Why did you post a story on old test scores?

I read that 2006 scores won't be published until sometime next year due to a foul up at the grading facility in Texas

Brian,

These are the most recent scores that are available.

What prompted me to post on this is the school system's recent lame explanation on why Chicago students scored so poorly on science exams - because the schools were concentrating on reading skills.

The Chicago Public Schools are an excuse factory. Our Mayor took control some time ago and what do we have to show for it?

I note that Joe Z. conspicuously neglected to mention that the three schools that scored the BEST in the state (and four of the top six) are also CPS institutions.

"Our Mayor took control some time ago and what do we have to show for it?"

Just to emphasize my prior point, we have the three top science schools in the state (and four of the top six).

The three top schools on the list are magnet schools and select their students.

Joe,

Without in any way taking away from the achievements of these schools, it's only fair to point out that they're highly selective.

All these rankings prove is that if you only admit students who can pass the test, then a high percentage of them will pass the test.

The results are, in no way, comparable to those of the other high-ranking schools who admit anyone who lives in the district.

Note also that these are not statewide results - they're Chicago metro area only.

What's the highest-ranking non-selective high school in the city of Chicago?

The top ranking schools have almost always been CPS schools (Kenwood, Lane Tech and Whitney Young historically). These were all semi-magnet as it has always been as far as I can remember in the city.

Joe said: "Just to emphasize my prior point, we have the three top science schools in the state (and four of the top six)."

What's the use of having three of the top six schools if they aren't accessible to everyone in the tax base? It has as much to do with the poor parenting of the majority of CPS parents, but still. The school system is a complete joke. And it isn't the fault of the administration, but the PARENTS of these kids.

"What's the highest-ranking non-selective high school in the city of Chicago?"

Wouldn't you be comparing apples and oranges? If you skim off the top students at the various non-magnet high schools, won't these non-magnet scores skew low vis a vis non-magnet suburb schools that don't send their best students to the magnets? And can't the same argument be made with respect to private schools in the city (i.e., that they siphon off the best test takers)?

And for that matter, does it really tell you anything to compare wealthy, largely white high schools in the suburbs with poor, largely minority high schools in the city–especially when you consider that the best students have left these high schools to go to magnet and private schools?

Comparing these test scores is just silly. Too many variables make it a case of comparing apples, oranges, peaches, and sirloin steaks. It doesn't tell you whether the city is doing a good, mediocre or poor job managing the schools–even if you think there is a correlation between test scores and administrator performance.

I think it's kind of a moot point to comment on the horrible state of affairs at CPS. Was this news a shock to anyone? Pretty much all of our nation's urban schools perform horribly.

The city schools really aren't to fault here. After everyone with any money left many of these neighborhoods in the 1960s, the schools went down the tubes. The schools can't raise good children, only teach them. It starts at home, and way too many inner city kids don't have the opportunities to succeed like suburban kids do.

It's really a shame. It's easy to blame the communities broken by years of neglect, poverty and crime. But again, had all the normal people not abandoned ship, maybe city schools and neighborhoods wouldn't be such horrible places. The parents are either A) working, B) not around, or C) on drugs/something else bad. These problems need to be addressed before the subject of school performance is broached.

What's the solution? Certainly not condemning the schools without giving them any help. Maybe giving people jobs, job training, govt. subsidized daycare, etc. Quality of life issues in city neighborhoods are the biggest thing that could help impact the situation.

Tim,

It is sort of a moot point in the sense that nothing has seriously changed at CPS - and that's my point.

We could go around for a while on how much poor schools contributed to neighborhood deterioration rather than the other way around.

The schools are at fault here. Virtually all of my high school classmates from Newark, NJ went on to good colleges and became successful, despite having come from neighborhoods that make some of Chicago's poor nabes look posh.

Apples to apples? Compare some of the city's northwest / southwest side largely white neighborhoods with suburbs with comparable demographics. City performance lags.

Let's help the schools by cleaning house of the pols and unions that run them. Wipe out eighty percent of existing teachers and virtually all administrators and simply start over. Not realistic, I know.

just to add to the discussion, most people who live on the southwest side send their kds to private schools

I agree you can't let the teachers' unions protect all the lousy teachers. But also, I wonder how the city teacher pay scale compares with suburban schools.

Now, speaking of teachers, I recently read that a pretty impressive percentage (10% of Dartmouth I think?) of Ivy college grads are going into Teach for America. Now how many of these people are in the Chicago schools, and what kind of impact are they having? On the surface, it seems like a great program, but I wonder what the research would show…

Its hard to blame the schools too much though.. in the research I have seen home environment explains a lot more than schools. They've been showing that since the 1960s yet people still primarily blame the schools, I think in part because its politically incorrect to talk about the parents. And then they talk about underinvestment in schools. This is at variance with the fact that per student expenditures have been up over the last 20 years, without increases in quality. Throwing more money at the problem could still help though, given there are so many other disadvantages.

What I think they need is more city *boarding* schools. There's a way to take kids out of that terrible environment that they're growing up in, and try to put some order and positive role models in their out-of-school lives.

Jake,

The boarding school's an intriguing idea, but expensive.

My high school in Newark, which still sends nearly 100% of its graduates on to college, opened a boarding school and expanded backward into the 6th grade. Felt this was a necessity because of the totally devastated families the kids had.

No doubt more money makes a difference. See Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities.

Isn't Teach for America largely a careerist move to give the participants a leg up on law school / graduate school?