<%BANNER%>

Creating Efficiency

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044811/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Efficiency An Examination of the Allocation of School Facilities Resources in the Chicago Public Schools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (91 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Anderson, Nicole A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chicago -- efficiency -- facilities -- planning -- schools -- transparency -- utilization
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: fChicago Public Schools(CPS) is currently facing a $600 million to $700 million budget shortfall for the 2012-2013 school year and will need to make major cuts in order to maintain a balanced budget. The purpose of this study was to examine the allocation of school facilities resources within CPS to determine if there is a systemic issue of misallocation of school facilities resources that if fixed, could provide the district with major cost savings. This study consisted of a three-part quantitative and qualitative analysis that included scoping the misallocation of facilities resources within the district, utilizing a data-driven rubric to select candidates for school closing, and completing a detailed policy analysis based on national best practices. The results of the study indicated that there is a major mismatch between where students live and where schools are located. The issue is most severe on Chicago’s South and West sides, where severely underutilized schools are clustered within high-poverty and minority community areas.  A rubric that was created based on national best practices related to schools closings proved to be a useful preliminary identification tool for school closing candidates, as was demonstrated in an analysis of the most underutilized community areas. Finally, the policy analysis clearly demonstrated that CPS is not addressing the current misallocation of school facilities resources. Even if the district were to adopt a policy that targeted underutilization, CPS would need to greatly modify its current policies in order to provide more transparency for stakeholders.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nicole A Anderson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Jourdan, Dawn.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044811:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044811/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Efficiency An Examination of the Allocation of School Facilities Resources in the Chicago Public Schools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (91 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Anderson, Nicole A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chicago -- efficiency -- facilities -- planning -- schools -- transparency -- utilization
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: fChicago Public Schools(CPS) is currently facing a $600 million to $700 million budget shortfall for the 2012-2013 school year and will need to make major cuts in order to maintain a balanced budget. The purpose of this study was to examine the allocation of school facilities resources within CPS to determine if there is a systemic issue of misallocation of school facilities resources that if fixed, could provide the district with major cost savings. This study consisted of a three-part quantitative and qualitative analysis that included scoping the misallocation of facilities resources within the district, utilizing a data-driven rubric to select candidates for school closing, and completing a detailed policy analysis based on national best practices. The results of the study indicated that there is a major mismatch between where students live and where schools are located. The issue is most severe on Chicago’s South and West sides, where severely underutilized schools are clustered within high-poverty and minority community areas.  A rubric that was created based on national best practices related to schools closings proved to be a useful preliminary identification tool for school closing candidates, as was demonstrated in an analysis of the most underutilized community areas. Finally, the policy analysis clearly demonstrated that CPS is not addressing the current misallocation of school facilities resources. Even if the district were to adopt a policy that targeted underutilization, CPS would need to greatly modify its current policies in order to provide more transparency for stakeholders.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nicole A Anderson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Jourdan, Dawn.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044811:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CREATING EFFICIENCY : AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLOCATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES RESOURCES IN THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS By NICOLE ASHLEY ANDERSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIA L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Nicole Ashley Anderson

PAGE 3

3 To my students at Theodore Herzl Elementary School

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wo uld like to thank Dr. Paul Zwick and Stanley Latimer for being willing to work with me during the summer. I would also like to thank Patrick Stauffer and my sister Jennifer Anderson for pushing me to finish this thesis before I move onto my next endeavor.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 2 LTUOUS HISTORY ............................ 16 Impacts of Population Decline on Chicago Public Schools ................................ ..... 16 The Nadir of Chicago Public Education ................................ ................................ .. 19 Major Reforms ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 23 3 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 25 School Facilities Planning: A Process ................................ ................................ ..... 26 The Master Plan ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Creating the Master Plan ................................ ................................ .................. 28 School Facilities Planning in School Districts with Declining Enrollments ............... 30 Savings Associated with School Closings ................................ ........................ 31 Identification of Candidates for School Closure ................................ ................ 32 Public Involvement ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 Buil ding Re Use ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 Impacts of School Closings ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 37 4 METHODOLO GY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 Part I: Scope and Distribution of the Misallocation of School Capacity and Facility Resources ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 Part II: Selection of Closi ng Candidates Based on National Best Practices ........... 40 Current Utilization ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 Capacity ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 41 Year Built ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 Estimated Capital Needs ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Academic Achievement ................................ ................................ .................... 42 Nearby Schools ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Other Criteria Not Used ................................ ................................ .................... 43

PAGE 6

6 Part III: Policy and Action Analysis ................................ ................................ ......... 44 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 44 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Part I ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 School Level ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47 Community Area Level ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 Part II ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 48 North Lawndale ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 Austin ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Englewood ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 50 Part III ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 73 Results of Part I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 73 Part II ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 75 North Lawndale ................................ ................................ ................................ 75 Austin ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 76 Englewood ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 76 Limitations of the Model ................................ ................................ .......................... 77 Part III Policy Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............ 78 Further Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 7 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 84 APPENDIX : SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION RUBRIC ................................ ....................... 86 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 91

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Master planning best practices ................................ ................................ ........... 38 3 2 School closing best practices ................................ ................................ ............. 38 3 3 Community participation and transparency best practices ................................ 38 4 1 Methodo logy: Part I ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 4 2 Methodology: Part II ................................ ................................ ........................... 45 4 3 Methodology: Part III ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 5 1 Community Areas ranked by percent utilization ................................ .................. 55 5 2 Community Areas sorted by excess seats ................................ .......................... 58 5 3 Community areas sorte d by proposed school closings ................................ ....... 59 5 4 North Lawndale school closing rubric results ................................ ...................... 60 5 5 North Lawndale school closing priority li st with summary ................................ ... 61 5 6 Austin school closing rubric results ................................ ................................ ..... 62 5 7 Austin school closing priority list with summary ................................ .................. 63 5 8 Englewood school closing rubric results ................................ ............................. 64 5 9 Englewood school closing priority list with summary ................................ .......... 65 5 10 Master planning best practices comparison ................................ ....................... 65 5 11 School closings best practice comparison ................................ .......................... 66 5 1 2 Community participation and transparency ................................ ........................ 67 A 1 School identification rubric ................................ ................................ .................. 86

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5 1 School level histogram ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 5 2 Utilization rates by community area ................................ ................................ .... 68 5 3 Map of Community Areas by pe rcent utilization ................................ .................. 69 5 4 Map of North Lawndale school closing candidates ................................ ............. 70 5 5 Austin school closing candidates ................................ ................................ ........ 71 5 6 Englewood school closing candidates ................................ ................................ 72 6 1 Total number of children aged 5 14 by Community Area ................................ ... 81 6 2 Community Area by percent black ................................ ................................ ...... 82 6 3 Percent of high performing schools by Community Area ................................ .... 83

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ADA America ns with Disabilities Act CPS Chicago Public Schools CTU Chicago Teachers Union NCLB No Child Left Behind

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning CREATING EFFICIENCY: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLOCATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES RESOURCES IN THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS By Nicole Ashley Anderson August 2012 Chair: Paul Zwick Cochair : Dawn Jourdan Major: Urban and Re gional Planning Chica g o Public Schools (CPS) is currently facing a $600 million to $700 million budget shortfall for the 2012 2013 school year and will need to make major cuts in order to maintain a balanced budget The purpose of this study was to examine the allocation of school facilities resources within CPS to determine if there is a systemic issue of misallocation of school facilities resources that if fixed, could provide the district with major cost savings The study consisted of a three part qua nt itative and qualitative analysis that included scoping the misallocation of facilities resources within the district, utilizing a data driven rubric to select candidates for school closing, and completing a detailed policy analysis based on national best p ractices The results of the study indicated that there is a major mismatch between where students live South and West sides, where severely underutilized schools are clustered within hig h poverty and minority community areas. A rubric that was created based on national best practices related to schools closings proved to be a useful preliminary identification tool for school closing candidate, as was demonstrated in an analysis of the mo st

PAGE 11

11 underutilized community areas. Finally, the policy analysis clearly demonstrated that CPS is not addressing the current misallocation of school facilities resources. E ven if the district were to target underutilization, CPS would need to greatly modify its current policies in order to provide more transparency for stakeholders.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Theodore Herzl Elementary sits on the end of a once great boulevard in Chicago. On the outside, the school is monolithic, covering nearly a full city blo ck. However, the bea utiful faade obscures the dismal state of the educational environment on th e interior. The roof is leaking; the paint is peeling; the lighting is poor; there is no air conditioning; and an entire floor consists of nothing but empty cla ssrooms. The vast school can hold 1320 students, but only 512 students attend today ( Chicago Public Schools, 2008 ). T hus, the question arises as to whether or not the poor allocation of facilities resources as reflected by Theodore Herzl Elementary is an i solated case or a systemic issue that needs to be addressed. The goal of this research is to answer not only t he question of whether or not the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is efficiently allocating its school facilities resources, but also if the district is following national best practices related to school facilities planning in order to ensure that the district is making data driven decisions that provide the most e conomic distribution of facilities. A re very timely endeavor given that the school district is currently facing a budget shortfall of between $600 and $700 million for the 2012 2013 school year. Policymakers warn that the budget deficit could balloon to $1 billion by 2014. CPS faced a similar bu dget issue for the 2011 2012 school year and was able to close a $700 million gap by cutting staff, renegotiating contracts, and raising taxes ( Ahmed Ullah, N.S. & Hood. J, 2012 ). CPS must continue to make deep cuts in order to continue operating with a ba lanced budget as required by state law. Closing or consolidating schools such as Theodore Herzl could help to alleviate However, CPS is reticent to outright close schools

PAGE 13

13 despite obvious examples of gross underutilization, b ecause o f the immense conflict that has plagued the district in its previous attempts to close schools which is discussed in Chapter 2 of this study In addition to the current budget crisis, CPS is also under tremendous pressure to increase student ach ievement. In the new accountability era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the district has recently implemen ted several reform initiatives including the longer school day and an increase in the number of These reforms are jus t the latest initiatives in a more than twenty year struggle for Chicago America, a m oniker that it earned in 1987 (Banas & Byers, 1987). W hile graduation rates and test s c ores have improved immensel y since the first system wide reforms began in 1988, the district continues to underprepare the majority of its students to succeed in college or in career School facilities planning is one area of opportunity that CPS could use as a possible piece of th e solution for not only the current financial crisis but also for underperforming schools. Not only could a re evaluation of facilities resource allocation potentially save CPS m il lions of dollars in maintenance, operations and capital cos ts but it could also be used to better concentrate scarce educational resources into the The distr ict currently operates with many severely underutilized schools on the South and West sides ; while near the suburbs many of the schools are severely overcrowded This spatial mismatch has been a result of disproportionate growth and decline across the city. The district has done little to adapt to the shifting demographics that have plagued the city for the last half century and is thus left with an inefficient

PAGE 14

14 allocation of school capacity Despite having lost over 100,000 students since 1975, the district currently operates more schools today than it did at that time (King, S, 1975 and Chicago Public Schools, 2012 b ). Moreo ver the number of students enrolled in Chicago Public Schools continues to decline. Since 2000, CPS has lost nearly 30,000 students, resulting in empty classrooms in schools across the district. In addition to underutilized schools the district is facin g a $4.9 billion backlog of capital projects due to poor planning, a lack of capital allocation, and a rapidly a ging stock of school facilities ( Chicago Public Schools, 2012a). M ore than half of CPS schools were co nstructed before World War II, which trans lates to high costs to taxpayers in order to maintain these schools and bring them up to code. Many of these older schools lack air conditioning, modernized plumbing, and Americans with D isabilities Act (ADA) accommodations. As a means to improve the qual ity of the public schools in Chicago and to meet budgetary constraints, school facilities planning should be more closely examined as a possible source of savings as the district continues to struggle to balance its budget. Unfortunately, facilities issues are often ignored because of the political difficulties associated with school closings, consolidations, and redistricting. The purpose of this paper is to determine the scope of the misallocation of school facilities resources and whether or not the di strict is addressing facilities issues through its policies and actions through a comparison with national best practices. The analysis consisted of a three part qualitative and quantitative case study that examines and actions related to school facilities planning.

PAGE 15

15 First, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to determine the scope of the misallocation of school facilities resources at the elementary level munity and are an often used level of analysis for the City of Chicago since the Census honors the boundaries of the community areas when it delineates tracts (Encyclope dia of Chicago, 2005 a ). The community areas were prioritized by highes t need for closing. Three of the top candidates were then used for the second quantitative analysis. For the second level of analysis, a rubric was used to illustrate how a data driven m ethodology could provide much neede d transparency for the district. were examined in light of national best practices to determine if systemic changes could be made in t he planning process in order to save additional money long term. As a result of the three levels of analysis, recommendations were made as to how CPS could alter its school facilities planning policies to better serve every community a rea in the city with adequate public school facilities. While more efficient facilities planning based on nation al best practices may only relieve a small portion of the current $700 mill ion budget shortfall, CPS would be able to realize long term savings as capital projects and school closings are incorporated as p art of a long term plan, in lieu of the haphazard planning that has played a significant role in shaping the district as it is today.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 The current state of t he Chicago Public School system is dire. The district is facing immense budget constraints, increasing levels of accountability, and continuously deteriorating community approval as it attempts controversial reforms. CPS currently serves 404,151 students of which 91.2 % are minority and 87% are eligible for free or reduced lunch ( Chicago Public Schools, 2012b). The high level of poverty within the school district puts even greater strains on an already overstressed system. This current predicament however, is not the first time that CPS has been in c risis. The district has long struggled to adequately serve its overwhelmingly minority and poor population which b allooned following World War II The city and therefore its school s have largely been shaped by the unique demographics of the city that include massive population decline from 1950 1990, hyper segregation, and disparities in opportunity based on income and race. Impacts of Population Decline on Chicago Public Schools Shifting demographics within th e city have schools. Chicago 3,620,962 reside d within the city limits ( U.S. Census Bureau 1951 ). As in most large urban areas in the Northeast and n to shift dramatically throughout the 1950s and 1960s. While the city only lost approximately 70,000 residents during the 1950s, by 1960 the African American population had nearly doubled. The 1950s also brought a massive increase in the number of studen ts enrolled in Chicago Public Schools. Between 1951 and 1962, the enrollment of CPS grew by

PAGE 17

17 new buildings and additions to compensate for the immense growth in the school aged population. The school district would continue to grow until it reached a peak of nearly 600,000 students in the late 1960s. H owever at that time the city had already begun a precipitous decline in population that translated into fewer students in C PS as parents chose other school options. The decline in population during the 1960s and 1970s was spurred in large part by by blacks, leading to an ever expanding area that was perceived by whites as the being constructed and rapid transit was expanding to the suburbs. The combination of the fear of racial change and the proliferation of low cost transportation options led to the e xodus of many white families from the city. By 1960, nearly 400,000 white resid ents fled the city for the suburbs, as 345,391 African Americans migrated in ( U.S. Census Bureau 1961) The child ren that were left behind after white flight were increasingly low er income and minority requiring an even higher level o f service than did their higher income counterparts. By 1966, the schools w ere over 50% African American for the first time; o f the 571,233 pupils enrolled, 290,763 were African Ameri can and 266,305 were white ( With the tax base eroding as higher income residents fled to the suburbs the schools became i ncreasingly underfunded and quality suffered. The decreasing quality of education provided by the Chicago Public Schools continued the viscous cycle of educational quality decline and white f light

PAGE 18

18 By 1970 the population dropped by another 183,447 residents. When examined by race, the shift is much more stark. Over 500,000 white residents left t he city, most settling in the burgeoning suburbs, while nearly 300,000 African Americans migrated to the city ( U.S. Census Bureau 1971 ) The rapid loss of residents and changing demographic patterns not only had profound impacts on the nature of the cit y, but also on the schools. In the mid 196 0s, CPS reached its peak of nearly 600,000 students as the baby boomers moved through its schools ( Encyclopedia of Chicago 2005 b ). By 1 975, the system had approximately 505,000 stude nts remaining in its schools a loss of nearly 100,000 students (King 1975) Despite the leveling off of enrollment around 1966, the city continued to construct new classrooms, completing 1,193 classrooms between 1966 and 1971 ( Hope, 1971 ). Finally in 1976 downtown administrators reco gnized that something needed to be done in order to compensate for the loss of nearly 100,000 students ( C onsidered ) That year, school closings were proposed for the first time ; h owever, not one school was shuttered that year. Ove r the next several years, school closings on the scale of twenty to thirty five per year would be proposed. H owever each year protests and politics would severely diminish the number of schools closed, in most cases to around six to eight per year ( Banas, The worst year in terms of lack of action regarding school closings was 1980, wh en the proposed closing of 23 schools was suspended indefinitely by Mayor Jane Byrne (Banas, 1980).

PAGE 19

19 Not on ly was under enrollment becoming an issue in the mid 1970s, delayed maintenance was also creating a m assive backlog that resulted in major strains on the budget. A study conducted by Alderman William Singer stated that, We found holes in roofs, peeling pa int, bathrooms which did not meet minimal health standards, grossly inadequate lighting, and many other housekeeping items which were supposed to be corrected by the rehabilitation program. Yet, in school after school, we found broken promises from the boa rd, inordinate delays, and ultimately, the wasting of large amounts of money ( Banas, 1975) Visibly deteriorating school facilities exacerbated the already negativ e perception of the schools, which in turn continued to push higher income families out of CP S and into private schools and suburban schools. The dilapidation of school facilities due to delayed maintenance has been an ongoing issue in CPS and has resulted in a $4.9 billion backlog of projects (Chicago Public Schools, 2012a). Currently however, th e district can only allocate approximately $100 million per year to capital investment (Chicago Public Schools, 2012a). The scars of the failed school closings and inadequate maintenance of the late 70s and 80s are still evident throughout Chicago. CPS ha s lost another 100,000 students since 1975 and yet the net change in schools since that time is positive There are more schools in 2012 (675) than there were in 1975 (666) Poor planning and execution have perpetuated a system where half empty schools rem ain because closing them seems to be a politically impossible task. The Nadir of Chicago Public Education attempts at school closings were unsuccessful, the city also saw the quality of its schools deteriorate quickly. As early as 1 970, state legislators

PAGE 20

20 more than half a billion doll ars will be poured into financing the Chicago school system, which is as close to the point of collapse as many of the b uildings that house i The study also cited poor test scores and high rates of violence as additional reasons for alarm. In 1974, school superintendent Redmond declared that and are on t heir way back up (Lauerman, 1974). Unfortunately for students in Chicago, the nadir of public education in the city would not come until after another 13 years of decline. In 1987, Secretary of Education William Bennett declared the Chicago Public Schoo ( Banas & Byers 1987 ). He cited the 43% dropout rate and the high schools scored in the bottom 1 % of high schools nationwide mismanaged schools were finally being brought into the national spotlight. Major Reforms true reform within the Chicago public Schools. His major suggestion was the dissolution or the centralized bureaucracy of the school district (Banas & Byers 1987). The City of Chicago responded by creating and implementing the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act, which had a major focus on the decentralization and the democratization of the publ ic school system. The 1988 Chicago School Reform Act reallocated power from the central office to individual schools. Each school would have an elected Local School Council (LSC) that would consist of six parents, two community members, two teachers, and the principal ( Siewers, 1988). The LSC was entrusted with the role of hiring and firing principals, giving community members and parents considerable control over their schools. The

PAGE 21

21 creation of the LSC was considered a model for school districts across the nation. charter and non contract schools. In 1995, the state turned over control of the schools to Mayor Richard M. Daley as part of the 1995 Chicago School Reform Act. Accountability was the maj or focus of the second set of reforms. If a school was placed on probation due to low academic performance or special education non complian ce, its LSC would have its power truncated. The 1995 reforms were also responsible for the introduction of performa nce standards, the creation of more stringent retention policy, and the threat of reconstitution for low performance (Lipman, 2002). While many, including President Bill Clinton, ardently supported the1995 reforms, some researchers such as Lipman (2002) vi ewed the reforms as the corporatization of public education. Lipman (2002) also contends that the reforms reversed the decentralization set forth in the 1988 reforms. Overall however, CPS realized major gains in test scores and dropout rates. Between 1990 and 2005, the percent of students at or above norms on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) in reading from grades 3 8 rose from 22.3% to 43.7%. The district has also seen a one point increase in average ACT scores from 16.2 to 17.2. Additionally, as com pared to the 43% dropout rate in 1987, approximately 67% of CPS students now attain their diplomas by age 19 (Luppescu et al., 2011). The last of the major reforms was introduced in 2004 when Mayor Richard M. Daley and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan an nounced Renaissance 2010, a school reform that focused on providing more high performing choices for all students in

PAGE 22

22 Chicago. One of the major components of Renaissance 2010 was the plan to close 60 70 schools and open 100 new schools in their place over a period of ten years (Luppescu et al., 2011). Overall between 2001 and 2009, eighty two schools were closed, while 155 schools were opened (Luppescu et al,. 2011). The figure of 82 schools opened during this time period is somewhat skewed since oftentimes multiple small schools would reopen within the same facility that had previously housed a single school that had closed. In most school closings the school has been replaced by a charter or contract school whose staff is outside the control of the Chicago Union (CTU) which often works in direct opposition of the central office. Overall, from the nadir of CPS in 1987 to the present, CPS has made immense gains in educational quality, however most schools in the district still perform far below t heir suburban counterparts. Even within CPS, there are major disparities between educational opportunities for high income and low income residents, and white and minority residents. Recently, CPS has create positive change in chronically underperforming schools. A turnaround school retains its facility and students, but the entire faculty and staff are terminated. Outside education management companies operate the turnaround schools, which has caused o utcry from supporters of traditional public education and the Chicago Teachers Union. Another point of contention is the selection process for turnarounds. Turnaround schools are selected based mainly on performance data, however the board has chosen to ke ep the other criteria private, leaving only speculation as to why specific schools are chosen. Despite an immense show of protest against the schools slated for

PAGE 23

23 turnaround in 2012 2013, the district still plans to turn around 10 schools, the most in a give n year to date. CPS has decided to wholeheartedly pursue turnarounds as a reform policy. Based on preliminary data from the first turn around schools in 2005, the district has evidence that turnaround schools can be successful in implementing high levels of structure and accountability into schools that were once considered chronically underperforming. Hopefully, turnarounds will prove to be another positive step for CPS towards providing a quality education for all. Unfortunately, the district still has a long way to go to realize that goal. Summary For the past sixty years, CPS has failed to adapt in order to provide a high quality education for all of its students. This context is vital to understanding the current crisis, as well as policies that could be used as part of the solution. The current system is a result of decades of apathy from the upper and middle class es who take advantage of educational alternatives that are not readily accessible to lower income residents The current enrollment, which i s only 9% white and 87% low income, illustrates just how few middle and upper income parents choose public schools. Since the beginning of the decline in the number of the students attending CPS schools in 1968, the city has done little to make the dist rict the right size in terms of facilities so that it can adequately address th e educational and social needs of its students. As shown over the past decade with reforms such as Renaissance 2010 and turnaround schools, changes in the district are political ly charged and result in immense pushback from parents and community members. The pushback is a result of deca des of failed educational policies that have led to the current crisis. While there have been

PAGE 24

24 major gains in academic achievement, community membe rs still lack the buy in necessary in order to implement the level of change necessary to correct the current misallocation of educational resources. Despite the immense conflict that would come as a result of proposed school closings or consolidations s omething still needs to be done to address th e excess capacity in many Chicago community a reas that results an immense financial strain on the city. Without any school closings or consolidations, the district will continue to bleed money into operations an d maintenance or be forced to defer the maintenance and create an even poorer educational environment for its students.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 RE V IEW OF THE LITERATUR E The focus of this literature review will be to establish the national best practices related to s chool facilities planning with a strong concentration on shrinking school districts. The issues and barriers related to school closings will also be identified. Throughout the review of literature, examples from other large cities that have successfully ad apted their facilities in light of declining enrollments will be included to provide additional context for this analysis of school facilities planning in Chicago. Sch ool facilities planning is an interdisciplinary process by which districts identify and prioritize school construction, renovations, maintenance, and school closings. Unfortunately, school facilities planning has rarely been done well in the past, leading to the inefficient allocation of facility resources and capital funding. If a company i n the private sector were to use the same decision making practices th at have been the status quo in school facilities planning, that company would operate inefficiently and most likely be forced to close due to a mismatch between customer demand and store locations. Yet, since school facilities are a publically provided good, the same level of efficiency has not been demanded, except in times of fiscal crisis. Recently however, there have been efforts to improve the methods that school districts use to al locate capital resources and make facilities decisions. The literature related to the process is still sparse, but the field is definitely growing as more states require comprehensive facility plans. Still, the majority of scholarly research focuses on the design an d build aspects of school facilities planning, while overlooking the actual planning aspect Despite the lack of research related directly to school facilities planning, there are several seminal documents that outline the best practices in scho ol

PAGE 26

26 facilities planning and planning for school closings. Additionally, much of the research related to school closings is from the mid to late 1970s and 1980s when districts across the country were closing underutilized schools Despite their age the co ntent of those articles is still relevant today and is useful in understanding the process of closing a school. School Facilities Planning: A Process Kelley Carey (2011, p1), a 35 year veteran of educational planning, defines school facilities planning as year plan for schools renovation and determine what facilities actions should be prioritized, school districts eliminate the to anticipate future needs in terms of new construction, renovation, or closures (Carey, 2011). The five year guideline is considered efficient because it provides enough forethought so that districts can prioritize and plan out their capital projects over several years, wh i le also diminishing the possibility that shifts in demographics or policy changes will have major impacts on the viability of the plan however the plan may cover a longer period of time The 21 st Century School Fund (2011) an organization dedicated to providing quality educational facilities for all students, suggests a slightly longer timeline, a six to ten year horizon. The five y ear to ten year plan that is created th rough the process of school facilities planning should not be a static document. As new data becomes available each year, the district should update its plan accordingly.

PAGE 27

27 The process of school facilities planning is also not just about the facilities in w hich students attend school. The district must also take into account educational programs and demographics. Carey (2011 ) refers to these three aspects -programs, facilities, and demographics -as the three vertices of the planning triangle. The first major step in the alignment of the three sides of the planning triangle is the creation of a long term capital plan, or a master plan. Only once the district has created a master plan can it make smart and informed decisions in order to provide the most cost ef fective allocation of school facilities resources The Master Plan According the 21 st Century School Fund ( 21 st Century School Fund, 2011 ), an Educational Facilities Master Plan is defined as, a written document that describes the estate and capital improvement plans for meeting these requirements over a 6 10 year period. In most cases, the plan relates to the needs of the district in terms of accommodating additional growth. However, urban districts in the Midwest and Northeast fa ce unique challenges related to aging infrastructure and continued demographic shifts. Based on the current context of the district, the plan should include most, if not all of the following elements ( 21 st Century School Fund, 2011 ) : Space needs for school s Administration and logistics School closings and consolidations Attendance boundary changes Leasing Joint use and co locations Schedule and estimate d cost for major repairs Modernization and New Construction. Depending on the context of the scho ol district, the plan may have a specific focus

PAGE 28

28 ( District of Columbia Public Schools, 2010 ), because of years of neglect in terms of capital spending. The Richmond school distric t focuses on both modernization and school closings ( Richmond City Public Schools, 2007 ) due to continuing declines in population and aging school facilities. As districts complet e the steps necessary to create a master plan, leaders will be able to analyze the data to determine the correct focus of their master plan, whether it is expansion, contraction, or modernization. The ultimate goal of the master plan, according to the Cit y of Philadelphia (2011), rce for implementing resources. Creating the Master Plan The creation of a school facilities master plan is a multi step process that requires an interdisciplinary team. Typically, school districts have isolated the task to the d emographics department, however best practices suggest the use of a team that includes not only demographers and planners, but also educators, stakeholders, GIS specialists, transportation specialists, and architects (Carey, 2011). Instead of working separ ately on possibly competing objectives, the team or task force can work collaboratively to compile and manipulate data, set priorities, and organize public participation. Carey (2011) outlines the major steps in the creation of a facilities master plan a re as follows: Acquire good data Set clear objectives

PAGE 29

29 Develop alternative plans to meet needs and objectives Assess alternatives plans Derive a workable plan and Review and update annually The first step, data collection, is requisite in order to c reate the foundation needed for the future analysis and recommendations For school districts that have not previously used a master plan, the compilation of data may be very time consuming as there are many types of data necessary in order to provide the most accurate analysis possible. A non comprehensive list of data necessary to create a facilities master plan includes but is not limited to, current enrollment demographics maps with land use and projected developments, a map of students by address, st udents attending schools outside their zoned school, renovation estimates, operations costs, site acreage, transportation maps, academic performance, and school design (Carey, 2011). Due to the diverse categories covered by the required data, cooperation b etween departments is vital, but can be difficult in large school district where departments are not used to interacting. Once the data is compiled, two key calculations are required for every master plan: enrollment projections and school capacity calcul ations. Enrollment project ion s are designed to capture the growth or decline within the district as a whole and within each school so that decisions can be made as to whether the district needs to invest in new buildings or renovations, or the district nee ds to begin downsizing. The calculation of the capacity of each school is the second major calculation used in the school facilities master plan. Capacity can be calc ulated by a variety of methods. The Portland Public Schools ( n.d. ) outlined several key m ethods in their long range facilities plan. First, the net area method takes the gross square feet and subtracts the

PAGE 30

30 area used for special education to determine the net area. The net area is the then divided by a square foot per student ratio to determine the capacity. While net area is simple to calculate it does not take into account the variances in common area space and can thus severely skew the capacity of a building. A second method to calculate capacity is by number of classrooms. A district may c hoose a square footage requirement for a room to be counted as a regular classroom, or a programming requirement (for example, special education classrooms are exempt). Each regular classroom is then multiplied by a number that is determined by the distric t. In Chicago, the number used in the calculation is 30. Prior to 2011 2012, CPS also counted smaller classrooms and allocated 15 students per smaller class room. The outcome of the elimination of the inclusion of smaller rooms is that many CPS schools are showing higher utilization rates than they would have in 2010 2011. For CPS, the classroom model works better than the square foot model because of the high variabi lity in school design. A square foot per student measure that many work in a n early 20 th ce ntury building may not be appropriate for a school constructed in 2008. Therefore, the classroom method is the better fit for the City of Chicago. School Facilities Planning in School Districts with Declining Enrollments School districts, such as Chicago where there has been a net loss in the number of students enrolled in the public schools face a unique set of challenges. These districts must make difficult decisions in order to maintain efficiency in their allocation of school capacity. As discussed in the previous chapter, large Rustbelt cities underwent major population declines during the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in immense declines in total school populations and major shifts in the demographics of the students served. Lerman (1983) found that b etween the years of 1970 and 1978 districts with declining

PAGE 31

31 enrollments closed an average of 500 schools per year. The vast majority of the research related to declining enrollments is from the late 1970s and early 1980s, as researchers were compiling and a nalyzing the actions of school districts that had made the politically unpopular decision to close schools. Best practices, such as criteria for closing, public involvement, and building re use have been heavily researched, while the impacts of closings ar e less well known (Valencia, 1984) The goal of this section is to discuss the process of school closings, as well as establish the national best practices related directly to closings, such as the criteria used to identify schools, public involvement, and building re use. Savings Associated with School Closings Proposed school closings are often a result of a combination of declining enrollment and fiscal crisis. Dean (1981) described the situation in major cities across issue in communities is no longer whether schools Most researcher s and even most citizens, accept the logical conclusion that school closings result in considerable savings. As school enrollments decline, the per student cost of maintenance and operations skyrockets, creating major resource allocation inefficiencies that could be alleviated by school closings. S everal researchers have examined the resulting savings for school districts The Pew Trust in their research for the School District of Philadelphia (2011) found in large school districts, there were small savings associated with school closings in the short term unless the closings were also associated with layoffs. The Pew Trus t also found that savings in the long term were difficult to analyze, however they stressed the importance of finding an alternate use for the closed buildings in order to reach

PAGE 32

32 maximum savings. In a study of Los Angeles, Krempasky (1990 ) found that in Los Angeles realized an average savings of $100,000, which would be approximately $215,000 today (1983 USD). Kremp as ky (1990) outlined not only the savings of school closings, but also some of the unexpected costs. She cites the elimination of surplus admini strators, janitorial staff, resource teachers, utilities, and future planned capital investment as areas in which school districts will realize cost savings. In most cases these savings are at least partially offset by the immense cost of planning to close schools, maintaining or mothballing closed buildings, and security and insurance for closed buildings. Additionally, school closings are not simply associated with financial costs, there are also immense impacts real and perceived on the communities direc tly impacted by the school closings. Richard Valencia (1984), who has been one of the most ardent and cited opponents to school closings, found that cost savings are often exaggerated in order to help convince citizens that the closings are warranted. He p rovided evidence from Seattle where the school district realized no true savings as a result of school closings. He does however concede that large school districts in the Rustbelt who have old building stocks would realize much larger savings due to an im mense decrease in energy costs and modernization costs. He states that school closings in these districts would be justified, because operating underutilized schools in these districts is incongruously inefficient. Identification of Candidates for School C losure Once a school district has determined through its master planning process that school or schools need to be closed, the district must determine the criteria to be used

PAGE 33

33 that are aligned with their priorities. The priorities for each school district will be different and will largely depend upon the policies of the district and the state in which the school is located. School closings for efficiency reasons are typically due to underutilization or gross disrepair. In some areas, school districts are b eginning to use academic criteria to close chronically underperforming schools. The focus of this research is on closures for underutilization, however academic criteria are often used in the identification process for school closing candidates so they wil l also be discussed. The Pew Charitable Trust s (2011), in their examination of six other districts where school closings have occurred in the last decade, advocates the use of the following criteria: academic performance, enrollment/population decline, pe rcentage of students from outside boundary, academic program alignment/equity, neighborhood impact, sharing staff/resources, building condition, utilization, neighboring schools, potential to reduce excess space, feeder patterns, and reuse options. Many ot her researchers pro vide similar lists of criteria. The criteria selected depend largely upon the context of the city and data availability. Public Involvement School closings can be traumatic for communities, especially if they feel as though there may be an ulterior motive behind the closing or that the closing is discriminatory in nature based on race or income. The amount of public involvement in the planning process and the decision making can vary on a scale from a board decision with no public inpu t to a community based planning model (Dean, 1981). Best practices call for community involvement from the earliest steps to ensure maximum buy in from all stake holders. The Pew Charitable Trust s (2011) suggests that the community as a whole should be inf ormed of the need to close schools long in advance

PAGE 34

34 public backing before citizens become emotionally invested in their drive to save their schools (Pew Trust, 2011 p. 1 1). One major aspect of public involvement is the availability and accessibility of data that will be used in the school closing process. Once again, the Pew Trust (2011) advocates the publication of interactive data to include maps so that community memb ers can verify that the district has the best interest of the students in mind. In Pittsburgh, w here they are also facing declinin g enrollments, the Pitt s burgh Public Schools invested $450,000 in compiling and publishing data related to all aspects of scho ol facilities planning, including academic achievement (Temple et al, n.d.). The project, entitled VIPER (Visualizing Information for PPS Evaluation and Research) includes not just data, but also interactive mapping tools and a stakeholder dashboard to al low all citizens access to accurate and robust data. PPS believes that the availability of data will lessen the amount of pushback against its future school closings (Temple et al, n.d.). The final major aspect of public participation occurs after the sch ool list is released. Every school targeted for closing should have multiple opportunities to present its case as to why its schools should not be closed. The district must ensure that the participation is not just ceremonial, as Carey (2011) warns. She ha s found through her 35 years of experience that most public meetings consist of the district presenting its finding to the public, instead of community members having the opportunity to provide feedback and input. One way that districts can signal to commu nity members that their feedback is important is the on line publication of

PAGE 35

35 transcripts from public participation meetings. Transcripts should be error free and include all speakers. In almost all cases, the public does not have the final decision on wh at schools are closed, but districts can continue to use best practices related to public involvement by ensuring that decision are made in a transparent manner using a data driven methodology. When closing decisions and public input are to be examined and adjudicated by a hearing officer, the district must take extra precautions to ensure that the individual is in no way affiliated with the district (Carey, 2011; Pew Trust, 2011). When the school board makes the final decision, best practices suggest that the schools should be decided on in one vote following the compilation of the final list of candidates. By using one vote, the board ensures that no one neighborhood feels targeted (The Pew Trust, 2011). Overall, districts should take positive steps to e nsure that the public feels as though the decision is in the best interest of the students of the district and that their voice is heard. By providing the public with high levels of transparency in the decision making process, the school district should, a t minimum, reduce the pushback from parents. Building Re Use Once a school closes, the district must determine what should be done with the remaining building. Schools are often the center point of communities so it is vital that, at minimum, the buildin g should be k ept from becoming a liability to the community. If a school can be leased or sold, the district may be able to exponentially increase the savings closing. Some suggested uses for vacant school buildings include (Carlson, 1991):

PAGE 36

36 Charter schools Community centers Senior housing Private housing development Other district needs (storage, administration, preschool) Homeless housing and Commercial development However, since schools are typically closed in declining areas, districts often fin d it difficult to dispose of vacant schools. Districts must then spend money to maintain the buildings and keep them free of graffiti and vagrants, however the cost of security and insurance is much lower than the full cost of operating an underutilized sc hool. Other school districts that have undergone major downsizing often find alternative uses for some of the buildings while most remain vacant. For example, Detroit has closed nearly 100 schools in the past decade. The city has demolished some, left many vacant, and has found alternative uses for handful. Still, the city estimates that they earn $5 million in revenue per year from the lease of school buildings (The Pew Trust, 2011). In Chicago, the majority of recently closed schools have found alternati ve uses as charter schools, which provide the residents of Chicago with more educational choices. Some areas though, such as Milwaukee, do not allow charter schools to occupy the buildings of former public schools, because the charter schools are viewed as lowering the already declining traditional public school enrollment. Overall, the district should have a plan in place to identify schools that have the best opportunity for alternative use and then those schools that should be mothballed or demolished. Impacts of School Closings While much research has been completed on the process of school closings, there is little literature on the impacts of school closings. Lipman (2002) has found that

PAGE 37

37 school closings can have negative impacts on both attendance an d achievement; however the impacts can be offset by providing displaced students with opportunities to attend higher achieving schools. In the city of Chicago, the Chicago Consortium of School Researchers found that the impacts of school closings were mi nimal after one year in both reading and math ( De La Torre 2009). Enberg et al. (2011) found that in an anonymous school district that the academic performance of students depending on the quality of the receiving school. Thus, if high achieving receiving schools can be identified then school closings may actually be considered an opportunity for students to attend a higher achieving school. Overall, w hile school closings may have immediate negative impact, the goal is to create efficiencies with the schoo l system so that educational resources can be better distributed through economies of scale. Summary As a whole, school facilities planning is a vital process for all school districts. The master plan serves as a guide for the district in order to make in formed and researched decisions regarding the need for expansion, modernization, or downsizing. The best practices related to school facilities planning are especially necessary in school districts with declining enrollments. In order to efficiently alloca te school capacity while minimizing community resistance, school districts should follow the best practices outlined in the table below. Even though there may still be pushback from the community, school district leaders can ensure that their decisions are in the best interests of all of the s tudents in the school district moving forward.

PAGE 38

38 Table 3 1. Master planning best p ractices Master planning best practices 1. Create a comprehensive facilities plan with a fi ve to ten year planning horizon 2. Prioritize c apital projects over a span of five to ten years 3. Include school closings as part of its facilities master plan Table 3 2. School closing best practices School closing best practices 1. Inform public about need before release of school closing candidates 2. Use appropriate criteria for school closings that is made available to the public 3. Use non biased hearing officers 4. Vote for school closings as a package 5. Find a lternative uses for vacant schoo ls Table 3 3. Community participation and transparency best p ractices Community Participation and Transparency Best Practices 1. Provide citizens with opportunities for input on the facilities master plan 2. Allow multiple opportunities for input on proposed closings 3. Focus on public input, not presentation of facts at public participation meetings 4. Provide access to the public of all non confidential data used in planning for school closings

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY This study consists of a three part quantitative and qualitative analysis used to determine the scope and geographic distribution of the misallocation of school capacity and facilities resources Table s 4 1 4 2, and 4 3 outline the questions that each section will answer, the methods used within that section, the data used, and possible improvements. Part I: Scope and Distribution of the Misallocation of School Capacity and Facility Resources The purpose of the first section of analysis is to determine the scope of the misallocation of school capacity and capital spending as well as the spatial distribution of the mis allocation The section addresses three questions: What is the scope of the misallocation of school facilities resources? What areas have the highest rate of underutilization and should be targeted for closing? What areas have the highest rate s of overcrowding and should be targeted for new construction or creative assignment policies? In order to answer these three questions both GIS and Excel were used. First, current CPS enrollment data was compiled from the CPS website for all elementary s chools and middle schools, not including charters. That data was entered into a spreadsheet so that each school had information regarding current enrollment, current calculated capacity, number of classrooms, percent utilization, and excess seats. Next, geo coded CPS performance data and community a rea boundaries were imported into a GIS map. The capacity spreadsheet was also uploaded and joined to the CPS performance data using CPS designated school codes. The schools in the joined layer were then saved a s a distinct shapefile to ensure that the join would be

PAGE 40

40 permanent. The newly created shapefi le was then joined to the c ommunity a rea boundaries. The new attribute table was exported to Excel as a .dbf for further analysis. Once in Excel, a pivot tab le w as created to analyze each community a rea b ased on total number of schools and the other aforementioned capac ity criteria to prioritize the community a reas where actions should be taken in terms of both closings and relief for overcrowding. Census data com piled by community a rea was also appended to the tables to add an additional layer of complexity. The Census data allowed the researcher to determine if there was additi onal latent demand within each community ar ea. Based on all of the above criteria, thr ee Community a reas were selected for further analysis based on a ranking of highest need for school closings in terms of possible number of closings as calculated by the formula: Number of excess seats*.8/Average school capacity. Since the top three candid Westside, the fourth candidate, Englewood, was chosen instead of West Town to provide geographic diversity within the sample. Part II: Selection of Closing Candidates Based on National Best Practices The second secti on consisted of a quantitative analysis that takes a closer look at the selected community areas. T he criteria for closing are discussed below and are based on the context of Chicago as established in Chapter 2. Based on the analysis of closing criteria, o ne possible iteration of a rubric to objectively rank schools within community areas was created to demonstrate one method CPS could use to provide an objective and data driven selection process that would be transparent for the public The community a reas identified in Part I were used for the analysis for Part II. The criteria selected for this analysis based on data availability and best practices were current utilization capacity, year built as a proxy for energy and operations costs,

PAGE 41

41 estimated capita l costs, academic achievement, and number of schools within 0.75 miles. The rubric can be found in Appendix A. Current Utilization Current utilization was selected as one of the criteria based on national best practices and publically accessible data. Cur rent utilization data was accessed from the Chicago Public Schools website. Each school has a PDF that outlines the current enrollment and capacity, which are used to calculate utilization. Utilization has the largest range, 0 60, because closing schools w ith higher utilizations would be more difficult in terms of student assignment. In this scenario, a highly utilized school would only be closed if the other criteria were at or near the lowest categories as compared to other schools within the community ar ea. Capacity Capacity was selected based on national best practices, publically accessible data, and the Chicago context. Schools below 250 students do not have the capacity necessary to create the economies of scale necessary for a fully functional scho ol. Small schools are not allotted full time resource teachers and are costly to operate, because they still require two administers. Schools between 500 and 1,000 students were given the highest ranking, because that equates to two to four homeroom classe s per grade, which allows considerable flexibility for programming. Schools that could hold over 1,000 stude nts were considered too large for the current Chicago context. In many areas, the density no longer exists to support such large school and students would have to commute longer distances than with the target capacity of 500 to 1, 000 students. The range for capacity, 0 30, is lower than that for enrollment, because a

PAGE 42

42 school could be efficient regardless of size, whereas underutilized schools are by d efinition inefficient. Year Built Some sources ( Carey, 2011 ) caution against using year built, but only in the case in which it is used as a proxy for capital needs. In this case, year built is used as a proxy for energy and operations costs. Many of the older schools lack sufficient electrical capacity, air conditioning, and efficient heating, and are thus much more expensive to operate. The range for year built is 0 30, the same as for capacity. Year built was compiled from the individual school assessm ents found on the Chicago Public Schools website. Estimated Capital Needs Estimated capital needs were selected as one of the criteria based on national best practices and the Chicago context. Capital needs vary widely in Chicago from less than $500,000 to over $15,000,000. Schools that will be more expensive to maintain are favored for closing, since their closure would save the district large amounts of money. The scale for capital needs is from 0 50, because just as with utilization, schools with high capital needs are inherently inefficient. Academic Achievement Academic achievement was selected as one of the criteria based on national best practices and the Chicago context. As a whole, Chicago is generally low performing, with only 128 of its 472 el ementary schools achieving the status of Level 1, the highest ranking. Therefore, schools with high academic achievement are given great weight, since high performing schools are so rare. A Level 1 school is scored as a 50, and a Level 2 school is scored a s a 25. A Level 3 school is scored as 0. An interesting

PAGE 43

43 analysis would be to do a correlation between percent utilization and academic achievement to see if parents are choosing to send their kids to higher performing schools if that is an available option Academic achievement data was compiled from the City of Chicago Data Portal. Nearby Schools The number of s chools located within 0.75 miles was selected as a criteria based on national best practices and the Chicago context. Typically the preferred walk distance is between 0.5 miles and 1 mile for school planning purposes. Three quarters of a mile was selected since students may walk or ride the public bus for free if they are low income. Additionally, only schools that were underutilized were included i n the counts for nearby schools. The range is from 0 30 since CP S should ensure that no student is commuting longer than 0.75 to school. With actual address data and catchment areas, a more detailed analysis could be completed here. Given the publically av ailable data, a simple GIS analysis shows the number of nearby schools. Other Criteria Not Used Other criteria that are typically used as part o f school facilities planning were not used based on data availability and applicability to the City of Chicago For example, building re use potential could not be calculated or proxied based on any publically available data. The number of s tudents outside their assigned schools was also not used, because there was no publically available data. Ethnic balance was considered not relevant to Chicago since most community areas are predominately one race. Change in enrollment was also not considered because of the high level of volatility in school enrollments over time given the reforms of Renaissance 2010.

PAGE 44

44 The schoo ls were ra nked using a rubric that categorizes each criterion into several score bands By using a rubric instead of a straight ranking and weighting, the disparities between schools in each category are more accurately scaled The formula was chosen based on not only national best practices, but also the Chicago context. Appendix A outlines the criteria, available rubric points the data source, and a ranking description. Once each school was weighted using the above rubric, the lowest totals were identif ied as candidates for closing. A secondary check was completed using excess seats to determine if the iteration was feasible. While CPS could use any number of weighting and ranking formulas the example shown above simply provides one possible system CPS could use to make their criteria more transparent in order to protect themselves from political pushback and possible legal challenges. P art III: Policy and Action Analysis For the qualitative analysis, current CPS policies and actions were compared to nat ional best practices as established in the review of literature The best p ractices were broken down into three categories: master planning, school closings, community participation and transparency The best practices can be found in Chapter 1, Figure 1 1 1 2, and 1 3. Summary The three part methodology presented here provides a multi faceted analysis of the current state of school facilities planning in Chicago. While there are areas for improvement given better data availability, the methodology provid es a definitive framework for answering the established research questions regarding whether or not Chicago efficiently utilizes its current public school facilities.

PAGE 45

45 Table 4 1 Methodology : Part I Table 4 2 Methodology : Part II Questions Type of a nalysis Methods Data u sed Improvements What is the scope of the mi sallocation of school facilities resources? What areas have the highest rate of underutilization and should be targeted for closing? What areas have the highest rates of overcrowding and should be targeted for new construction or creative assignment po licies? Quantitative Spatial GIS: Spatial Join Excel: Pivot Tables, Ranking Chicago Public Schools 2012 Utilization Data Chicago Public Schools 2010 2011 School Performance Data (Geocoded) Community Area Boundaries No data related to student address es is publically available. CPS will not release data to student researchers. Questions Type of a nalysis Methods Data u sed Improvements What criteria should be used for closing? What is o ne draft methodology that could be used to select schools for closing based on national best practices? Quantitative Spatial GIS: Spatial Join Excel: Weighting Formulas CPS 2012 Utilization Data CPS 2010 2011 School Performance Data CPS School Capita l Assessment Data Additional criteria could be included if data was readily available.

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 3 Methodology : Part III Questions Type of a nalysis Methods Data u sed Improvements school facilities planning policies and actions addressing the issues of the current st ate of the allocation of facilities resources? Qualitative Policy Analysis Press Releases Newspaper Articles Policy Statements Interviews could provide additional evidence in place of speculation about future actions.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS facility resources is inefficient in that the majority of schools and community areas in Chicago are operating well below or well above the ideal capacity. T he policy analysis illustrates that CPS is not utilizing all of the best practices outlined in the review of literature. Part I School Level As shown in Figure 5 1 Chicago Public Schools is currently operating with nearly half of its schools underutiliz ed (less than 80% of capacity), including 110 schools that are severely underutilized (less than 60% of capacity). Additionally, sixty six schools are considered overcrowded (greater than 120% of capacity). Only 28% of its current public school facilities are operating within the efficient range of 80% to 120%. Community Area Level When the schools are aggregated into the seventy seven community areas (Figure 5 2) the distribution of school utilizations becomes more apparent. As a whole, at the e lementa ry school (K 8) level CPS operates its 472 elementary schools at a 79 % capacity, which on its face appears efficient. However, when the schools are aggregated by community areas, the geographic distribution of utilization rates illustrates that some areas of the city have far too many public school facilities. Twenty nine of the 77 community areas are underutilized, while nine are considered severely underutilized. What was unexpected, however, was that 16 of the community areas would be considered overcro wded, which includes nine that are at 140% utilization.

PAGE 48

48 Table 5 1 s hows the community a reas sorted by percent utilization for the entire area from smallest to largest. The lowest community area, Oakland, has a capacity utilization rate of only 38%, howev er it only has one school, so it is not a good candidate for further analysis. At the other end of the spectrum is West Eldson, which is curren tly operating at 189%. Table 5 2 is sorted by number of excess seats. Four community areas, Austin, North Lawnd ale, West Town, Englewood, and Auburn Gresham have over 4,000 excess seats. On the other hand, as shown in Table 5 6, Belmont Cragin, Gage Park, Brighton Park, West Elsdon, East Side, South Lawndale, and Dunning (Table 5 1) all have more than 1,000 excess students. Based on the average size of a school in Chicago (704 students), those community areas need approximately 1.5 new schools. Finally, Table 5 3 shows the community areas sorted by estimated number of schools for closing. The top community areas ar e North Lawndale (5.9 schools), Austin (5.4 schools), West Town (5.1 schools), Englewood (5.0 schools), Near West Side (4.2 schools). These are the community areas that will be used in Part II of the analysis. Figure 5 1 shows a map of the community area s by percent utilization which shows the spatial distribution of capacity utilization. Based on the map, the communi ty areas that are underutilized, shown in red and orange, are concentrated on the south and west sides. The community areas that are overcr and Midway. Part II For Part II, the selected community areas were analyzed using the rubric shown in Appendix A The results of that analysis are s hown in Table 5 4 through Table 5 9

PAGE 49

49 and Figure 5 2 through Figure 5 4 The r esults show one possible ranking system that CPS could use in order to identify schools for closure. North Lawndale Overall, No rth Lawndale, shown in Table 5 4 and Table 5 5 needed approximately five schools to close. However only four could be closed ba sed on the ranking criteria. The four schools that were identified as closing candidates were Roswell B. Mason (55), Theodore Herzl (60), Nathanial Pope (80), and Julia C Lathrop (90). Julia C Lathrop was selected from the four schools that tied at a 90 du e to its small enrollment (83). The four sc hools combined represent the elimination of 3,870 seats in the community area, a capital savings of $24,460,000, and a displacement of 1,269 students. Assuming all students remain in community area schools, the ca pacity rate would be 92.2%. The map in Figure 5 3 shows the geographic distribution of the schools within the community area. The schools are evenly distributed across the community area. Austin Ove rall, Austin, shown in Table 5 5 needed approximately five schools to be closed. Based on the rubric, five schools could be closed with the resulting utilization of 88.2%. The five schools that would be closing candidates are Ronald McNair, Leslie Lewis, Louis Armstrong Math & Science, Horatio May, and Henry Nash. Combined, the schools represent the elimination of 4,140 seats, a savings of $29,088,000 in capital costs, and the displacement of 1,927 students. The map in Figure 5 4 shows that the schools are somewhat clustered and further analysis would need to be completed in order to determine if the school closing scenario would be feasible.

PAGE 50

50 Englewood Overal l, Englewood, shown in Table 5 6 needed approximately four schools to be closed. Based on the rubric, four schools could be closed while keeping the com were Daniel S. Wentworth, Perkins Bass, William A. Hinton, and Walter Reed. Walter Reed was selected over Benjamin Banneker because its closing would create a smaller lo ss of capacity within the community area. Combined, the four schools represent the elimination of 2,610 seats, a savings of $21,370,000, and a displacement of 1,094 stud ents. The map in Figure 5 5 illustrates the even distribution of schools across the com munity area. Part III Tables 5 7, 5 8, and 5 9 provides a breakdown of best practices by category and shows whether or not CPS is currently using those best practices. Of the twelve best practices included in this analysis, CPS only follows three of them Below is an analysis by category. Master Planning Master planning for school facilities is one area where CPS does not currently utilize all of the best practices, but is improving. In 2011, the Governor Quinn signed Public Act 097 0474, which requires CPS to complete annual capital reports, five year capital plans, and a ten year Educati onal Facilities Master Plan (Chicago Public Schools 2012c). To date, only the one year and five year plans have been published. The ten year plan is expected on Januar y 1, 2013. Additionally, the district must complete bi annual assessments of all of its facilities, release its capital budgets earlier,

PAGE 51

51 and publish an annual report that outlines how the actions differed from the five year plan. In terms of the first tw o criteria listed in Table 5 7 CPS has made major strides towards the implementation of best practices. In some ways, CPS has even gone beyond best practices by providing detailed descriptions of each proposed capital project for the next five years withi n a sortable sp readsheet (Chicago Public Schools, 2012a) However, regarding the final best practice in the master planning category, based on the priorities outlined in the overview of the capital plan, CPS does not plan on including school closings in it s ten year Educational Facilities Master Plan. However, it cannot be definitively determined at this time as to whether or not closings will be included as part of the master plan. School Closings on closings for academics and not underutilization. For the 2012 2013 school year, seventeen schools have been selected for proposed school actions, yet ten of those schools are slated for turnaround, which means that their facilities will still be in the system ( Hood & Ahmed Ullah, 2011 ). For each turnaround, the district focuses strongly on how each of the schools has chronically failed to provide an adequate education to its students. Unfortunately, the only criteria that the district releases to communi ty members relate to academics ( Chicago Public Schools, 2011 ). One turnaround school for the 2012 2013 on the ISAT as compared to the district average (75.6% meeting stat e standards), the students did outperform 120 other elementary schools in CPS ( Russo 2012). Yet, CPS

PAGE 52

52 clarify its decision. Therefore, CPS has failed to implement the first two best practices within School Closings. Additionally, recommendations for closings are made by one hearing officer, Fred Bates, who has been hearing cases of reconstitu tion and closing since 1992 (Chicago Teachers Union 2012). His website also state s that he has served as the Inspector General for the district, which inevitably discredits his role as an unbiased hearing officer for the public (Bates Legal Group, 2012). To make matters worse in the perspective of community members, each school is dec ided separately. If a school were to be taken off of the close list, there may be the perception of favoritism toward one area of town or one race, since the schools are hyper segregated. The one best practice that CPS has been able to apply relates to th e use of vacant buildings. In most cases, the school either becomes a specialized magnet school convert closed schools does not offset the negative impacts of their curren t school closing policies. Even though most of the proposed school actions are turnarounds, the non transparent nature of the school closing process as is would make it difficult for the district to pursue a policy of closing schools for underutilization. Community members and stakeholders have already petitioned the Illinois legislature to issue a moratorium on all proposed school actions, not just turnarounds. The proposed moratorium illustrates how CPS is not currently using best practices in its school closing process.

PAGE 53

53 Community Participation and Transparency As with the school c losing best practices, CPS also fails to meet most of the community participation and t ransparency best practices. First, there has been no evidence of community input on the f acilities master plan, though the plan has not been releases, so there may be some community stakeholders involved in the process. As for input on school closings, CPS provides three opportunities for input for each school. First, there is a hearing hoste d by CPS at the school or local community organization ( Chicago Public Schools, 2011 ). This hearing is open only to parents or legal guardians of students enrolled at the school who have proper identification. The focus of this first meeting is to present should be turned around or closed, and then parents have the opportunity to ask offices in the Loop. Each school is allotted two hours for a presentation by CPS and then public comment. Each speaker is given two minutes and in most cases, not everyone who wishes to speak is given an opportunity. Finally, the district holds a regular school board meeting after which the board wi ll vote on each proposed school action. At this meeting, speakers once again must limit themselves to two minutes. Overall, community members are given multiple opportunities for input, however their input is severely limited by time limits and a limit on the number of speakers during the allotted time. In most of these meetings, CPS begins with a presentation of facts to the public to justify the proposed school action. While the district is armed with facts and statistics, the parents and community membe rs are forced, in most cases, to respond with

PAGE 54

54 emotion. The perception to parents is that the meetings are more about the district telling them what will be done, rather than the parents having an opportunity to provide feedback on what may be done. Finally understand why specific schools are being selected for proposed school actions. The only data easily published on their website is selected demographic data back to 2000, metrics such as dr opout rates, and test scores by school ( Chicago Public Schools, 2012d ). Other criteria that may be used for school closings, such as capital needs and capacity, are only found as PDFs for each individual school, which makes comparison difficult. Additional ( Chicago Public Schools, 2012d ). While currently the data lacks true accessibility, the data related to the five year capital plan does provide community members with increased access. The data is in a sortable spreadsheet that can be downloaded and manipulated in Excel. Each project also has a detailed description so that parents and will continue to make s trides towards better availability of data and thus, a higher level of transparency

PAGE 55

55 Table 5 1 Community Area s ranked by percent u tilization # Community Area Schools Enrollment Capacity Excess seats Excess s tudents Net excess s eats U tilization Estimate of schools to c lose 1 Oakland 1 138 360 222 0 222 38% 0.5 2 West Garfield Park 8 2614 6180 3566 0 3566 42% 3.7 3 Grand Boulevard 6 1929 4260 2331 0 2331 45% 2.6 4 Avalon Park 2 682 1500 818 0 818 45% 0.9 5 Fuller Park 2 529 1140 611 0 611 46% 0.9 6 N orth Lawndale 14 4675 9810 5175 40 5135 48% 5.9 7 Riverdale 3 1009 2070 1061 0 1061 49% 1.2 8 Douglas 8 2132 4305 2173 0 2173 50% 3.2 9 East Garfield Park 10 3450 6900 3473 23 3450 50% 4.0 10 Pullman 4 998 1950 952 0 952 51% 1.6 11 Kenwood 5 1521 2970 1449 0 1449 51% 2.0 12 Woodlawn 7 2676 5190 2548 34 2514 52% 2.7 13 Auburn Gresham 10 4166 7770 3604 0 3604 54% 3.7 14 Englewood 14 5091 9270 4179 0 4179 55% 5.0 15 West Englewood 10 4195 7530 3335 0 3335 56% 3.5 16 Near West Side 12 4490 7950 3599 1 39 3460 56% 4.2 17 Roseland 10 4289 7410 3121 0 3121 58% 3.4 18 Washington Heights 8 2772 4590 1818 0 1818 60% 2.5 19 West Pullman 10 3233 5250 2017 0 2017 62% 3.1 20 Washington Park 4 2322 3750 1428 0 1428 62% 1.2 21 Greater Grand Crossing 9 3593 579 0 2197 0 2197 62% 2.7 22 Austin 18 8846 14160 5314 0 5314 62% 5.4 23 West Town 17 7197 11520 4390 67 4323 62% 5.1 24 South Shore 8 3795 6060 2265 0 2265 63% 2.4 25 South Chicago 6 3332 5250 1918 0 1918 63% 1.8 26 Near North Side 6 2469 3870 1455 54 14 01 64% 1.7

PAGE 56

56 Table 5 1 Continued # Community Area Schools Enrollment Capacity Excess seats Excess students Net excess seats Utilization Estimate of schools to close 27 South Deering 4 1853 2730 877 0 877 68% 1.0 28 Humboldt Park 10 6034 8850 2922 106 281 6 68% 2.5 29 Morgan Park 4 1680 2400 788 68 720 70% 1.0 30 Uptown 6 3893 5460 1567 0 1567 71% 1.4 31 Logan Square 11 7317 9840 2668 145 2523 74% 2.3 32 Lower West Side 10 5540 7290 1914 164 1750 76% 1.9 33 Hyde Park 4 1920 2517 620 23 597 76% 0.8 34 Chatham 8 3493 4500 1056 49 1007 78% 1.4 35 Rogers Park 5 3207 4050 1022 179 843 79% 0.8 36 Lincoln Square 4 2579 3210 672 41 631 80% 0.6 37 Near South Side 2 1230 1530 397 97 300 80% 0.3 38 Armour Square 2 1148 1380 232 0 232 83% 0.3 39 Lincoln Park 6 3252 3900 864 216 648 83% 0.8 40 New City 11 6972 8310 2201 863 1338 84% 1.4 41 Burnside 1 549 630 81 0 81 87% 0.1 42 Edgewater 4 3106 3540 528 94 434 88% 0.4 43 Garfield Ridge 4 2925 3270 682 337 345 89% 0.3 44 Lake View 10 5520 5970 859 409 450 92 % 0.6 45 Bridgeport 5 3152 3360 501 293 208 94% 0.2 46 North Park 2 1217 1290 73 0 73 94% 0.1 47 Irving Park 8 5360 5640 698 418 280 95% 0.3 48 Chicago Lawn 7 7046 7350 730 426 304 96% 0.2 49 Mckinley Park 3 1338 1380 61 19 42 97% 0.1 50 South Lawnda le 16 11593 11700 1193 1086 107 99% 0.1 51 Calumet Heights 6 1565 1530 205 240 35 102% 0.1 52 Hegewisch 2 956 930 32 58 26 103% 0.0

PAGE 57

57 Table 5 1.Continued # Community Area Schools Enrollment Capacity Excess seats Excess students Net excess seats Utiliz ation Estimate of schools to close 53 Albany Park 7 5340 5160 218 398 180 103% 0.2 54 North Center 4 2705 2580 30 155 125 105% 0.2 55 Mount Greenwood 3 1487 1410 10 87 77 105% 0.1 56 Avondale 4 3618 3420 159 357 198 106% 0.2 57 West Ridge 8 64 91 6120 194 565 371 106% 0.4 58 Belmont Cragin 10 10999 10320 804 1483 679 107% 0.5 59 Hermosa 3 2699 2520 3 182 179 107% 0.2 60 Ashburn 7 4797 4470 402 803 401 107% 0.5 61 Gage Park 8 8220 7200 463 1483 1020 114% 0.9 62 Beverly 4 1623 1410 0 213 213 115% 0.5 63 Norwood Park 7 3517 2970 230 777 547 118% 1.0 64 Brighton Park 7 6712 5460 83 1335 1252 123% 1.3 65 Portage Park 5 4983 4050 0 933 933 123% 0.9 66 Clearing 4 2071 1650 253 674 421 126% 0.8 67 Jefferson Park 2 1746 1380 0 366 366 127% 0.4 68 West Lawn 3 2525 1920 0 605 605 132% 0.8 69 Dunning 5 4047 3000 73 1046 973 135% 1.3 70 Forest Glen 3 1420 1050 0 370 370 135% 0.8 71 Edison Park 2 903 660 0 243 243 137% 0.6 72 Montclare 1 1301 930 0 371 371 140% 0.3 73 East Side 4 3786 2640 116 1262 1146 143% 1.4 74 Ohare 1 777 540 0 237 237 144% 0.4 75 Archer Heights 1 1486 870 0 616 616 171% 0.6 76 West Elsdon 2 2719 1440 0 1279 1279 189% 1.4 Total 472 262,560 332,532 91,500 21,528 68,972 79% 78.1

PAGE 58

58 T able 5 2 Community Areas sorted by excess s eats Rank Community Area Schools Excess s eats Utilization Capacity Enrollment 1 Austin 18 5314 62.5% 14160 8846 2 North Lawndale 14 5175 47.7% 9810 4675 3 West Town 17 4390 62.5% 11520 7197 4 Englewood 14 41 79 54.9% 9270 5091 5 Auburn Gresham 10 3604 53.6% 7770 4166 6 Near West Side 12 3599 56.5% 7950 4490 7 West Garfield Park 8 3566 42.3% 6180 2614 8 East Garfield Park 10 3473 50.0% 6900 3450 9 West Englewood 10 3335 55.7% 7530 4195 10 Roseland 10 3121 57.9% 7410 4289 11 Humboldt Park 10 2922 68.2% 8850 6034 12 Logan Square 11 2668 74.4% 9840 7317 13 Woodlawn 7 2548 51.6% 5190 2676 14 Grand Boulevard 6 2331 45.3% 4260 1929 15 South Shore 8 2265 62.6% 6060 3795 16 New City 11 2201 83.9% 8310 6972 17 Greater Grand Crossing 9 2197 62.1% 5790 3593 18 Douglas 8 2173 49.5% 4305 2132 19 West Pullman 10 2017 61.6% 5250 3233 20 South Chicago 6 1918 63.5% 5250 3332

PAGE 59

59 Table 5 3 Community areas sorted by proposed school closings Rank Community Area Sc hools Enrollment Capacity Excess seats Utilization Estimate of schools to c lose 1 North Lawndale 14 4675 9810 5175 48% 5.9 2 Austin 18 8846 14160 5314 62% 5.4 3 West Town 17 7197 11520 4390 62% 5.1 4 Englewood 14 5091 9270 4179 55% 5.0 5 Near West Sid e 12 4490 7950 3599 56% 4.2 6 East Garfield Park 10 3450 6900 3473 50% 4.0 7 Auburn Gresham 10 4166 7770 3604 54% 3.7 8 West Garfield Park 8 2614 6180 3566 42% 3.7 9 West Englewood 10 4195 7530 3335 56% 3.5 10 Roseland 10 4289 7410 3121 58% 3.4 11 Do uglas 8 2132 4305 2173 50% 3.2 12 West Pullman 10 3233 5250 2017 62% 3.1 13 Greater Grand Crossing 9 3593 5790 2197 62% 2.7 14 Woodlawn 7 2676 5190 2548 52% 2.7 15 Grand Boulevard 6 1929 4260 2331 45% 2.6 16 Humboldt Park 10 6034 8850 2922 68% 2.5 17 Washington Heights 8 2772 4590 1818 60% 2.5 18 South Shore 8 3795 6060 2265 63% 2.4 19 Logan Square 11 7317 9840 2668 74% 2.3 20 Kenwood 5 1521 2970 1449 51% 2.0

PAGE 60

60 Table 5 4 North Lawndale school closing rubric result s School Current e nrollment Ca pacity Year b uilt Capital c osts Academic Near Sum Roswell B Mason Elementary School 38.6% 10 1230 20 1922 10 $14,559,000 0 Level 3 0 3 15 55 Theodore Herzl Elementary School 38.8% 10 1320 20 1913 10 $5,959,000 20 Level 3 0 9 0 60 Nathaniel Pope Elementary School 36.9% 10 540 30 1905 10 $2,791,000 30 Level 3 0 5 0 80 Matthew A Henson Elementary School 34.7% 10 780 30 1960 20 $2,770,000 30 Level 3 0 9 0 90 Lawndale Elementary Community Academy 58.3% 20 870 30 1923 10 $4,240,000 30 Level 3 0 7 0 90 Julia C Lathrop Elementary School 10.6% 0 780 30 1963 20 $1,237,000 40 Level 3 0 6 0 90 Ambrose Plamondon Elementary School 70.8% 30 240 0 1903 10 $2,567,000 30 Level 2 25 3 0 95 Thomas Chalmers Specialty Elementary School 41.6% 10 690 30 1959 2 0 $2,019,000 40 Level 3 0 6 0 100 Dvorak Technology Academy 73.6% 30 750 30 1963 20 $4,695,000 30 Level 3 0 8 0 110 Frazier Prospective IB Magnet Elementary School 122.2% 60 180 0 Not Liste d Not Listed Level 1 50 7 0 110 William Penn Elementary Scho ol 82.9% 50 510 30 1907 10 $4,524,000 30 Level 3 0 9 0 120 Crown Community Academy of Fine Arts Center Elementary School 41.3% 10 720 30 1961 20 $2,285,000 40 Level 2 25 6 0 125

PAGE 61

61 Table 5 4. Continued School Curren t e nrollment Capacity Year b uilt Ca pital c osts Academic Near Sum James Weldon Johnson Elementary School 52.5% 20 690 30 1924 10 $2,004,000 40 Level 2 25 6 0 125 Charles Evans Hughes Elementary School 62.2% 30 510 30 1960 20 $2,075,000 40 Level 3 0 3 15 135 Table 5 5 North Lawnda le school closing priority list with summary School closing c andidates Enrollment Capacity Capital c osts Julia C Lathrop Elementary School 83 780 $1,237,000 Nathaniel Pope Elementary School 199 540 $2,791,000 Theodore Herzl Elementary School 512 1320 $5,959,000 Roswell B Mason Elementary School 475 1230 $14,559,000 S ummary 1269 3870 $24,546,000

PAGE 62

62 Table 5 6 Austin school closing rubric results School Current e nrollment Capacity Year b uilt Capital c osts Academic Near Sum Henry H Nash Elementary School 35.3% 10 1110 20 1896 5 $8,682,000 10 Level 3 0 5 0 45 Horatio May Elementary Community Academy 44.8% 10 1020 20 1905 10 $9,096,000 10 Level 3 0 2 15 65 Louis Armstrong Math & Science Elementary School 35.2% 10 270 15 1969 20 $1 ,754,000 40 Level 3 0 5 0 85 Leslie Lewis Elementary School 53.3% 20 1050 20 1926 15 $4,895,000 30 Level 3 0 3 15 100 Ella Flagg Young Elementary School 68.2% 30 1620 20 1924 10 $5,522,000 20 Level 2 25 2 15 120 Ronald E McNair Elementary School 61.3 % 30 690 30 1948 15 $4,661,000 30 Level 3 0 4 15 120 George Leland Elementary School 85.7% 50 210 0 1970 20 $1,494,000 40 Level 3 0 4 15 125 Robert Emmet Elementary School 66.5% 30 690 30 1913 10 $3,977,000 30 Level 2 25 6 0 125 Francis Scott Key Ele mentary School 55.0% 20 540 30 1907 10 $3,824,000 30 Level 2 25 4 15 130 Milton Brunson Math & Science Specialty Elementary School 69.9% 30 930 30 1892 5 $224,000 50 Level 3 0 4 15 130 Spencer Technology Academy 65.8% 30 1230 20 1904 10 $3,991,000 30 Level 2 25 3 15 130 Joseph Lovett Elementary School 67.6% 30 720 30 1927 15 $5,263,000 20 Level 2 25 2 15 135 Julia Ward Howe Elementary School of Excellence 91.3% 50 630 30 1896 5 $6,491,000 20 Level 1 50 6 0 155

PAGE 63

63 Table 5 6. Continued School Current e nrollment Capacity Year b uilt Capital c osts Academic Near Sum Oscar DePriest Elementary School 58.9% 20 900 30 2004 30 <$1,000,000 50 Level 2 25 5 0 155 John Hay Elementary Community Academy 80.0% 50 690 30 1921 10 $4,386,000 30 Level 2 25 4 15 160 George Rogers Clark Elementary School 70.2% 30 420 15 1927 15 $1,085,000 40 Level 1 50 2 15 165 Edward K Ellington Elementary School 48.1% 20 780 30 2004 30 <$1,000,000 50 Level 2 25 4 15 170 Harriet E Sayre Elementary Language Academy 91.7% 60 66 0 30 1930 15 $3,856,000 30 Level 2 25 0 30 190 Table 5 7 Austin school closing priority list with summary School closing c andidates Enrollment Capacity Capital c osts Ronald E McNair Elementary School 423 690 $4,661,000 Leslie Lewis Elementary Schoo l 560 1050 $4,895,000 Louis Armstrong Math & Science Elementary School 95 270 $1,754,000 Horatio May Elementary Community Academy 457 1020 $9,096,000 Henry H Nash Elementary School 392 1110 $8,682,000 S ummary 1927 4140 $29,088,000

PAGE 64

64 Table 5 8 Englewood school closing rubric results School Current e nrollment Capacity Year b uilt Capital c osts Academic Near Sum Daniel S Wentworth Elementary School 44.8% 10 810 30 1890 5 $5,053,000 20 Level 3 0 7 0 65 Perkins Bass Elementary School 45.3% 20 810 30 1895 5 $6,129,000 20 Level 3 0 7 0 75 William A Hinton Elementary School 39.5% 10 810 30 1965 20 $6,448,000 20 Level 3 0 6 0 80 Walter Reed Elementary School 24.4% 0 180 0 1963 20 $4,107,000 30 Level 2 25 4 15 90 Benjamin Banneker Elementa ry School 43.8% 10 690 30 1963 20 $2,580,000 30 Level 3 0 6 0 90 Amos Alonzo Stagg Elementary School 66.4% 30 810 30 1969 20 $4,640,000 30 Level 3 0 5 0 110 Carrie Jacobs Bond Elementary School 44.0% 10 780 30 1926 15 $4,503,000 30 Level 2 25 6 0 110 Simon Guggenheim Elementary School 97.0% 60 300 15 1964 20 $4,110,000 30 Level 3 0 8 0 125 Oliver Wendell Holmes Elementary School 42.7% 10 780 30 1960 20 $340,000 50 Level 3 0 4 15 125 Benjamin E Mays Elementary Academy 62.7% 30 480 15 2000 30 $2,916 ,000 30 Level 2 25 7 0 130 Joshua D Kershaw Elementary School 54.8% 20 480 15 2008 30 <$1,000,000 50 Level 2 25 5 0 140 Francis W Parker Elementary Community Academy 96.1% 60 840 30 1930 15 $9,055,000 10 Level 2 25 7 0 140 Jesse Sherwood Elementary Sc hool 62.3% 30 570 30 1951 20 $3,104,000 30 Level 2 25 3 15 150 Nicholson Technology Academy 49.9% 20 930 30 2008 30 <$1,000,000 50 Level 2 25 4 15 170

PAGE 65

65 Table 5 9. Englewood school closing priority list with summary School closing c andidates Enrollment C apacity Capital c osts Daniel S Wentworth Elementary School 363 810 $5,053,000 Perkins Bass Elementary School 367 810 $6,129,000 William A Hinton Elementary School 320 810 $6,448,000 Walter Reed Elementary School 44 180 $4,107,000 S ummary 1094 2610 $21,737,000 Table 5 10. Master planning best practices comparison Best p ractices Does cps use best practices? CPS policies and actions Create a comprehensive facilities plan with a five to ten year planning horizon. Not at this time CPS does not curre ntly have a comprehensive master plan, however one should be completed by January 1, 2013. Prioritize capital projects over a span of five to ten years. Yes Just this past year, CPS released a prioritized list of capital projects for the FY2013 through F Y2017. Include school closings as part of its facilities master plan No School closings are not currently part of a more comprehensive plan.

PAGE 66

66 Table 5 11 School closings best practice comparison Best practices Does CPS use best practices? CPS pol icies and actions Inf orm public about need before release of school closing candidates No Currently, Chicago is focusing on the need to close schools for academic reasons, and has thus neglected to inform the public of the massive need to close schools fo r underutilization. Use appropriate criteria for school closings that is made available to the public No In both turnaround and school closing proceedings, very little details are made public as to the criteria used in identifying school closing candidat es. Use non biased hearing officers No CPS currently uses hearing officers who are lawyers that are contracted to the city for other purposes, including arbitration with the Chicago Vote for school closings as a package No Schools are ap proved one by one. Find alternative use for vacant schools Yes The vast majority of closed CPS schools have been used for charter schools. Very few are vacant.

PAGE 67

67 Table 5 12. Community participation and transparency Best p ractice Does CPS use best p ractices? Current CPS policies and actions Provide citizens with opportunities for input on the facilities master plan No To date, there has been no community input for the facilities master plan. Allow multiple opportunities for input on proposed closi ngs Yes The district allows three opportunities for each school action, though there are severe limits on how citizens may participate. Focus on public input, not presentation of facts at public participation meetings No The majority of proposed school ac tion meetings are focused on the presentation of data. Only after the presentation is public input allowed. Provide access to the public of all non confidential data used in planning for school closings No CPS publishes very little usable data to its webs ite. The data that it does publish (academic achievement, demographics, mobility rates, etc. ) is difficult to find. Additionally, many data files are published as PDFs on

PAGE 68

68 Figure 5 1 School level histogram Figure 5 2 Utilization rates by community area 0 1 3 6 32 68 48 56 41 34 57 30 30 16 20 30 Utilization by School 1 8 8 12 7 8 7 10 3 4 9 Utilization by Community Area

PAGE 69

69 Figure 5 3. Map of Commun ity Areas by percent utilization

PAGE 70

70 Figure 5 4. Map of North Lawndale school closing candidates

PAGE 71

71 Figure 5 5 Austin school closing candidates

PAGE 72

72 Figure 5 6. Englewood school closing candidates

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION The results presented in the previous chapter illustrate that Theodore Herzl Elementary, the school presented in Chapter 1, is not an isolated case. The inefficient allocation of school capacity is a systemic issue that nee ds to be addressed. However, as shown in Part III of the analysis, the district is not currently taking the actions necessary to align its facilities with the current distribution of population. Results of Part I The results of Part I illustrate that ther e are many community areas that are not operating efficiently in terms of school capacity utilization. The district is spending millions of dollars in capital operations, and space based personnel to operate underutilized schools, when that scarce funding could be used elsewhere. The most surprising finding is that the district as a whole operat es in the efficient range (79%). H owever, when the schools are aggregated by community area and analyzed spatially, a pattern emerges that shows a clustering of th e most underutilized community areas on the West and South sides. This pattern is consistent with the pattern found in Figure 6 1, which shows the number of children aged 5 14 by community area. Figure 6 1 also validates the finding that the schools near O Midway should have the highest rates of overcrowding. The results of Part I illustrate that a spatial mismatch exists between where students live and where schools are located. The severe underutilization on the South and West sides indicates th at there are many opportunities for school closings in order to create efficiencies. The concentration of overcrowding near the suburbs also indicates that the faciliti es needs in these areas are being overlooked.

PAGE 74

74 When combined with the results of Part I, F igure 6 2 illustrates that if CPS were to use the above analysis to target community areas for closing that minority residents would be disproportionately impacted. In the areas where school closings would occur if CPS were to take action against underuti lization, the school aged population is overwhelmingly black. Despite the fact that the closings would not themselves be racially discriminatory, if the courts were to find that the closings would have an impact access to equal education the courts would rule against the district in the lawsuit ... Though, one could argue that blacks are already deprived of equal educational opportunit ies as illustrated in Figure 6 3 Figure 6 3 shows the number of high performing schools in each communit y area. Once again, there appears to be a strong corr elation between the areas where closing s are necessary and a lack of accessibility to high quality schools. In approximately one third of the community areas, there are no high performing schools (school s that are categorized as a Level 1). One theory that has been hypothesized is that the district is using turnaround schools to create high performing schools in these community areas in order to provide better receiving schools for future school closings. If this is true, it would also explain why CPS has been focusing on turnarounds, instead of a ddressing the issue of underutilized schools. The goal of Part I of this research was to establish the scope and distribution of the misallocation of school capa city and facilities resources. While the analysis was sufficient to show that there is a massive mismatch between school facilities resources and where students live, a more in depth analysis could be completed using census data, student addresses and sch ool attendance boundaries. A more robust analysis

PAGE 75

75 could be completed by determining how many CPS students reside within each school catchment area in order to determine if the resident population is sufficient to support each given neighborhood school Cu rrently, the anal ysis focuses on the system as is; however school closings would require a more stringent transfer policy as c apacities near efficiency, because more students would be attending their home schools. Part II The results of Part II illustrat e that a simple, data based methodology can be used to identify schools for closings. The rubric logically selected candidates for school closings that fit with the criteria set for by best practices. In each scenario, an equilibrium solution was able to b e attained that placed the community area into the efficient category. The rubric served its purpose as an intuitive preliminary school closing identification tool. North Lawndale For North Lawndale, which is located on the cities Far West Side, the model identified four excellent candidates for closing. Roswell B. Mason, the school with the lowest score, was identified mainly due to its low utilization (38.6%), exorbitantly high location at the periphery of the community area decreases its suitability for closure; however students. Theodore Herzl, the impetus for this research, was the second school identified for closure. A combination of high capital needs ($5,959,000), low utilization (38.8%), high capacity (1320), and low academic achievement (Level 3) caused Herzl to be selected. Additionally, nine alternative schools are located within a 0.75 mile radius of the school, including three within a 0.25 mile radius. Pope was selected because of

PAGE 76

76 its low utilization (36.9%), moderate capital costs ($2,791,000), and low academic achievement (Level 3). Finally, Lathrop, already slated to be phased out, was identifi ed as a candidate for closing. Lathrop was chosen over the other schools that scored a 90 based on the rubric, because of its small population (83). Overall, the four schools would be e xcellent candidates for closing based on criteria suggested by nationa l best practices. By closing those four schools, the utilization rate would increase from 48% to 92%. Austin For the Austin community area, also located on the Far West Side, the model identified five candidates for closings. Henry M. Nash was identified due to its extremely low rate of utilization (35.3%), high amount of capital needs ($8,682,000), and low academic achievement (Level 3). Horatio May was selected due to low utilization (44.8%), high capital costs ($9,096,000), and low academic achievement (Level 3). The next candidate for closing was Louis Armstrong. While Armstrong had low capital needs, it was selected due to extremely low enrollment (35.2%) and small facility capacity (270). Leslie Lewis, the next candidate, was selected based on low ut ilization (53.5%), moderate capital costs ($4 ,895,000 ), and low academic achievement (Level 3). McNair had a similar profile and was thus selected for closing. Through the closings of those five schools, the districts utilization rate would increase from 6 2% to 88%, creating efficiency within the community area. Englewood were selected for closing. Wentworth, the school with the lowest score, was selected due to low utilizatio n (44.8%), high capital costs ($5,053,000), and low academic

PAGE 77

77 achievement (Level 3). Bass has a very similar profile and was thus also slated for closing. Hinton, a much newer school when compared to Bass and Wentworth was also selected for closing due to low enrollment (39.5%) and high capital costs ($6,448,000). Reed was chosen over Banneker as the final school to be closed in Englewood, yet it is probably the most contro versial of the selected schools. Reed is a Level 2 school, the highest level in Engle wood. However, the school has very few students (44) and has a small capacity (180). The model s identification of Reed illustrates how the model effectively balances the different criteria. Overall, the closing of the schools selected in Englewood would r esult in an increase in the rate of utilization from 54.9% to 85.3%. Limitations of the Model Overall the model does an excellent job of balancing the different criteria so that no one factor leads to a schools selection. For example, Ellington has the f ourth lowest utilization rate in Austin (48.1%). However, the facility was built in 2004 and has very low capital needs. Therefore, it was not among the schools selected for closing. While no one criteria can condemn a school, certain criteria can help to ensure that a school is not selected for closing. For example, Carrie Jacobs Bond, located in Englewood, has a low utilization rate (44.0%), relatively m oderate facilities needs ($4,11 0,000 ), and is relatively old (1926). H owever Bonds is a Level 2 schoo l that provides a higher quality education to its 343 students than do most other schools in the Englewood community area. Therefore, Bonds is justifiably kept off the close candidate list based on its superior academics. While the draft model does an ade quate job of selecting schools for closing within a community area, a robust statistical analysis would need to be completed in order to

PAGE 78

78 verify that no two variables were highly correlated, and thus possibly skewing the outcome. Additionally, accurate oper ations data could be used in place of the year built proxy. Enrollment projects could also be used to help identify schools whose population will continue to decline, though that is still difficult given the volatility of the school population in CPS. Over all, a rubric, such as the one presented in Chapter 4, would be easy for the public to understand and would provide community members with the often sought after transparency that is so lacking in CPS. Part III Policy Recommendations The qualitative anal related to school facilities planning are not adequately addressing the misallocation that was scoped in Part I of the analysis. First, CPS must determine that it needs to re evaluate its allocation of resources. Only once it determines that an issue exists, can it take positive steps to ameliorate the situation. Since CPS has not yet released their facilities master plan, it is unknown as to whether they will be addressing underutilization through t he master plan If the district decides that it is going to take action related to school closings, it needs to ensure that community members are made aware of the scope of the issue related to underutilization. All residents need to be informed of and in ternalize the need for school closings long before any close list is released. The criteria for closing also need to be set before the close list is released to ensure that citizens do not feel as though the criteria had been manipulated to favor a certain outcome. Affected community members need to have many opportunities to provide input on not only their school s place in the community, but they should also have input into the reassignment plan for displaced students. The public participation meetings n eed to

PAGE 79

79 allow for open discussion and should be well documented. Parents and community members should also have access to all data used in the analysis and mapping tools should also be incorporated so that stakeholders can visualize the issue Overall, CP S needs to provide higher levels of transparency to its stakeholders not only in its school closings decisions, but in all proposed school actions. Turnarounds have been especially contentious, mainly due to the arbitrary nature o f the schools selected fo r turn around. While the district may have a solid methodology and plan, those details have not been released to the public. Stakeholders are left to concoct their own reasons as to why the ir school was selected for turn around or closing. One other area of change could be in the focus of proposed school actions. Since Mayor Rahm Emanuel took office, school closings have been increasingly related to academics instead of efficiency The issue with focusing on academics is that community members feel as though the selection of their school is an affront on their community. A focus on efficiency takes the emotion out of the argument and could decrease community resistance. Overall, the policy analysis shows that major changes need to be put in place so that CPS can operate an efficient school system in terms of facilities. The underutilization of facilities is a systemic issue that if alleviated, could provide the district with additional funds that could be used to improve the quality of education in the classr oom. Further Research The topic of the allocation of school capacity and facilities resources within the City of Chicago is fascinating and could be explored at a much greater depth. First, a more comprehensive analysis could be completed that compares th e changes in

PAGE 80

80 demographics with the opening and closings of schools across the district from the early 1900s to today in order making has created the facilities issue that is seen today. Historical census data would be necessary, as well as detailed facilities information for every school every constructed or closed within the city. Another interesting area of research related to this topic would be to complete the model from Part II of the analysis for each community area that was identified to need at least one school closed. The process would need to be iterative and include a very strong GIS component. Presumably, the model would be completed for the highest priority community area first, and subsequently schools wo uld be removed from the system. Data related to the home addresses of students would be needed in order to reassign students from closed schools. The research presented here could also be applied to other school districts with declining enrollments to det ermine if school closings are necessitated. The model from Part II would need to be adjusted to accurately reflect the range of each variable; however the criteria used would most likely stay consistent.

PAGE 81

81 Figure 6 1 To tal number of children aged 5 14 by Community Area

PAGE 82

82 Figure 6 2 Community Area by percent black

PAGE 83

83 Figure 6 3. Percent of high performing schools b y Community Area

PAGE 84

84 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION As the results have shown, the allocation of school facilities in the City of Chicago is not efficien t. On the South and West sides, the majority of the schools are underutilized, while many are severely underutilized. Yet, near the suburbs, many of the schools are overcrowded. The inefficient allocation of resources creates major inefficiencies in the sy stem as taxpayers are funding half empty schools that cannot be brought up to standard due to a $4.9 billion backlog of capital projects. While the conditions of many underutilized schools warrant closing, the district continues to ignore the glaring facil ities inefficiencies, presumably because of the political strife that has been associated with school closings in the past. The model presented in Part II of this study illustrates how the district could u se a simple, data based model as a preliminary too l to identify schools for closing. The model balances schools based on criteria related to utilization, operations, academic achievement, and impact on the system. The model identified excellent candidates for closing, including Theodore Herzl, the impetus for this research. By using a simple rubric, such as the one presented in this research, CPS could prevent some of the backlash that is inherent in school closings. Even if the district were to pursue a policy of closing schools due to underutilization, C PS would need to make major changes to its school closing policies. controversial. CPS, though, is making major strides in school facilities planning by creating a ma ster plan to guide its decisions, which will inevitably increase transparency for the public.

PAGE 85

85 Further research related to the misallocation of resources in Chicago would provide an even more thorough argument for school closings in Chicago. A GIS based mod el could be created to efficiently reallocate students to other underutilized schools as schools are selected for closing by a simple and intuitive model, such as the one presented in Part II of the analysis. Hopefully the model could illustrate how school s in Chicago could be closed with minimal impacts on the ability of students to walk to school and have their school be a part of their community. Overall, CPS is facing a major budget shortfall for not only FY2012 2013, but for each year in the foreseeab le future. Thus, the district must take action to align its facilities with the student population. If not, its facilities will continue to deteriorate and schools will continue to be unable to provide the resources that its students so desperately need, s ince money is being spent on the facilities and not in the classroom.

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX SCHOOL IDENTIFICATIO N RUBRIC Table A 1. School identification rubric Criteria Data Source Rubric Points Justification Current Utilization CPS School Spa ce Utilization Report 0 30% 0 Favors schools that are closer to ideal utilization 30 45% 10 46 60% 20 61 75% 30 75 90% 50 >90% 60 Capacity CPS School Space Utilization Report <250 0 Favors schools between 500 and 1000 students the mo st efficient school size for Chicago 251 500 15 501 1000 30 >1000 20 Year Built CPS School Assessment <1880 0 Favors schools that are lower cost to operate Year built used as a proxy for operating costs 1881 1900 5 1901 1925 10 1 926 1950 15 1951 1975 20 1976 1990 25 >1991 30 Capital Needs CPS School Assessment <$1m 50 Favors schools that are lower cost to maintain $1m $2.5m 40 $2.5m $5m 30 $5.01 $7.5m 20 $7.51m $10m 10 >$10m 0 Academic Achieveme nt City of Chicago Data Portal Level 1* 50 Favors schools that have higher academic achievement Level 2 25 Level 3 0 Number of Schools Within .75 miles GIS Analysis 0 1 30 Favors schools with fewer nearby alternatives Based on number of schools within.75 miles 2 4 15 >4 0

PAGE 87

87 LIST OF REFERENCES 21 st Century School Fund. (2011). PK 12 Public Education Facilities Master Plan Evaluation Guide. Retrieved From: http://www.21csf.org/csf home/Documents/21CSFMFPEvaluationChecklistAugust2011.pdf Ahmed Ullah, N.S. & Hood, J. (2012, Mar 28). CPS budget for 2013 has major shortfall. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/ 2012 03 28/news/ct met cps budget preview0328 20120328_1_cps budget budget deficit school day Banas, C. (1975, Jan 22). Singer releases scathing report on city schools. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 171217169?accou ntid=10920 Banas, C. (1977, Jul 28). Hannon proposes 6 s chool closings. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 169626853?accountid=10920 Banas, C. (1980, Mar 06). Plan to discuss school closings. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/170134617?accountid=10920 Banas, C. & Byers, D. (1987, 08 Nov). Education chief: City schools worst. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987 11 08/news/ 8703230953_1_dropout rate public schools mayor harold washington Chicago Tribune Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/170137806?accountid=10920 Carey, K. D. (2011). School district master planning: A practical guide to demographics & facilities planning. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Litt lefield Education Carlson, D. (1991). Reusing America's schools : A guide for local officials, developers, neighborhood residents, planners, and preservationists. Washington, D.C: Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Cawley, J., & Rowley, S. (1980, Apr 25). Panel seeks to shut only 6 city schools. Chicago Tribune (1963 Current File), pp. 3 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/170172821?accountid=10920 Chicago Public Schools. (2008). School assessment: Theodor e Herzl School [Data file]. Retrieved from http://schoolreports.cps.edu/SchoolAssessment/3970D.pdf

PAGE 88

8 8 Chicago Public Schools. (2011). 5,800 students in chronically low performing school s to get access to higher quality school options through proposed school year. [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/News/ Press_releases/ Pages/11_29_2011_PR1.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2012a). Comprehensive capital improvem ent plan for fiscal years 2013 2017. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/Pages/CapitalPlan.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2012b). Performance. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/performance/Pages/Performance.aspx Chicago Public Schools. (2012 c ). Stats and facts. Retrieved from http://cps.edu/About_CPS/At a glance/Pages/Stats_and_facts.aspx Chicago pupils over 50% negro. (1966, Oct 19). The Washington Post, Times Her ald (1959 1973), pp. A4 A4. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/142987215?accountid=10920 Chicago Teachers Union. (2012). Substance News: Tilden hearing shows CPS policy is om http://www.ctunet.com/blog/tilden hearing shows sabotage of poor schools is cps policy before turnaround rep golar warns arrogant hearing officer fred bates the fight is on De La Torre, M., Gwynne, J., & Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2009) When schools close: Effects on displaced students in Chicago public schools. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ CCSRSchoolClosings Final.pdf Dean, J. (1981). Empty classrooms: The bureaucratic response in New Yo rk City. Education and Urban Society, 13(4), 459 85. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2012). 2010 DC Facilities Master Plan. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20 101110084336/http://opefm.dc.gov/ masterfacilityplan.html 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), 1 89 203. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.001 Encyclopedia of Chicago. (2005a). Community Areas. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/319.html Encyclopedia of Chicago. (2005b). Schools and Education. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1124.html

PAGE 89

89 Focus on the individual in an expanding school population. (196 3, Apr 07). Chicago Tribune (1963 Current File), pp. I16 i16. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/182681373?accountid=10920 Hood, J & Ahmed Ullah, N.S. (2011, Nov 29). A record 10 schools recommended for overhaul. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/ 2011 11 29/ news/ct met cps turnarounds 1129 20111129_1_jean claude brizard cps schools charter school Hope, J. (1971, Oct 03). Chi Chicago Tribune (1963 Current File), pp. A1 a1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/169161521?accountid=10920 Keegan, A. (1981, May 25). Why our school? Kids fight to prevent closing. Chicago Tribune (1963 Cur rent File), pp. 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/172315851?accountid=10920 King, S. (1975, Sep 04). 24,000 Chicago teachers strike, closing 666 schools. New York Times (1923 Current File), pp. 24. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/120513204?accountid=10920 Krempasky, J. M. (1990). The effects of declining enrollments on school facility utilization. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/docview/ 303 872699 Lauerman, C. (1974, May 05). Schools on way up from lowest point, Redmond declares. Chicago Tribune (1963 Current File), pp. 1 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/171107980?accountid=10920 Lerman, D. L. (1984). The economics of public school closings. Journal of Urban Economics 16(3), 241 258. doi:10.1016/0094 1190(84)90026 3 Lipman, P. (2002). Making the global city, making inequality: The political economy and cultural politics of Chicago school policy. American Educatio nal Research Journal 39(2), 379 419. Luppescu, S., Allensworth, E. M., Moore, P., de la Torre, M., Murphy, J., & Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2011). Trends in Chicago's schools across three eras of reform. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uch icago.edu/sites/default/files / publications/ Trends_in_Three_Eras_of _CPS.pdf Portland Public Schools. ( n.d.). Issue paper #5.3 School u tilization. Retrieved from: http://www.pp s.k12.or.us/files/facilities/Issue_Paper_5_3.pdf Richmond City Public Schools. (2007). Facility Master Plan Update: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://richmond.k12.va.us/pdfs/ ExecSummaryMPUpdate_Final.pdf

PAGE 90

90 Russo, A. (2012). Not enough time for C asals. [Blog Post]. District 299: The Inside Scoop on CPS. Retrieved from http://www.chicagonow.com/district 299 chicago public schools blog/ 2012/01/not enough time for casals/ School closings considered. (1976, May 23). Chicago Tribune (1963 Current F ile), pp. A4 a4. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/171348148?accountid=10920 School District of Philadelphia. (2012). Facilities Master Plan. Retrieved from http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/f/facilities master plan/ Siewers, Alf. (1988, Sep 07). Chicago plots reform of its public school bureaucracy. The Christian Science Monitor (1908 Current File), pp. 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc view/512972642?accountid=10920 State study finds Chicago schools near collapse. (1970, Jun 09). New York Times (1923 Current File), pp. 35 35. Retrieved from http://search.proque st.com/docview/118896051?accountid=10920 Temple, C, Sochats, K, & Ponas, G. (n.d.). GIS in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Retrieved from http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/ pap1087.pdf The Pew Charitable Trusts. Closing school s in Philadelphia: Lessons from six urban districts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles /wwwpewtrustsorg/ Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Closing Public Schools Philadelphia.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (1951). Census of populat ion: 1950 Volume III, Part I: Census Tract Statistics, Akron Dayton. Retrieved from: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/41557421v3p1ch6.pdf U.S. Census Bu reau. (1961). Census of population and housing: 1960 Volume II final report series PHC (1), Canton, OH SMSA Corpus Christi SMSA. Retrieved from: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/41953654v2_TOC.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. (1971). Census of p opulation and housing: 1970 General demographic trends, Final report. Retrieved from: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/42189394v1 26_TOC.pdf Valencia, R. R., & Stanford Univ., CA. Inst. for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (1984). School closures and policy issues. policy paper no. 84 C3.

PAGE 91

91 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicole Anderson earned her Bachelor of Arts i n history and geology before pursuing her Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning. Through her study of history an d planning, she became particularly interested in educational disparities based on residence. Before completing her thesis, she applied for and was accepted to Teach For America. She moved to Chicago in June of 2011 and spent six months teaching at Theodor e Herzl Elementary before deciding to move on. While every day was a struggle in the classroom, she was able to witness first hand the inefficiencies of the Chicago Public School system that would become the impetus for this research. Nicole will be reloc ating to Charlottesville, Virginia, in the fall of 2012 to begin law school at the University of Virginia. She hopes to work for a large corporate firm where she can specialize in real estate transactions, a specialty where she can apply the planning knowl edge she ga n u rban a nd regional p lanning.