Big Dollars Little Sense Report

download Big Dollars Little Sense Report

of 29

Transcript of Big Dollars Little Sense Report

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    1/29

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    2/29

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    3/293

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    About Communities United for Quality Education &

    Chicago Students Organizing to Save our Schools 4

    Open Letter from Parents and Students:Investing in our Neighborhood Schools 5

    Executive Summary 6

    Introduction 8

    Key Findings 10

    Recommendations 24

    Conclusion 25

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    4/294

    ABOUT CUQE AND CSOSOS

    About Communities United for Quality EducationCommunities United for Quality Education (CUQE) is a group of concerned parents, students,and community members from across Chicago, committed to improving the quality of public edu-cation In the wake of massive school closings and record budget cuts to neighborhood schools,members of CUQE are committed to increasing investment in neighborhood schools, promotingcommon-sense solutions to improve the quality of education, and demanding accountable, trans-parent leadership from our elected officials CUQE has over 250 members from over 20 CPSschools

    Contact CUQE at cuqeinchicago@gmailcom

    About Chicago Students Organizing to Save our SchoolsChicago Students Organizing to Save our Schools (CSOSOS) is a student-led organization thatis working to end CPS school closings, put an end to high-stakes testing, and ensure our neigh-borhood schools are supported to succeed We believe that every student has the fundamentalright to a high quality public education, and that our neighborhood schools are not being giventhe resources they need We believe it is our duty as students to hold our elected officials anddistrict leaders accountable to promoting equity in education

    Contact CSOSOS at csososchicago@gmailcom

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCUQE and CSOSOS would like to thank Jim Freeman, a civil rights attorney committed to educa-tion justice, for assisting us in the data analysis in this report

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    5/295

    OPEN LETTER FROM PARENT AND STUDENTS:Investing in our Neighborhood Schools

    In August 2013, the Chicago Board of Education voted to cut classroom spending from neigh-borhood schools by $168 million for the 2013-14 school yeari This decision has had a devas-tating impact on our schools, and came just 16 days after Chicago Public Schools (CPS) quietlyreleased a new Request for Proposals for charter expansion to supposedly relieve overcrowdingin priority communities

    To give you a sense of what impact the budget cuts have had on the ground we wanted to high-light an example from one of our neighborhood schools Due to teacher layoffs, classrooms are

    packed, sometimes so much that students have to stand because there arent enough desks Theschool has so few resources now, that it had to take toilet paper out of its school budget In someclasses, students cant even bring their books home because they have to share with everyone inthe school who takes the same class These cuts have not only hurt the learning environments ofour schools, but also directly impact the quality of education that students receive

    This is a story that is repeated countless times throughout the city, impacting thousands of CPSstudents, and led us to a key question:Why is CPS promoting charter school expansion while at the very same time cutting basic edu-cational resources from our neighborhood schools?

    Investing millions of dollars of taxpayer money into new charter schools while our neighborhoodschools suffer is not a common sense solution We hope that through this report, and the ongo-ing efforts of parents and students to highlight the real facts, Mayor Emanuel and CPS leaderswill think twice about their plan, implement more targeted and sensible solutions to the over-crowding that does exist, and re-invest in our neighborhood schools

    Parent and student leaders ofCommunities United for Quality Education

    andChicago Students Organizing to Save our Schools

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    6/296

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOn August 12, 2013 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) quietly released a Request For Proposals(RFP) for charter school expansion Through the RFP, CPS revealed that it aims to open new char-ter elementary and high schools across 10 priority areas between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, with its stated goal to relieve school overcrowding CPS identified the prior-ity areas of Albany Park, Asburn, Belmont Cragin, Chicago Lawn, Little Village, McKinley Park,Midway, Ravenswood Ridge, Reed-Dunning, and Sauganash as overcrowded and has identifiedcharter expansion as the solution to overcrowding in these areasii This is the first time Chicago,and possibly any major school district has taken this approach

    Sixteen days after the RFP for charter expansion was released, the Chicago Board of Educa-tion, handpicked by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, voted to cut classroom spending from neighborhood

    schools by $168 million dollars for the 2013-2014 school year, while raising the property taxlevy in the city by $86 millioniii This represented devastating cuts to basic educational resourcesfor neighborhood schools

    As a result of this latest charter expansion plan at the time of record cuts to neighborhoodschools, concerned parents and students that are part of Communities United for Quality Edu-cation (CUQE) and Chicago Students Organizing to Save our Schools (CSOSOS) took it uponthemselves to take a closer look at CPS rationale for charter expansion, and conduct an inde-pendent analysis of the impact of this plan on Chicago taxpayers and neighborhood schools

    As a result of this analysis, CUQE and CSOSOS have concluded that CPS rationale for opening

    new charter schools to relieve overcrowding is deeply flawed, and one with major ramificationsfor Chicago students, parents, and taxpayers

    The research that led to this conclusion revealed the following:

    1. The plan is based on misleading information that CPS is promoting. CPS usesinaccurate and misleading data in order to justify charter expansion, such as using inaccurateboundaries for community areas to overstate the overcrowding crisis, and excluding additionalclassroom space such as mobile classrooms and leased classroom space when calculatingcommunity area utilization rates When adjusting for these factors, the utilization rates within the

    RFPs priority areas are on average 13% lower than CPS reports In six out of nine elementaryareas, the adjusted community area utilization rates are below 100% Finally, CPS enrollmentprojections conflict with US Census Data projections, which show that student-aged populationsare projected to decrease in all but one of the priority community areas

    2. The plan does not acknowledge that Chicagos charter schools do not pro-duce better outcomes than traditional CPS schools. New analysis comparing CPS keyperformance metrics reveals that Chicagos charter schools do not produce better outcomes thantraditional CPS schools In fact, traditional CPS schools are more than twice as likely to receive

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    7/297

    a top performance level rating than a charter school in Chicago Even charter schools that havebeen praised for high graduation rates and college enrollment rates show a very different pic-ture when examined more closely For example, the Noble Street Charter Network reports a100% college acceptance rate What it doesnt report is the fact that it serves 13% fewer specialeducation students and 19% fewer English Language Learners than traditional CPS high schools,or that it has a high attrition rate of students over the four years of high school

    3. The plan continues CPS trend of making huge increases to charter spendingat the same time as it has made record cuts to neighborhood schools. CPS hasaggressively increased tax dollar investments into charter schools while neighborhood schoolscontinue to face deep cuts every year In the last two years alone, traditional CPS school bud-gets were cut by a total of $351 million, while charter school spending increased by more than$143 million to $570 millioniv

    4. The plan is a bad deal for Chicagos taxpayers, adding millions of dollarsof long-term and avoidable costs while neighborhood schools continue to suf-fer. At a time of record budget cuts to neighborhood schools, the new charter schools wouldreceive up-front tax dollars to cover start-up costs, administrator salaries, facility costs, and otherexpenses According to CPS funding formula, a single new charter school would cost taxpayersup to $29 in upfront revenue that CPS automatically provides and could cost up to $2 millionin additional expenses every subsequent yearv The 12 schools that CPS is considering throughthe RFP process could collectively cost taxpayers anywhere between $138 to 348 million in asingle year alonevi These are not dollars attached to students; rather these are new expendituresthat taxpayers would have to pay for Additionally, because of CPS new Student Based Budget-ing formula, as new charters pull students away from neighborhood schools, financial resourcesfor neighborhood schools would be further depleted over time

    5. More targeted, cost-effective alternatives to relieve overcrowding exist.While there are some schools that experience overcrowding, CPS has failed to provide targetedsolutions for this targeted problem More sensible and less costly solutions exist that CPS hasembraced in the past Some examples include redrawing attendance boundaries and makingtargeted investments to increase a schools capacity such as building mobile classroom units onsite These solutions could save taxpayers millions of dollars, while investing in existing neighbor-hood schools

    Communities United for Quality Education and Chicago Students Organizing toSave Our Schools believe that this is more than just another irresponsible deci-sion by Mayor Emanuel and Chicago Public Schools.

    According to a new analysis by Moodys, a small but growing number of school districts facefinancial stress due to the movement of students to chartersvii Given the population declines inpriority areas projected by the US Census that are outlined in this report, combined with thealready devastating cuts to neighborhood schools, parents and students have good reason tobelieve that this latest round of charter expansion will lead to even greater cuts to neighborhoodschools, and greater financial distress for our cityThis is something that none of us can afford

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    8/298

    INTRODUCTION

    As Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has been dramatically expanding its investment in charterschools, it has made drastic budget cuts to neighborhood schools, as will be shown in this re-port CPS has rationalized its charter expansion strategies in different ways over the years Thelatest rationale for opening new charter schools is to provide overcrowding relief As this reportreveals, this rationale is deeply flawed, and has major ramifications for Chicago students andtaxpayers

    The Washington Post has reported that CPS intends to open 52 new charter schools through2017viii If these projections are correct, charter school presence in Chicago will have increased

    by 1850% since charters first opened in Chicago in 1997See Figure A:

    1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

    Projected New Charters

    Number of Charter Schools

    140

    120

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    YEAR

    Num

    berOfNewCharter

    Sc

    hoo

    lsinOperation

    Charter School Growth in Chicago

    Sources: FY2001-2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and 2005-2017 data obtained from CPS and Washington Post analysis

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    9/299

    The following section of this report provides an analysis of the rationale and impact of this latestround of charter expansion Key findings were uncovered through an analysis of: (1) the factsbeing used by CPS to justify charter expansion as an overcrowding relief strategy in the Requestfor Proposals released in August 2013; (2) the overall performance of Chicagos charter schoolsin relation to neighborhood schools; (3) CPS investments in charter expansion vs neighborhoodschools; (4) the projected cost of the proposed charter expansion through this RFP; and (5)thecost and feasibility of other overcrowding relief strategies as a potential alternative to charterexpansion

    The analysis was conducted primarily using CPS documents including the Request for Proposalsitself, the Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan released in May 2013 from which the RFPbases its numbers, the approved plan knows as the Educational Facilities Master Plan releasedin September 2013 which reports CPSs 10th-day enrollment numbers, CPS budget analysis frommultiple years, and other public data CPS has made available

    The findings are followed by a set of key recommendations to CPS officials, other elected offi-cials, parents, students and community members

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    10/2910

    KEY FINDINGS

    Finding #1: CPS is misleading the public to justify charter expansion

    The Request for Proposals (RFP) for charter expansion, which was released in August 2013,rationalizes the need for new charter schools based on overcrowding data reported by ChicagoPublic Schools (CPS) in the Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan released in May 2013ix Ac-cording to the analysis done by CUQE and CSOSOS, CPS has used multiple tactics to overstatecommunity area overcrowding to justify the Mayors charter expansion plan These tactics in-clude using inaccurate boundary lines, including schools that control their own enrollment num-bers such as selective enrollment and lottery-based charters in community area calculations, andexcluding mobile classrooms and leased classroom space that increases school capacity

    1 CPS uses inaccurate boundary lines for community areas in the RFP to overstate theovercrowding crisis as a justification for charter expansion

    CPS has taken an inconsistent and inaccurate approach in defining boundaries of the prioritycommunity areas outlined in the RFP to overstate the overcrowding crisis and justify the need forcontinued charter expansion According to CUQEs and CSOSOSs analysis, CPS manipulatesthe boundaries in 7 of the 10 elementary and high school priority areas in order to justify therationale for charter expansion in these areas

    In some cases, CPS defines community areas very broadly, including an ex-pansive list of neighboring communities to inflate the overcrowding crisis. Forexample, the RFP defines the McKinley Park area across six traditional Chicago community areasspanning an area of over 15 square miles This allows CPS to identify huge portions of the south-west sides of the city as overcrowded including the communities of McKinley Park, Brighton Park,Gage Park, New City, Archer Heights, and others There are a number of overcrowded schoolsin these areas; however there are also schools in these areas that are well within the range of ef-ficiency The overcrowding issue in McKinley Park is concentrated in certain schools, not acrossthe entire area Nevertheless, CPS identified the entire area as overcrowded to open up large

    parts of the city for charter expansion, even where overcrowding is not an issue This tactic wasalso used in the areas of Albany/Irving, and Sauganashx

    In other cases, CPS shrunk the boundaries of community areas, excluding manyschools operating below efficiency. For example, in the Belmont Cragin neighborhoodCPS excludes three elementary schools south of Grand Avenue At the time of the RFPs release,CPS reported the average utilization rates of these schools to be 75% CPS Belmont Craginanalysis is misleading because CPS has removed these three schools from the Belmont Craginboundariesxi CPS also did this in the Chicago Lawn community by excluding five neighborhood

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    11/2911

    schools from the boundaries with an average utilization rate of 82% Midways boundaries ex-cluded a single neighborhood school with a utilization rate of 47%, while 10 elementary schoolswith an average utilization rate of 76% were excluded from the Pilsen-Little Village areaxii

    CPS identified two priority communities for new charter high schools: the southwest side and thenorthwest side Within these two communities, there are 18 reported neighborhood high schools

    spread across 10 community areas; however, only two of them were classified as overcrowdedby CPS at the time the RFP was released The remaining 16 neighborhood high schools reportedan average utilization rate of 92%xiii Since CPS has updated its numbers, three high schools areconsidered overcrowded Therefore the high school overcrowding issue could be best addressedwith targeted overcrowding relief strategies at these three neighborhood high schools

    2 In the RFP, CPS includes selective enrollment, lottery-based charters, and specialeducation-focused schools to calculate utilization rates by community area, whichproduces misleading numbers

    Within CPSs calculation, neighborhood schools are included with schools that serve studentsoutside of a specific boundary and control their own enrollment numbers such as selective enroll-ment, lottery based, and special education schools This further overstates the overcrowdingnumbers For example, at the time the RFP was released, three of the most overcrowded schoolsin the Albany/Irving area were Northside Learning Center (233% utilization), Vaughn HighSchool (187% utilization) and Von Steuben High School (150% utilization) These three schoolswere included when calculating the utilization rate of the Albany/Irving area at 113% as report-ed in the RFPxiv However, Von Steuben High School is a selective enrollment school that con-trols its own enrollment and draws students from across the city Northside Learning Center and

    Vaughn High School both specialize in educating students with cognitive disabilities, and thusany overcrowding issue would require a unique solution to serve this specific student populationthat a charter school would likely not address

    3 Since the RFPs release, CPS continues to overstate overcrowding numbers byexcluding existing classroom additions and leased classroom space when calculatingits most recent utilization rates

    In September 2013, CPS approved its Education Master Facilities Plan with updated numbers In

    this most recent reporting of school utilization rates, CPS reports the 10th day 2013-14 SchoolEnrollment numbers to calculate each schools utilization rate The updated plan reflects anenrollment decrease of 3,000 students citywidexv Despite the updated numbers, CPS has chosennot to update the overcrowding data reported in the RFP to justify charter expansion Doing sowould weaken CPS overcrowding rationale Additionally, in the most recently released facilitiesplan, CPS reports the increased capacity schools receive through mobile classroom units andleased classroom space However CPS does not consider this permanent capacity and there-fore it is excluded from calculated utilization rates Doing so is greatly misleading

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    12/2912

    For example, Chavez Elementary leases space for 21 classrooms, which increases its capac-ity by 510 students Chavezs real utilization rate is 96% However CPS overstates Chavezsutilization rate by 101%, reporting it as 197% because this leased space is not counted Fore-man High School has 10 mobile classrooms, increasing its capacity by 240 students Foremansutilization rate is actually 94% because of these mobile classroom units However CPS reports

    Foremans utilization rate at 110%xvi

    Though these mobile classrooms and leased space increase the capacity of schools considerablyin some cases, CPS chose not to include them when calculating utilization rates CPS has essen-tially ignored millions of tax dollars previously invested in overcrowding relief strategies in orderto make the case for future investment of tax dollars into charter expansion--all at the same timeas neighborhood schools continue to receive massive budget cuts

    4 When adjusting for these considerations, as well as using CPS most recent enrollmentnumbers, community area utilization rates drop across the board

    As the analysis reveals, CPS is manipulating data, creating a flawed rationale for charter expan-sion to relieve overcrowding By analyzing the most recent CPS data, accounting for correctcommunity area boundaries, excluding schools that accept students from across the city and con-trol their enrollment numbers, and including mobile classrooms and leased space, the utilizationrates within the RFP priority areas drop by an average of 13% Some areas show significantdecreases in utilization rates such as McKinley Park (20% decrease), Midway (19% decrease),and Sauganash (18% decrease) In six out of the nine elementary school areas, real communityarea utilization rates are below 100%, with one areas (Pilsen-Little Village) utilization rate as low

    as 87% Using this calculation, 53 fewer schools meet CPS definition of overcrowding than isprojected by CPS in the RFPxvii The average utilization rate of the 19 neighborhood high schoolswithin CPS 10 high school priority areas drops by an average of 2%, from 92% to 90%, usingthis calculation

    5 CPS projections conflict with US Census Data, which shows that student-agedpopulations are projected to decrease in all but one of the priority community areasCPS itself project population declines in three community areas yet still advocates forcharter expansion to relieve overcrowding

    Within the Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan, CPS projects the average student enrollmentin the ten priority areas to increase by 154% within the next ten years This small populationshift is being used as part of the rationale for charter expansion CPS even projects studentenrollment to decrease in the priority areas of Albany / Irving, Pilsen-Little Village, and McKinleyPark by an average of 18%xviii Despite this decrease CPS has still chosen to target these commu-nities for charter expansion to relieve overcrowding in the RFP

    Furthermore, CPS enrollment projections contradict US Census data showing that student-agedpopulations in all but one of the priority community areas are projected to decrease by 2016

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    13/2913

    (McKinley Parks 0-19 year old population is staying stable with a projected increase of a mea-ger 01%) For instance, in the Sauganash area, census data projects populations to decreasefor 0-19 year olds by nearly 4%, and 15-19 year olds by nearly 9% Yet CPS projected 10-yearenrollment to increase in Sauganash by 45% The average projected population shiftthrough 2016 within CPSs priority areas is -1.96% for students between the

    age of 0-19, and -6.86% for students between the ages of 15-19, yet CPS proj-ects enrollment to increase by 1.5% in these areas.xix CPS provides no rationale forthis conflicting analysis, but rather promotes these enrollment projections throughout the RFPSee Figures B, C, and D:

    Since the release of the RFP, CPS has updated and approved the Educational Master FacilitiesPlan In the final version, it has removed the projected enrollment numbers and 2016 census pro-jections originally reported in the previous plan The newest version projects a slight populationincrease in 2017 through a CPS-generated forecast that is not explained If the slight increase inpopulation were validated despite 2016 census trends, it still comes nowhere close to justifyingmassive charter expansion as a reasonable solution

    -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

    2016 Projected Population Shif t U.S. Census Data (age 15-19)

    2016 Projected Population Shift U.S. Census Data (age 0-18)

    CPS 10-Year Enrollment Projections

    Projected Population Shift / Projected Enrollment

    Albany/Irving

    Ashburn

    Belmont Cragin

    Chicago Lawn

    Little Village

    Mckinley Park

    Midway

    Ravenswood Ridge (HS)

    Reed-Dunning

    Sauganash

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    14/2914

    Finding #2: Chicagos charter schools do not produce betteroutcomes than traditional CPS schools.

    CPS latest tactic to promote charter expansion to address overcrowding relief is the newestchapter in CPS aggressive charter expansion illustrated in the introduction (Figure A) of this

    report With CPS continued promotion of charter expansion, one might assume that CPS hasfound the silver bullet solution for improving urban education Charter schools should be greatlyoutperforming CPS schools, producing astonishing results worthy of replication CPS promotescharter schools as an option based on the belief that independently managed charter schoolsprovide parents and students with high quality education options However, an analysis of CPSkey performance metrics shows that charter schools do not in fact outperform their CPS counter-parts This finding is extremely troubling given CPS latest effort to promote charter expansion asan overcrowding relief strategy Even the seemingly higher performing charters promoted by theEmanuel Administration reveal a different story when examined more closely

    Comparing all CPS schools to all charter schoolsChicago Public Schools utilizes a Performance Policy to evaluate the performance of everyschool in the district Up until the current school year, all schools in the system with sufficient datareceived a Performance Level rating of 1-3, with one being the highest rating, three beingthe lowest The ratings for elementary schools are calculated through a combination of severaltesting data trends in all content areas along with attendance rates Additionally, dropout andon-track rates are also considered for CPS High Schools Performance Level ratingsxx

    CPS recently released citywide Performance Level Data for the 2012-2013 school year includ-ing charter schools Though test data is not an effective metric to comprehensively evaluate aschools performance, this is the metric CPS uses to make school-level probationary decisions

    It is also a baseline metric that looks at a combination of measures as opposed to a single testSeveral conclusions can be drawn from comparing the performance level distribution of all CPSschools with all charters: SEE FIGURE E

    40%

    35%

    30%

    25%

    20%

    15%

    10%

    5%

    0

    Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 No Data

    2012-2013 Performance Level Distribution

    Public Sch ools Cha rt er Schools

    Source: http://schoolreports.cps.edu/cpsedu/schooldata/PerformancePolicy_Results.xlsx

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    15/2915

    First,nearlyathirdofallcharterschoolsdonothavesufficientdatatoreceiveaperformance rating because they are new

    Nevertheless,aCPSschoolismorethantwiceaslikelytoreceiveaLevel1rating (the top rating) than a charter school in Chicago

    Level2classificationswerevirtuallyequal.

    32%ofallCPSschoolswereclassifiedasLevel3ascomparedto21%ofcharters.

    In the above comparison, the All CPS Schools category includes selective enrollment and mag-net schools However, because charters are unable to have selective enrollment criteria, andCPS magnet schools generally serve fewer low-income students than charters, an analysis wasalso performed to compare just CPS neighborhood elementary schools to charter elementaryschoolsxxi This provides a conservative comparison since neighborhood schools must accept allstudents within an attendance boundary, whereas charter schools are able to accept students bylottery and via complex application processes (High schools were not compared because 41%of charter high schools did not have enough data to receive a performance level rating, so noconclusion could be drawn) Several conclusions can be drawn from comparing the level rating

    distribution of all CPS elementary schools with all charter elementary schools: SEE FIGURE F

    Source: http://schoolreports.cps.edu/cpsedu/schooldata/PerformancePolicy_Results.xlsx

    13%ofcharterelementaryschoolshaveinsufficientdatatoreceiveaPerformance Level Rating because they are new

    32%ofneighborhoodschoolsreceivedaLevel1ratingascomparedto22%of charters

    78%ofcharterschoolsfallinthelowertworatingsascomparedto68%ofCPS schools

    60%

    50%

    40%

    30%

    20%

    10%

    0

    Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 No Data

    2012-2013 Performance Level Distribution

    All CPS Neighborhood Elementary & Charter Elementary Shools

    P ublic Schools Char ter Schools

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    16/2916

    A Closer Look at Charter Schools High Performance Claims: A Case Study ofNoble Charter NetworkThe Noble Street Charter Network is lauded by Mayor Emanuel for its high college enrollmentrates and praised as an effective model for urban education that should be replicated and ex-panded Mayor Rahm Emanuel has lavished praise on the network, claiming it has a 90% grad-

    uation ratexxii The Noble Network itself advertises a 100% college acceptance ratexxiii Whilethere are certainly students who have had positive experiences at Noble schools, the NobleNetworks reported success has been both overblown and highly misleading

    The Truth Behind Nobles Numbers

    Noble has waged a major marketing campaign centered on its graduation and college accep-tance rates What goes unmentioned, however, is the following:

    - Noble serves 13% fewer special education students and 19% fewer English lan-guage learners than CPSs traditional high schoolsxxiv

    - Nobles publicly stated college attendance rates are misleading and do not takeinto account the large number of students that Noble loses over the course of the fouryears For example, 150 students began 9th grade at Noble Street-Rauner in 2007-08xxv Four years later, 102 students graduated and 72 attended collegexxvi This is farshort of Nobles misleading claims

    - Noble has a set of disciplinary policies that push low-income students out for minor

    infractions For example, in 2011-12, Noble collected over $188,000 in disciplinaryfines from its students, often for minor infractions such as chewing gum or having ashirt unbuttoned Almost 90% of these students qualify for free or reduced price lunchStudents who cannot afford to pay the fines are withheld from advancing to the nextgrade level, and often are not provided with transcripts if they choose to transfer outuntil all fines have been paid Fee waivers are not readily available for low-incomestudentsxxvii It is believed that these disciplinary policies are amongst the most egre-gious in the country

    - Noble expels students at over twelve times the rate of CPSxxviii

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    17/2917

    Finding #3: CPS has a selective budget crisis, making hugeincreases to charter spending at the same time asit has made record cuts to neighborhood schools.

    Year-after-year, Chicago parents, students, and taxpayers read headlines about CPS ongoingbudget crisis In May of 2013, the Chicago Board of Education, handpicked by Mayor RahmEmanuel, voted to close 50 schools, predominately in the South and West sides of the City,supposedly as a cost-cutting measure due to school underutilization In August 2013, CPS re-leased this RFP for new charter schools across the northwest and southwest sides of the city, tosupposedly relieve overcrowding (a claim which is disputed in this report) Sixteen days after theRFP for charter expansion was released, the Board of Education voted to cut classroom spend-ing from neighborhood schools by $168 million dollars for the 2013-2014 school year, whileraising the property tax levy in the city to the highest level possiblexxix According to CPS, thesecuts amount to 3,226 fewer teachers and school-based staff-serving students in Chicago PublicSchoolsxxx

    A stark contrast surfaces when looking at CPS increasing financial investments in charter schoolsthroughout these difficult financial times CPS financial coffers appear to be abundant, allowingcentral office and the Board of Education to make aggressive and risky investments to grow andexpand charter resources throughout the city

    Charter spending grows as new campuses are opened and additional grades are addedCharter spending increased by 625% between 2004 and 2013 In the last two years alone,traditional CPS school budgets were cut by a total of $351 million, while charter school budgetswere increased by more than $143 million to $570 million This year, charter schools receivedan $85 million increase which was almost the exact same amount as the districts property tax

    increase this yearxxxi Thirteen new charter schools opened for the current school year, eleven ofwhich were district approved SEE FIGURES G, H, and I

    Figure G

    Percentage of Charter Spending - 2004

    Total Operating Funds $3.76 Billion

    Charter Shool Spending $66.6 Million

    2%

    98%

    Source: CPS budget analysis FY2004

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    18/2918

    Figure H

    Figure I

    Percentage of Charter Spending - 2013

    Total Operating Funds $5.16 Billion

    Charter Shool Spending $483 Million

    9%

    91%

    600

    500

    400

    300

    200

    100

    02004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

    CPS Charter School Spending 2004-2013

    Dollars(millions)

    Source: CPS budget analysis FY2013

    Source: CPS budget analysis FY2004-14

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    19/2919

    FINDING #4: The continued charter expansion proposed throughthis RFP is a bad deal for Chicagos taxpayers,adding millions of dollars of long-term and avoidablecosts while neighborhood schools continue to suffer.

    A new charter school creates duplicated costs for taxpayers because CPS gives new charters taxdollars to cover the cost of administration, operations, and facilities for schools not housed inCPS buildings, start-up funds for their first year, and more CPS has created a per-pupil formulato allocate funds to charter schools to cover these costs Charters receive these dollars everyyear in addition to the Student Based Budgeting dollars that all schools receivexxxii When a newcharter opens, new expenditures are created that taxpayers have to pay for

    Assuming a charter elementary school would open with all grades available to fully relieveovercrowding, a new averaged-sized charter elementary school would cost tax-payers $2.4 million dollars to open in the first year. Chicago taxpayers wouldpay $1.7 million dollars for that school every year for the remainder of its

    existence. The costs for high schools are even higher A new averaged-sized charterhigh school would cost tax payers $2.9 million dollars to open in the first year,and Chicago taxpayers would pay $2.1 million dollars every subsequent year.These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, so the actual costs would be even higher The 12schools that CPS is considering through the RFP process could collectively costtaxpayers anywhere between $13.8 to 34.8 million in a single year alone. As-suming that new charter schools continue to open in non-CPS facilities, the 52new charters that are projected to open by 2017 will cost taxpayers between$125 to $151 million over the next four years.xxxiii These are not dollars attached tostudents or school construction costs that charters may cover on their own-- rather these are newinvestments funded by taxpayer dollars through CPS If CPS is indeed interested in making newinvestments, resources should be allocated to under-resourced neighborhood schools instead ofpaying for the salaries of 52 charter principals, the heating, maintenance, and other facilitiescosts of 52 charter buildings, or other avoidable expenses These new costs are added to the116 charter schools currently in operation These schools collectively receive $570 million fromCPS per the FY2014 budget Assuming costs increased slowly over time, these 116 charterschools would receive $600 million per yearxxxiv

    CPS is willing to spend more that $34 million dollars to relieve overcrowding in targeted areasthrough charter expansion in a single year; however the Board of Education claims financialcrisis every budget season when it comes to neighborhood schools, continually administering

    deeper budget cuts and teacher layoffs every school year As the Mayor pushes for property taxincreases, neighborhood school budgets continue to decline while CPS continues to advance itsaggressive and expensive charter expansion agenda despite CPS financial issues

    Charter expansion is hardly a proper use of tax dollars In fact, CPS admits to the media thatcharter expansion is costly: [T]he proportion of the districts students being educated in privatelyrun charter or contract schools continues to grow, though budget officials say that does not haveany cost savings benefitsxxxv Nevertheless, during a financial crisis, CPS promotes this flawedand expensive approach as an overcrowding relief strategy despite the more sensible and cost-efficient solutions to overcrowding that exist, and that CPS has implemented in the past

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    20/2920

    Finding #5: More targeted cost-effective alternatives exist thatcould save Chicago taxpayers millions of dollars peryear, such as attendance boundary shifts and thetargeted addition of mobile classroom units.

    CPS considers a school with utilization rate ranging from 80-120% as efficientxxxvi DespiteCPS misleading claims about the overcrowding crisis, CUQE and CSOSOS recognize thatCPSs definition of efficient may still be considered overcrowded in reality Schools with utiliza-tion rates between 101-120% could still be experiencing overcrowding challenges that need tobe addressed

    CUQE and CSOSOS are not making school-by-school or neighborhood-by-neighborhood recom-mendations To earnestly address the overcrowding issue in these schools, CPS must make deci-sions through a thoughtful analysis and a case-by-case approach that addresses the real needsand solutions for the schools that need overcrowding relief

    However, new charter schools are not the solution and more targeted, cost-effective alternatives exist that could save Chicago taxpayers millions of dollarsper year. An analysis of CPS data reveals that the expansion of charter schools is an inefficientsolution to an overstated problem Nearly all of the overcrowding in neighborhood schools thatCPS cites could be relieved through the simple redrawing of attendance boundaries, and theremaining challenges could be addressed far more economically by increasing capacity of a tar-geted number of CPS schools through the construction of mobile classrooms on school groundsFurthermore, if CPS is willing to invest dollars to specifically relieve overcrowding by bringing innew charter schools, CPS has financial resources to invest in increasing the enrollment capacityof overcrowded schools throughout the city

    Attendance Boundary ShiftsAccording to Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century Schools Fund, and nationalexpert on school facilities, the most common and cost efficient way to address overcrowding isschool attendance boundary changesxxxvii

    Shifting attendance boundaries for neighborhood schools adequately distributes the studentpopulation across a neighborhood The cost of doing so is minimal, while being highly effectivebecause strategic attendance adjustments are made based on block-by-block populations Atten-dance boundaries would have to be shifted in a way that places every student within 15 miles

    of the school to avoid busing costs This approach allows schools to balance their utilizationrates across a neighborhood while reducing class size at no cost because enrollment and staff-ing are more properly distributed across neighborhood schools

    CPS identifies 10 priority communities for new charter elementary and high schools: AlbanyIrving; Ashburn; McKinley Park; Ravenswood-Ridge, Reed-Dunning; Sauganash; and portions

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    21/2921

    of Belmont Cragin, Chicago Lawn, Midway, and Pilsen-Little Village Within those target areas,there are 113 neighborhood elementary schools including the schools that CPS excluded in sec-tions of Belmont Cragin, Chicago Lawn, and other priority areas

    Thirteen neighborhood elementary schools are defined by CPS as overcrowded within the pri-

    ority communities, according to most recent CPS data All but one could be brought within therange of efficiency by CPS definition through the simple redrawing of attendance boundarieswith neighboring schoolsxxxviii For example, Smyser Elementary in the Portage Park neighbor-hood is the most overcrowded school in the area with a utilization rate of 129% Smyser wouldneed to reduce its enrollment by 67 students to be considered efficient by CPS However, it isbordered by Portage Park and Garvy schools which could collectively absorb those 67 studentsand still be considered efficient Prieto Elementary in the Belmont Cragin neighborhood has autilization rate of 138% and exceeds its capacity by 87 students The attendance lines for con-tiguous schools Burbank, Lovett, and others could be redrawn to easily absorb 87 students whilestill remaining efficientxxxix

    CPS identified two priority communities for new charter high schools: the southwest side andthe northwest side Within these two communities, there are 19 neighborhood high schoolsspread across 10 community areas; however, only three of them are classified as overcrowd-ed by CPS The attendance boundaries of those three schools each border a number of highschool attendance boundaries that have extra capacity and could easily absorb enough studentsto relieve any overcrowdingxl

    This report is not specifically advocating for attendance boundary shifts for specific schoolsRather, attendance boundary shifts are recommended as one cost-effective and feasible strategythat would need to be thoughtfully considered on a case-by-case basis Attendance boundary

    shifts is an approach CPS has embraced in the past In fact, CPS has shifted attendance bound-aries at schools 106 times between 2003-2012xli

    Mobile Classroom ConstructionThe second most cost-efficient solution is to build new mobile classroom units on the schoolgrounds to increase a school capacity without changing a schools attendance boundaries Amobile unit increases a schools capacity by four classrooms, or roughly 120 studentsxlii Accord-ing to CPS stated capital project budgets, the average construction cost of a new mobile unitis $866,000xliii It is estimated that a mobile unit adds $78,000 in operating costs, so the totalcost for constructing and operating a mobile unit the first year is $945,000 Thereafter the costdrops to an estimated $78,000 per yearxliv Some severely overcrowded schools may need two

    mobile units if attendance boundaries are not adjusted, increasing the upfront construction costs;however the long-term savings after the first year are still significant when compared to charterexpansion

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    22/2922

    It should be noted that while mobile units increase capacity at a school by four classrooms, theydo not reduce class sizes Since the enrollment numbers stay the same, staffing numbers do notchange based on the Student Based Budgeting formula, because it is not designed to provideadequate funding to reduce class sizes If CPS invested in class size reduction by providingmore teachers to overcrowded schools, each mobile unit would theoretically add an additional

    $288,000 in expenses to cover the salaries of four additional teachersxlv

    CPS has also embraced this approach in the past CPS has built mobile classrooms 107 times forschools between 1996-2012xlvi

    Charter school expansion is one of the most costly overcrowding relief strategies that CPS canemploy, and its the only approach that directly takes financial resources away from alreadyunder-resourced CPS schools Given available capacity within the priority community areas, andconsidering population trends, opening new charter schools will more than likely create excesscapacity within the community areas This would likely result in future underutilization of neigh-borhood schools, while new charters would continue to market toward students from across the

    city Therefore charter expansion is a costly, harmful, and inefficient investment to relieve over-crowding, costing taxpayers millions of dollars that could be invested more wisely or avoided alltogether See Chart J:

    Once again, the vast majority of CPSs overcrowding problem is a result of poor planning, notinsufficient capacity Investing in the expansion of school capacity at targeted schools, coupledwith a sensible redrawing of attendance boundaries, would both address the problem CPS hasidentified and be substantially less costly than the one-size-fits-all solution CPS proposes for all132 neighborhood elementary and high schools within priority communities

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    23/2923

    CHARTER EXPANSION COSTS

    K-8 Elementary School Avg. 1 Year Cost(Assuming all grades open to relieve Overcrowding)

    $2,358,890.07Cost Every Year Following

    (Assuming stable enrollment)

    $1,654,054.78

    K-8 High School Avg. 1 Year Cost(Assuming all grades open to relieve Overcrowding)

    $2,913,231.70Cost Every Year Following

    (Assuming stable enrollment)

    $2,053,154.90

    Alternative Overcrowding Relief Strategies

    Attendance Boundary Shiftswith no bussing required

    (Elementary & High School)

    Avg. Cost for Year 1 &Estimated Operating Costs

    $0Cost Every Year Following

    (Assuming stable enrollment)

    $0

    New Temporary Units &Mobile Classrooms Construction

    (Elementary & High School)

    $943,849.31 Cost Every Year Following(Assuming stable enrollment)$78,000.00Avg. Cost for Year 1 &

    Estimated Operating Costs

    Chart J

    Sources: Data obtained from CPS Capital Plan and the Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force.Charter funding formulas obtained from CPS Budget and Charter Funding Overview. October 7, 2013 PowerPoint Presentationto the Task Force on Charter School Funding.

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    24/2924

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Recommendations to Mayor Emanuel and Chicago Pubic Schools Reconsiderthisplanforcharterexpansion!Investincost-effective,common-sense

    solutions to relieve the overcrowding that does exist, such as sensible attendanceboundary shifts and mobile classroom units where needed

    Re-allocatenewfundingreservedforcharterexpansionbacktoneighborhoodschoolsto support quality neighborhood-based education and well-resourced learningenvironments

    Approveabudgetdesignedtofundexistingneighborhoodschoolsatthehighestrate possible

    Recommendations to Aldermen and State Representatives Whereovercrowdingdoesexistinneighborhoodschools,promotesensiblesolutions

    such as attendance boundary shifts and mobile classroom units We need common-sense solutionstotheproblemsimpactingneighborhoodschools! Advocateforfundingtobereallocatedfromcharterexpansionbackinto

    neighborhood schools AdvocateforaCPSbudgetingformuladesignedtofundexistingneighborhoodschools

    at the highest rate possible

    Recommendations to Parents, Students, and Community Members Joinoureffortstosupportneighborhoodschools!ContactCUQEorCSOSOStoget

    involved, and contact your elected officials and CPS to tell them to promotecommon-sense solutions to relieve overcrowding, and strong investment inneighborhood school

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    25/2925

    CONCLUSION

    As this report shows, Mayor Emanuels continued plans to expand charter schools, in thiscase justified as an overcrowding relief strategy, is based on misleading facts and couldcost taxpayers millions of dollars in short- and long-term costs This represents dollars thatcould be re-invested in neighborhood schools and go towards more sensible, cost-effectivesolutions for targeted overcrowding relief

    Communities United for Quality Education and Chicago Students Organizing to Save OurSchools believe that this is more than just an irresponsible decision, but one that will lead togreater cuts to neighborhood schools, and greater financial distress for our school district

    We hope our elected officials will reverse course and join our efforts to promote investmentin neighborhood schools

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    26/2926

    i Chicago Public Schools. Approved Budget2013-2014 Budget Book. Pg 27. http://www.cps.edu/finance/FY14Budget/Documents/FY-2014ApprovedBudgetBook.pdfChicago Public Schools. Approved Budget 2012-2013 Budget Book. Pg. 32http://www.cps.edu/finance/FY14Budget/Documents/FY2014ApprovedBudgetBook.pdf

    ii Chicago Public Schools. Request for Proposals for New Schools. Pg. 7.http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    The Ravenswood Ridge community area was only identified within the high school portion of the RFP. All other community areas were identifiedin both the elementary school and high school priority areas.

    iii Chicago Public Schools. Approved Budget2013-2014 Budget Book. http://www.cps.edu/finance/FY14Budget/Documents/FY2014Ap-provedBudgetBook.pdf

    iv CPS Budget Book FY2014 Pg 27. http://www.cps.edu/finance/FY14Budget/Documents/FY2014ApprovedBudgetBook.pdfCPS Budget Book FY2013. Pg. 32http://www.cps.edu/finance/FY14Budget/Documents/FY2014ApprovedBudgetBook.pdf

    v Chicago Public Schools. CPS Budget and Charter Budget Overview. Presentation to the Task Force on Charter School Funding. Powerpointpresentation. October 7, 2013.Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 20th Day Membership. http://www.cps.edu/Schooldata/Pages/Schooldata.aspx

    Funding formula adopted from CPS Powerpoint Present. CPS allocates funding on a per-pupil basis to charters for administration base pay,teacher salary adjustments, operations costs, facilities supplemental costs, and first year start-up funds.CUQE and CSOSOS calculated the average size of a Chicago charter elementary and high from the 2012-2013 20th Day Membership

    vi CPS. CPS Budget and Charter Budget Overview. Presentation to the Task Force on Charter School Funding. Powerpoint presentation.October 7, 2013.CPS. 2012-2013 20th Day Membership. http://www.cps.edu/Schooldata/Pages/Schooldata.aspx

    vii Moodys Investor Services. Announcement:Moodys: Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas. October 15, 2013.https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Charter-schools-pose-greatest-credit-challenge-to-school-districts--PR_284505

    viii

    Valerie Strauss, How big can Teach for America get? Washington Post. September 10, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/10/how-big-can-teach-for-america-get/

    ix Chicago Public Schools. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 3, 2013 Pgs. 80, 88, 110, 147, 222, 231, 259, 278, 284.http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdfChicago Public Schools. Request for Proposals for New Schools. Appendix I. Pgs. 43-52.http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    The RFP for New Schools provides a summary of each priority areas utilization rates in Appendix 1 of the document. The utilization rates identi-fied in each area are the same as the Enrollment and Utilization trends section for each area in the Draft Educational Facilities Master Planreleased in May of 2013.

    x CPS. Request for Proposals for New Schools. Pgs. 44-52.http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    Four or more traditional Chicago communities were identified within the boundaries of the McKinley Park, Albany/Irving, and Sagaunash com-

    munity areas respectively.xi CPS. Request for Proposals for New Schools. Pg. 46http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    xii CPS. Request for Proposals for New Schools. Pgs. 46, 47, 49, and 50http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    In the RFP, the priority areas of Belmont Cragin, Pilsen-Little Village, Midway, and Chicago Lawn are sectioned off, excluding significant portionsof the community with schools with schools that have excess capacity Pgs. 46, 47, 49, and 50

    End Notes

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    27/2927

    xiii CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    Data compiled from reported utilization rates of the 16 neighborhood high schools within the RFPs high school priority areas.

    xiv CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdfCPS/ Request for Proposals for New Schools.http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/RFP_ForNewSchools.pdf

    xv Cassandra West. In the News: CPS reports an enrollment drop of 3,000 Catalyst Chicago. September 25, 2013http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/2013/09/25/62793/in-news-cps-reports-enrollment-drop-3000

    xvi Chicago Public Schools. Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xvii CPS. Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xlviii CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013. Pg. 28http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xix CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013. Pg. 28http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xx Chicago Public Schools. 2013-2014 CPS Performance Policy. Overviewhttp://www.cps.edu/Performance/Documents/OverviewofPerformancePolicy.pdf

    xxi Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 Performance Policy Results and Probation Statushttp://schoolreports.cps.edu/cpsedu/schooldata/PerformancePolicy_Results.xlsx

    xxii Fran Spielman, Rahm Emanuel: Noble Charter Schools Results Speak for Themselves, Chicago Sun-Times February, 14, 2013.

    xxiii

    http://www.noblenetwork.org/students-families/enroll-at-noblexxiv Analysis by Voices of Youth in Chicago Education

    xxv Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 Performance Policy Results and Probation Status http://www.cps.edu/SchoolData/Pages/SchoolData.aspx.

    xxvi Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 Performance Policy Results and Probation Status http://www.cps.edu/SchoolData/Pages/SchoolData.aspx.

    xxvii Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 Performance Policy Results and Probation Status http://www.cps.edu/SchoolData/Pages/SchoolData.aspx.

    xxviii Data provided in response to public records requests.

    xxix Chicago Public Schools FY14 Budget Interactive Reports

    https://supplier.csc.cps.k12.il.us/analytics/saw.dll?Dashboard&PortalPath=/shared/CPS%20FY14%20Budget/_portal/Chicago%20Public%20Schools%20FY14%20Budget%20Interactive%20Reports&page=Home&NQUser=cpsbiguest&NQPassword=hell0cpsb1

    xxx CPS budget analysis of FY2004 ,FY 2013, and FY2014

    xxxi CPS. FY14 Budget Book. Pg. 7

    xxxii Chicago Public Schools. CPS Budget and Charter Budget Overview. Presentation to the Task Force on Charter School Funding. Powerpointpresentation. October 7, 2013.

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    28/2928

    xxxiii Chicago Public Schools. CPS Budget and Charter Budget Overview. Presentation to the Task Force on Charter School Funding. Powerpointpresentation. October 7, 2013.Chicago Public Schools. 2012-2013 20th Day Membership. http://www.cps.edu/Schooldata/Pages/Schooldata.aspx

    Funding formula adopted from CPS Powerpoint Present. CPS allocates funding on a per-pupil basis to charters for administration base pay,teacher salary adjustments, operations costs, facilities supplemental costs, and first year start-up funds. CUQE and CSOSOS calculated the aver-age size of a Chicago charter elementary and high from the 2012-2013 20th Day Membership

    xxxiv CPS. FY2014 Budget Book. Pg. 29

    CPS reports 116 charter/contract schools budgets total $570 million. This averages out to the average is $4.9 million per school.

    xxxv Linda Lutton. Chicago schools budget avoids staggering cuts by draining reserves,WBEZ. July 6, 2013 http://www.wbez.org/news/edu-cation/chicago-schools-budget-avoids-staggering-cuts-draining-reserves-100680

    xxxvi CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xxxvii Sarah Hainds, email to Mary Filardo. September 26, 2013

    xxxviii Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    Analysis performed from CPS Educational Facilities Master Plan Utilization Rates

    xxxix Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xl CPS. Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xli CPS. Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013 Pg. 30http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xlii CPS. Educational Facilities Master Plan. September 2013 Pg. 30http://cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/CPSEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    xliii Chicago Public Schools. Capital Project Locationshttp://www.cps.edu/Pages/Capital_Plan_Data.aspx.Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force

    Average cost was calculated from average cost of every CPS mobile unit built from 1996-2013. 1996-2010 data obtained from the ChicagoEducational Facilities Task Force.2010-2013 Obtained from Capital Project Locations Website.

    xliv CPS. Draft Educational Facilities Master Plan. May 2013 Pg. 38http://www.cps.edu/NewSchools/Documents/CPSDraftEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf

    CPS projected savings of $78,000,000 in operating costs by closing 50 schools. That amounts to $1,560,000 per school. Assuming a mobileunit takes on 5% of the operating cost of an entire school, that amounts to $78,000 per school, or 5% of $1,560,000.

    xlv Chicago Public Schools. Stats and Facts.(http://www.cps.edu/about_cps/at-a-glance/pages/stats_and_facts.aspx).

    CPS reports that the average teacher salary is $75,000. (http://www.cps.edu/about_cps/at-a-glance/pages/stats_and_facts.aspx). One mo-bile classroom unit adds four additional classrooms. By multiplying the average teacher salary (75,000) by four, the total amounts to $288,000.

    xlvi Chicago Public Schools. Capital Project Locationshttp://www.cps.edu/Pages/Capital_Plan_Data.aspx.Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force

  • 7/27/2019 Big Dollars Little Sense Report

    29/29