0017 Miles From Student’s Residence to Welcoming School -0.1005 <0.0001 0.0313 0.5661 Neighborhood Characteristics Concentration of Poverty Social Status 0.1091 0.0712 -0.0853 0.2358 Number of Level 1 Schools within 1/2 mile of Student’s Residence -0.1735 0.0463 Number of Level 2 Schools within 1/2 mile of Student’s Residence -0.1454 0.0325 Number of Level 3 Schools within 1/2 mile of Student’s Residence -0.0476 0.4762 1.0795 <.0001 Crime Rate (log) Welcoming School Changed Location On Prior Closing List -0.0806 0.7491 Difference School Performance Points (Welcoming – Closed) -0.0152 0.0128 Level 1 Welcoming School 0.3254 0.1567 Level 3 Welcoming School 0.4892 0.0526 New Program Added to Welcoming School (such as STEM or IB program) 0.0786 0.6258 Transportation Offered to Welcoming School -0.5835 0.0245 0.1247 0.7545 -0.2437 0.2391 No Data on Safety Measure Well Below-Average Level of Safety Below-Average Level of Safety -0.1745 0.4978 Above-Average Level of Safety 0.4662 0.0464 Well Above-Average Level of Safety 0.6516 0.0029 Note: Bold numbers indicate statistically significant results: p<0.05. Appendix B 47 48 Enrolling in Other CPS Schools welcoming school in the first analysis, and the attended The sample of students for this analysis was based on school minus the closed school in the second analysis. the 3,464 students who reenrolled in a CPS school in the For the last two outcomes we run logistic models. In fall of 2013 other than the designated welcoming school. one case the dependent variable was coded as 1 when a The analyses have been done on the differences in per- student attended a Level 3 school, 0 otherwise. In the formance policy points, between designated welcoming last set of analyses the dependent variable was coded as school and the one attended (first outcome in Table 1 when a student attended a Level 1 school, 0 otherwise. B.5), between closed and the one attended (the second We included in each model variables about student outcome in Table B.5), the probability of attending a characteristics, their neighborhood and the designated Level 3 school (the third outcome in Table B.5) and welcoming school. We clustered the standard errors on finally the probability of attending a Level 1 school (the the 53 clusters formed by the closed schools and their last outcome in Table B.5). For the first two outcomes respective designated welcoming schools (43 closed we run linear models with the dependent variables schools were assigned one welcoming school, two closed being the differenced in performance policy points schools had two welcoming schools, and two closed between two schools; the attended school minus the schools had three welcoming schools assigned to them). TABLE B.5 Analyses on Differences in Performance Policy Points and Performance Levels of Schools Attended If Not Designated Welcoming School Different Outcomes Difference Performance Policy Points “AttendedWelcoming” Difference Performance Policy Points “Attended-Closed” Attend Level 3 School (logistic regression) Attend Level 1 School (logistic regression) Estimate P-Value Estimate P-Value Estimate P-Value Estimate P-Value Intercept -8.59 0.13 16.00 0.09 0.03 0.96 -1.75 0.02 Latino Student 5.02 0.03 3.56 0.36 -0.79 0.01 0.49 0.07 White Student 6.26 0.37 8.69 0.08 -13.37 <0.0001 -0.17 0.79 Male Student 1.09 0.07 1.58 0.08 -0.15 0.040 0.09 0.30 IEP Student -0.13 0.95 0.60 0.82 0.17 0.35 0.14 0.59 Free or ReducedPrice Lunch Student 1.31 0.58 -0.64 0.83 -0.27 0.30 -0.27 0.29 Test Scores Unknown 0.91 0.85 -2.45 0.75 0.31 0.45 0.31 0.60 Well BelowAverage Test Scores -2.47 0.10 -2.57 0.11 0.26 0.12 -0.20 0.33 Below-Average Test Scores -1.76 0.24 -0.19 0.89 0.28 0.12 -0.01 0.95 Above-Average Test Scores 0.70 0.69 -0.13 0.95 -0.10 0.62 0.27 0.27 Well AboveAverage Test Scores 2.41 0.27 -2.00 0.53 -0.22 0.40 -0.06 0.82 Grade K -1.35 0.32 -1.39 0.34 0.18 0.22 -0.37 0.04 Grade 1 1.10 0.37 0.90 0.44 -0.01 0.96 0.03 0.85 Grade 3 1.35 0.76 -2.03 0.79 0.36 0.41 0.24 0.67 Grade 4 1.67 0.71 -4.02 0.61 0.02 0.97 0.14 0.81 Note: Bold numbers indicate statistically significant results: p<0.05. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago TABLE B.5: CONTINUED Analyses on Differences in Performance Policy Points and Performance Levels of Schools Attended If Not Designated Welcoming School Different Outcomes Difference Performance Policy Points “AttendedWelcoming” Difference Performance Policy Points “Attended-Closed” Estimate P-Value Estimate P-Value Attend Level 3 School Attend Level 1 School Estimate P-Value Estimate P-Value Grade 5 2.07 0.65 -2.55 0.75 0.17 0.70 0.34 0.57 Grade 6 2.14 0.63 -1.28 0.86 0.05 0.91 0.31 0.56 Grade 7 0.44 0.92 -4.76 0.52 0.27 0.51 -0.11 0.84 Concentration of Poverty in Neighborhood -1.27 0.12 -0.54 0.65 0.12 0.15 -0.03 0.77 -0.02 0.97 0.22 0.81 0.02 0.85 0.05 0.62 Attending Attendance Area School 0.67 0.68 -0.89 0.60 -0.31 0.07 -0.16 0.38 Miles to Welcoming School from Residence 0.66 0.11 0.30 0.55 -0.06 0.11 0.04 0.49 Level 1 Welcoming School -15.37 <.0001 2.90 0.64 -0.67 0.00 0.32 0.35 Level 3 Welcoming School 17.75 <.0001 8.75 0.04 -0.49 0.05 -0.54 0.03 Number of Level 1 Schools within 1/2 Mile 3.67 0.00 3.48 0.05 -0.23 0.00 0.95 <.0001 Number of Level 2 Schools within 1/2 Mile 0.72 0.25 0.70 0.56 -0.37 <.0001 -0.14 0.13 Number of Level 3 Schools within 1/2 Mile -3.94 <.0001 -2.36 0.04 0.53 <.0001 -0.23 0.07 Social Capital in Neighborhood Number of Observations 3,274 Note: Bold numbers indicate statistically significant results: p<0.05. Appendix B 3,274 3,327 3,327 49 Appendix C Qualitative Sample and Analyses Sample The designated welcoming school, other neighborhood The primary purpose of the qualitative portion of our schools, magnet schools, and charter schools. To get a study was to understand why families enrolled in the range of perspectives, we chose some schools where the schools they enrolled in and not others, and what con- majority of students enrolled in the designated welcom- straints or barriers they faced during the process. Below ing school, other schools where the majority of stu- is a detailed description of our sampling procedure. dents enrolled in other CPS schools, and schools with a more even mix. In making the final selection of closed 50 Sampling Closed Schools schools, we also took geographic location into consid- First, we sampled closed schools for range using maxi- eration. Using a map of the city with community areas, mum heterogeneity sampling to capture a variety of we first determined which area the closed schools parent perspectives. In order to use maximum het- were located in and then made sure to select schools erogeneity sampling effectively, we first identified the in different geographic locations so that we were not criteria for constructing our sample by examining five sampling only from one location in the city. In total, we distinct clusters that emerged from the way CPS assigned sampled 12 closed schools: Two from cluster one; three designated welcoming schools to each closed school: from cluster two; five from cluster three; and two from 38 1. Closed schools with more than one designated welcoming school (10 percent of closed schools) 2. Closed schools with one designated welcoming school, but the attendance area boundaries of other schools were redrawn to include the attendance area boundary of the closed school (18 percent of closed schools) 3. Closed schools with one designated welcoming cluster four. We also sampled a small percentage of families within cluster five. Sampling Displaced Families We used a stratified, purposeful sampling procedure to sample families within our sample closed schools, based on a number of criteria. Similar to maximum heterogeneity sampling, the purpose of a stratified purpose- school, and only that one school had their attendance ful sampling procedure is to sample for variation (but area redrawn (35 percent of closed schools) variation based on predetermined stratified criteria). 4. Closed schools where the designated welcoming school moved location to the closed school building (35 percent of closed schools) 5. Closed schools with no attendance area, which includes special education schools and other specialized schools (2 percent of closed schools) After arranging our sample of closed schools into Because our major research question was about the choices and constraints families faced, we sampled families that enrolled in their designated welcoming schools as well as families that enrolled in other CPS neighborhood schools, magnet schools, or charter schools. In addition to these criteria, we also stratified families by grade level of children so that we talked to families with children in both early elementary grades the clusters identified above, we then examined the (K-4) and middle grades (5-8). For families that enrolled proportion of students from the closed schools who their children into other CPS schools, we stratified reenrolled the following fall in CPS schools, including: our sample further into schools that were higher- and 38 See Patton (2002) for more information on this type of sampling strategy. UCHICAGO CCSR Research Report School Closings in Chicago TABLE C.1 Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees Parents/ Guardians with Children Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Parents/Guardians with Children Who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Parent/Guardian Race/Ethnicity Black Total Latino Other All 86 27 80 12 3 95 Children Attended a Designated Welcoming School (DWS) 45 14 43 5 2 50 Children Attended a Lower-Rated School than the DWS or a School Not Rated 26 9 23 5 0 28 Children Attended a Higher-Rated School than the DWS 15 4 14 2 1 17 Children Attended a Lower-Rated School than the Closed School or a School Not Rated 14 7 12 2 0 14 Children Attended a Higher-Rated School than the Closed School 27 6 25 5 1 31 lower-rated than their designated welcoming schools to and why, and why they ultimately decided to enroll based on the district performance policy ratings. their children in specific schools. We called families Lastly, we sampled at least one family that had a child based on the sampling plan outlined above until we with an IEP from each of the closed schools. reached the number of families specified in each of Within each of these stratifications, families were the sampling categories (approximately eight families for randomized and researchers called families until they each sampled closed school). Telephone interviews were reached approximately eight families for every sampled conducted in June and July, 2014. On average, interviews closed school. In total, we interviewed 95 families. lasted approximately 20 minutes. We audio recorded all Table C.1 shows the demographic characteristics of the parents/guardians we interviewed. Qualitative Analysis telephone interviews and transcribed them verbatim. Researchers read each interview transcript multiple times and coded responses into appropriate question banks using Atlas.ti. Once interviews were organized by Researchers designed an interview protocol to elicit protocol question, researchers further coded interviews answers from families about the kinds of information and extracted themes that emerged from the data. Data they received regarding their school choice options, the were organized in multiple ways, including Excel and schools they were considering sending their children Word tables to further examine patterns across the data. Appendix C 51 ABOUT THE AUTHORS MARISA DE LA TORRE is the Director for Internal Research Capacity at UChicago CCSR. Two of her main research interests involve studying the effects of policies aimed at the lowest-performing schools in the district and the high school choice process in Chicago Public Schools. She is currently studying the impact that attending higher-performing high schools have on students’ academic and nonacademic outcomes. Before joining UChicago CCSR, she worked for the Chicago Public Schools in the Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability. She received a master’s degree in economics from Northwestern University. 52 MOLLY F. GORDON is a Senior Research Analyst at UChicago CCSR. Her current research focuses on the impact of closing schools on families, examining the 5 Essential Supports Surveys across Illinois, and investigating how school leadership influences instruction and student learning. Previously, she was a Research Associate at the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota. She earned a BA in Philosophy and an MA in Educational Policy Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and a PhD in Educational Policy and Administration from the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. PAUL MOORE is a Research Analyst at UChicago CCSR and is in the process of completing an MA in the social sciences at the University of Chicago. His research interests include quantitative modeling and methodology. He is studying the effects of attending higher-performing schools on students’ academic performance and noncognitive skills. He earned a BS in mathematics and education science from Vanderbilt University. JENNIFER COWHY is a Research Analyst at UChicago CCSR. She received her master’s degrees in social work and public policy from the University of Chicago and her BA in sociology from the University of Michigan. Her research interests include special education and supports in schools beyond the classroom. Her current research focuses on the impact of school closings on children and families and evaluations of education programs and policies. This report reflects the interpretation of the authors. Although UChicago CCSR’s Steering Committee provided technical advice, no formal endorsement by these individuals, organizations, or the full Consortium should be assumed. CONSORTIUM ON CHICAGO SCHOOL RESEARCH Directors Steering Committee ELAINE M. ALLENSWORTH Lewis-Sebring Director KATHLEEN ST. LOUIS CALIENTO Co-Chair Spark, Chicago EMILY KRONE Director for Outreach and Communication JENNY NAGAOKA Deputy Director MELISSA RODERICK Senior Director Hermon Dunlap Smith Professor School of Social Service Administration PENNY BENDER SEBRING Founding Director SUE SPORTE Director for Research Operations MARISA DE LA TORRE Director for Internal Research Capacity KIM ZALENT Co-Chair Business and Professional People for the Public Interest Ex-Officio Members Individual Members VERONICA ANDERSON Communications Consultant JOANNA BROWN Logan Square Neighborhood Association CATHERINE DEUTSCH Illinois Network of Charter Schools TIMOTHY KNOWLES Urban Education Institute RAQUEL FARMER-HINTON University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Institutional Members KIRABO JACKSON Northwestern University JOHN R. BARKER Chicago Public Schools CLARICE BERRY Chicago Principals and Administrators Association AARTI DHUPELIA Chicago Public Schools CHRISTOPHER KOCH Illinois State Board of Education KAREN G.J. LEWIS Chicago Teachers Union SHERRY J. ULERY Chicago Public Schools CHRIS JONES Stephen T. Mather High School DENNIS LACEWELL Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men LILA LEFF Umoja Student Development Corporation RUANDA GARTH MCCULLOUGH Young Women’s Leadership Academy LUISIANA MELÉNDEZ Erikson Institute CRISTINA PACIONE-ZAYAS Latino Policy Forum PAIGE PONDER One Million Degrees LUIS R. SORIA Chicago Public Schools BRIAN SPITTLE DePaul University MATTHEW STAGNER Mathematica Policy Research AMY TREADWELL Chicago New Teacher Center ERIN UNANDER Al Raby High School ARIE J. VAN DER PLOEG American Institutes for Research (Retired) 1313 East 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 T 773-702-3364 F 773-702-2010 Preliminary Draft — Not for Circulation ccsr.uchicago.edu OUR MISSION The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research (UChicago CCSR) conducts research of high technical quality that can inform and assess policy and practice in the Chicago Public Schools. We seek to expand communication among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners as we support the search for solutions to the problems of school reform. UChicago CCSR encourages the use of research in policy action and improvement of practice, but does not argue for particular policies or programs. Rather, we help to build capacity for school reform by identifying what matters for student success and school improvement, creating critical indicators to chart progress, and conducting theory-driven evaluation to identify how programs and policies are working.