Sections:

Article

CReATE issues Chicago manifesto

CReATE - January 17, 2011

[Editor's Note. A new Chicago group called CReATE (Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education) issued a major report on Friday, January 24, 2011, called Chicago School Reform: Myths, Realities, and New Visions. Prepared by CReATE (Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education) January 2011].

Public education in a democratic society is based on the principle that every child is of equal and incalculable value. This guiding principle requires the fullest development of every member of our nation. Effective public schools are necessary to enable every member of our nation to reach his or her fullest potential. Schools in a democracy aim to prepare the next generation to be knowledgeable and informed citizens and residents; to be critical thinkers and creative problem solvers; to be prepared to contribute positively to communities, workplaces, and societies that are characterized by diversity and inequities; and to be healthy, happy, and prepared to support the well-being of others with compassion and courage. The children and youth of Chicago deserve no less … but how do we do this?

In the midst of campaigns and debates for the 2011 Chicago mayoral election, we hear many proclamations and promises about what it means to improve public schools. But how does each candidate compare to what we know so far from research about the real problems and solutions? Education researchers from throughout Chicagoland have prepared this fact sheet to distinguish myths from realities, and to provide new visions. Following each topic is a list of researchers who can be contacted for elaboration. For general information: createchicago@gmail.com. A PDF of this statement is here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2561000/CReATEjan2011.pdf

VISION: Provide Bold Leadership that Addresses Difficult Systemic Problems and Avoids Scapegoating the “Usual Suspects.”

MYTH: The main problem with education is the lazy or incompetent teacher, who is protected by corrupt unions and supervised by out-of-control local school councils, so the key to reform is a system of rewards and punishments and the dismantling of rights to organize (as with state legislation currently under debate).

REALITY: Consistently underperforming schools are unevenly but predictably distributed in Chicago’s public K-12 education. School success maps strongly with traditional markers of privilege (by race, income, class, immigrant status, etc.) and school failure maps predictably along lines of poverty.[1] Even if every teacher were hardworking, knowledgeable, and skilled, inequities in education would still exist because of a range of larger, systemic problems that hinder effective teaching, both inside and outside of school.[2] Furthermore, good learning conditions cannot exist without good teaching conditions, and the most successful public schools have teachers’ unions and effective local school councils that are responsive to their membership and that operate with democratic decision-making processes.[3]

MYTH: In this financial crisis, there is no additional funding available for education, but even if there were, increased funding does not improve education, Chicago’s public schools already enjoy equitable funding, and if a community wants to raise more funds it has that option.

REALITY: Financial and other resources can drastically change education quality.[4] Wealthy communities are able to invest much more into their schools through private donations and fundraising, while some elected officials are able to advocate more effectively for additional resources for well-heeled districts. Consequently, public schools across the city operate on vastly different budgets.[5] Budgets reflect priorities, and education does not fare well against, say, prisons. At a time when allocations for public education are shrinking, states are building new and expanding prisons and detention centers. Across the nation, state spending on prisons was six times the increase of spending on higher education. In Illinois, the cost of incarcerating one adult is about 4.5 times the cost of educating one child. Research suggests that one more year of high school would significantly reduce crime and incarceration rates, and that increasing the male high-school graduation rate by one percent would save $1.4 billion nationwide.[6]

PLEDGE: Chicago’s next mayor must pledge to:

· Develop and implement policies that address historic educational inequities that arise from poverty, segregation, discrimination, and social isolation;

· Prioritize education budgetarily and invest in public K-12 schools by, for example, reallocating TIF funding;

· Distribute funding and other resources equitably, by implementing broader tax redistribution[7] and by fully funding the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board’s minimum per-pupil funding level;

· Resist scapegoating unionized teachers and local school councils, and instead, support democratic processes such as teachers organizing and parents serving on governing bodies for their children’s schools.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS:

· Sumi Cho, DePaul University, scho@depaul.edu

· Jerome Hausman, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, jerryhausman@gmail.com

· Lauren Hoffman, Lewis University, lph1332@gmail.com

· Pamela Konkol, Concordia University Chicago, pamela.konkol@cuchicago.edu

· Kevin Kumashiro, University of Illinois at Chicago, kevink@uic.edu

· Michelle Turner Mangan, National-Louis University, michelle.mangan@nl.edu

· Tema Okun, National-Louis University, tema.okun@nl.edu

· Michelle Parker-Katz, University of Illinois at Chicago, mparker@uic.edu

· Brad Porfilio, Lewis University, porfilbr@lewisu.edu

· Karyn Sandlos, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, ksandl@saic.edu

VISION: Develop and Implement Education Policy and Reform Initiatives that are Primarily Research-Driven, Not Market-Driven.

MYTH: School turnarounds have benefited Chicago Public Schools by giving “failing” schools a new start.

REALITY: First conceived by the Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago’s school reform policy—“Renaissance 2010”—is based not on sound research and analysis, but on market principles of privatization, competition, and commercialization. CPS has even adopted a market structure in which “CEO’s” are preferred over educators for the top leadership position, and Boards are appointed by the mayor, not elected by the people. Since the implementation of Renaissance 2010, districtwide high-school student achievement has not risen, and most of the lowest performing high schools saw scores drop. Moreover, the process for identifying “failing schools” was neither consistent nor research-based, and disproportionately affected low-income African American and Latino students by closing schools in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods while leaving untouched those schools in more affluent areas with comparable performance and enrollments. The CPS schools that were “turned around” have not all shown significant improvement in student achievement, and instead, have shown increases in tensions and violence inside and outside of school.[8]

MYTH: Because competition leads to improvement, school “choice” options are necessary, and because the private sector can do better what the public has failed to do, the “choice” options must involve privatization.

REALITY: Philanthropies altogether spend almost $4 billion annually on education, dominated by a handful of foundations that advance initiatives of choice, competition, deregulation, and accountability, despite that school-choice, voucher, and restrictive-enrollment programs have not proven to be more effective in increasing district overall student achievement.[9] In some cases, poorer neighborhoods in Chicago saw reductions in funding even while enrollments rose, and there is evidence that choice programs exacerbate racial segregation.[10] Similarly, the private sector has not proven to be more effective at improving schools, despite a rapid increase in expenditure of outsourcing services and products, including school management, curriculum, and assessments. The majority of privately run schools, including charter schools, operated with deficit budgets in recent years and/or violated such public-accountability measures as the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act. Charter schools are exempted from Illinois state laws that require a voting majority of Local School Councils to be parents, and in Chicago, less than 5% of charter-school board members are parents. Furthermore, specialty schools, including charter schools, are not all required to enroll students with special needs, including English language learners and students with disabilities, thus providing “choice” for only some children and families. While some parents and families may perceive that select specialty or charter schools provide viable pathways for young people, the success of some of these schools has not improved the overall school system. [11]

PLEDGE: Chicago’s next mayor must pledge to:

· Draw on the expertise of educators and researchers, not primarily the business and philanthropy sectors, to develop policies and reforms.

· Halt the school-turnaround process, adequately evaluate its effectiveness, and then develop and apply standards for school turnaround or closure that are research-based, consistent, fair, and transparent;

· Enforce policies for public accountability, and require all schools that are supported by public funds to constitute Local School Councils with a voting majority of parents;

· Provide district leaders who are knowledgeable about education and urban contexts and skillful in collaborative and democratic decision-making processes, starting with a credentialed superintendent of CPS, and transitioning from mayoral control to a democratically elected school board that is accountable to the public.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON CPS REFORMS:

· William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago (retired), billayers123@gmail.com

· Leslie Bloom, Roosevelt University, lbloom@roosevelt.edu

· Gabriel Alejandro Cortez, Northeastern Illinois University, g-cortez@neiu.edu

· Michael Klonsky, DePaul University, mklonsky@depaul.edu

· Dan A. Lewis, Northwestern University, dlewis@northwestern.edu

· Amanda M. Maddocks, Concordia University Chicago, amanda.maddocks@cuchicago.edu

· Kenneth Saltman, DePaul University, ksaltman@depaul.edu

· David Stovall, University of Illinois at Chicago, dostoval@uic.edu

VISION: Improve Teaching and Learning Effectiveness by Developing Standards, Curricula, and Assessments that are Skills-Based, not Sorting-Based.

MYTH: A standardized curriculum, with emphasis on basic reading and mathematics, will raise standards.

REALITY: In districts with mandated, scripted curriculums, or in schools that inevitably narrow the curriculum in order to prepare for high-stakes testing, students are covering less content in ways that do not require higher-order thinking skills. The standard for student learning is being lowered, not raised, and those students who struggle the most are even less likely to be served by curriculums designed with little knowledge of the unique needs in a given school and community.[12] One of the many subjects being cut is the arts, particularly for students in low-income communities of color, despite that arts education contributes significantly to creative problem-solving skills and to social and emotional learning, which are all essential for academic success.[13] In contrast are nations such as Finland where broad, rich curriculums with diverse, flexible, and rigorous standards are developed at the school level by teachers and school administrators, and where students perform at the highest levels internationally with little variation between schools.[14]

MYTH: High-stakes testing is an effective way to measure learning and to hold students, educators, and schools accountable.

REALITY: High-stakes tests may effectively measure a small set of knowledge and skills, but they do not measure higher-order thinking skills and a broad set of knowledge, and consequently, offer a very narrow picture of what students have learned and how well teachers have taught. Grade retention that results from narrow measures of academic preparedness can increase student risk for problems in school, including increased drop-out rates, and even when the student is promoted, the use of such assessments to sort students creates tracks within grade levels that reflect racial, ethnic, and social-class differences and that function to direct entire categories of students toward low-wage jobs or incarceration.[15] When such narrow and biased assessments are then tied to teacher evaluation and compensation, the result is a system that rewards narrow and biased teaching.[16]

MYTH: Good teachers are primarily those who know what they are teaching and need not have learned how to teach or be able to connect to the community.

REALITY: Chicago Public Schools has reserved teaching vacancies for graduates of fast-track alternative certification programs, despite that such graduates overwhelmingly report that they are ill-prepared for the reality of schools, and have not shown to be more effective at raising student achievement. Programs like Teach For America recruit bright college graduates but offer little pre-service preparation, and then see their participants leave the profession after an average of three years.[17] In contrast, teachers with community knowledge and connections are more likely to raise student achievement, as well as to participate in long-term efforts at school-community partnerships and teacher professionalization, including mentoring and collaboratively improving working conditions.[18]

PLEDGE: Chicago’s next mayor must pledge to:

· Support teachers and school administrators in developing broad, rich curriculum that centers on diverse, flexible, and rigorous standards and that is targeted to their students’ unique and varied strengths and needs.

· Create more complex and accurate assessments and use them not to penalize students or teachers, but to identify what additional resources or services are needed, such as with multi-layered performance-based assessments that are used formatively.

· Invest in high-quality and long-term teacher preparation.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT:

· John Duffy, National-Louis University, john.duffy@nl.edu

· Judith Gouwens, Roosevelt University, jgouwens@roosevelt.edu

· Nicole Holland, Northeastern Illinois University, n-holland@neiu.edu

· Eleni Katsarou, University of Illinois at Chicago, elenik@uic.edu

· Jung Kim, Lewis University, kimju@lewisu.edu

· Eileen Quinn Knight, Saint Xavier University, knight@sxu.edu

· Jeff Kuzmic, DePaul University, jkuzmic@depaul.edu

· Gregory Michie, Concordia University Chicago, gregory.michie@cuchicago.edu

· Isabel Nunez, Concordia University Chicago, isabel.nunez@cuchicago.edu

· Therese Quinn, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, tquinn@saic.edu

· Brian D. Schultz, Northeastern Illinois University, bschultz@neiu.edu

· Noah Sobe, Loyola University Chicago, nsobe@luc.edu

· Durene I. Wheeler, Northeastern Illinois University, d-wheeler@neiu.edu

VISION: Ensure the Support, Dignity, and Human and Civil Rights of Every Student.

MYTH: Students are as likely to find the necessary support for school success in large schools and classrooms as in small ones.

REALITY: Next to parental income level, school size is the key factor in school success. Defined as under 500 students at the elementary level and between 1000 and 2500 at the secondary level, small schools do better on every measure: graduation rates, attendance, grades, test scores, violence, drug abuse, suicide. Smaller schools and classrooms make it more likely for every child to be well-known by a teacher, for teachers to collaborate, and for parents and families to participate, and not surprisingly, in the nation’s wealthiest private schools, class size is typically limited to 15 in elementary schools and 25 in high schools.[19]

MYTH: Safer and more effective schools result from tougher punishment or militarized discipline.

REALITY: There is no evidence that punishment leads to safer schools. However, research confirms that schools punish certain gender, racial, and sexual-identity groups more often and more severely than others. From as early as preschool, boys are expelled almost five times as often as girls; for all grade levels, African American students are suspended or expelled at rates several times higher than any other group; and nonheterosexual youth experience school sanctions up to three times more often than heterosexual youth.[20] Similarly, there is no evidence that military programs increase academic success, and yet, Chicago has the most militarized public-school system in the nation. The military high schools, JROTC, and Cadet programs enroll a disproportionately high percentage of students of color, reflecting the broader strategy to recruit African American and Latino males from low-income areas for first-responder positions in U.S. wars abroad. Military programs are reducing coursework in academic content (replacing them with JROTC courses, for example), and graduates of such programs are not always receiving the financial benefits promised. The majority of expenses to run such programs are covered by Chicago taxpayers, not the Department of Defense, totaling over $9 million.[21]

MYTH: Public education is already supportive and effective for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (LGBTQ) and gender non-conforming youth; for English language learners; and for undocumented immigrant students. REALITY: Despite state laws and district policies that prohibit discrimination and address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many LGBTQ and gender non-conforming youth are experiencing verbal and physical discrimination and harassment, are not able to identify adult supporters, and are not learning accurate information about gender, sex, and sexual orientation; and teacher-preparation programs in Illinois are not adequately preparing teachers to address such bias based on sexual orientation and gender identity.[22] Despite evidence that developmental bilingual education is correlated with the strongest outcomes for academic achievement in English for English language learners, schools continue to operate as if such students will learn English faster through immersion in an English-only school experience.[23] Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states may not discriminate against students enrolling in K-12 public schools on the basis of their legal status, clear guidelines do not exist for higher education. In the absence of federal guidelines, states have created their own rules. Although undocumented students can apply to most colleges, they are not eligible for federal or state financial aid. Conservative estimates put the number of undocumented children at 1.7 million, with 65,000 of those who have lived in the United States for five years or longer graduating from high school, and between 7,000-13,000 enrolling in colleges.[24]

PLEDGE: Chicago’s next mayor must pledge to:

· Limit the number of students in every school and every classroom to the levels that research has determined to be optimal.

· Provide successful restorative- and transformation-justice programs instead of tougher punishment policies and practices.

· Halt the establishment and expansion of all military programs, phase out JROTC programs, and invest instead in programs that research has shown to be effective in fostering academic success, discipline, leadership, and college pathways.

· Improve both pre-service and in-service preparation for all school personnel about diversity and equity regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and provide adequate resources to support students, operate programs, and monitor compliance.

· Provide high-quality developmental bilingual education programs.

· In the absence of federal legalization or pathways such as the DREAM Act, create other avenues for accessible higher education.

RESEARCHERS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON STUDENT SUPPORT AND RIGHTS:

· Stacey Horn, University of Illinois at Chicago, sshorn@uic.edu

· Kathleen McInerney, Saint Xavier University, mcinerney@sxu.edu

· Erica Meiners, Northeastern Illinois University, e-meiners@neiu.edu

· Christopher J. Palmi, Lewis University, palmich@lewisu.edu

· Sonia Soltero, DePaul University, ssoltero@depaul.edu

· Gerri Spinella, National-Louis University, gerri.spinella@nl.edu

· June Terpstra, Northeastern Illinois University, j-terpstra@neiu.edu

REFERENCES

[1] Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/poverty-and-potential. Lipman, P. (2011). The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge.

[2] Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher 35(7), 3-12.

[3] Molnar, A., Rosenshine, B., Lugg, C., Howley, C., Downey, D., Glass, G., Bracey, G., Kupermintz, H., Finn, J., Carini, R., Reitzug, U., & Barnett, S. (2002). School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/school-reform-proposals-the-research-evidence.

[4] Kozol, J. (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Broadway.

[5] Myers, J., & Anderson, V. (2005). Assessing Inequities in School Funding with Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Catalyst Chicago. http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?item=1650&cat=23.

[6] Justice Policy Institute. (2002). Cellblocks Or Classrooms?: The Funding Of Higher Education and Corrections and Its Impact on African American Men. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/02-09_REP_CellblocksClassrooms_BB-AC.pdf. Kim, C., Losen, D., & Hewitt, D. (2010). The School to Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal Reform. New York: NYU Press.

[7] Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. (2006). Funding a Quality Education Requires Fiscal Reform. Chicago: CTBA. http://www.ctbaonline.org/Education.htm.

[8] Cassidy, L., Humphrey, D. C., Weschler, M. E., & Young, V. M. (2009). High School Reform in Chicago: Renaissance 2010. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/other/Renaisance_2010.pdf. Fleming, J., Greenlee, A., Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., & Smith, J. (2009). Examining CPS’ Plan to Close, Phase Out, Consolidate, Turn-around 22 Schools. Data and Democracy Project, Research Paper #2. Chicago: CEJE. http://www.uic.edu/educ/ceje/resources.html. Gwynne, J., & de la Torre, M. (2009). When Schools Close. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=136.

[9] Barkan, J. (2011, Winter). Got Dough? Public School Reform in the Age of Venture Philanthropy. Dissent Magazine. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781.

[10] Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2008). The Competitive Effect of School Choice Policies on Performance in Traditional Public Schools. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/the-competitive-effect-school-choice-policies-performance-traditional-public-schools. Wolf, P. J. (2010). The Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Summary of Third Year Reports. Fayetteville: University of Arizona School Choice Demonstration Project. http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Eval/Report_14.pdf.

[11] Karp, S. (2010, August). Budget Landmines. Catalyst Chicago. http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?item=2635&cat=23. Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Mathis, W., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/schools-without-diversity. Woestehoff, J. (2008). Public Accountability and Renaissance 2010: A Report of Parents United for Responsible Education. Chicago: PURE. http://pureparents.org/data/files/FOIAreport11-16-08.pdf.

[12] Mathis, W.J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Educational Policy Research Unit. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/common-core-standards.

[13] Eisner, E., & Day, M. (2004). Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. New York: Routledge. Illinois Creates. (2005). Arts at the Core: Every School, Every Student. Chicago: Illinois Arts Alliance. http://www.artsalliance.org. Kroll, A. (2009, August 30). Fast Times at Recruitment High. Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/fast-times-recruitment-high. Zehr, M. (2009). Access to Arts Education. Education Week, 25(5), 5.

[14] Kupiainen, S., Hautamäki, J., & Karjalainen, T. (2009). The Finnish Education System and PISA. Helsinki, Finland: The Ministry of Education.

[15] Forum on Educational Accountability. (2007). Assessment and Accountability for Improving Schools and Learning: Principles and Recommendations for Federal Law and State and Local Systems. Boston, MA: Forum on Educational Accountability. http://www.edaccountability.org/reports.html.

[16] Hinchey, P. (2010). Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn From Research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right. Holme, J. J., Richards, M. P., Jimerson, J.B., & Cohen, R. W. (2010). Assessing the Effects of High School Exit Examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476-526. Sirotnik, K. (2004). Holding Accountability Accountable: What Ought to Matter in Public Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Tollefson, K. (2008). Volatile Knowing: Parents, Teachers, and the Censored Story of Accountability in America’s Public Schools. New York: Lexington Books.

[17] Grossman, G., & Loeb, S. (2008). Alternative Routes to Teaching: Mapping the New Landscape of Teacher Education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teach-for-america.

[18] Molnar, A., Rosenshine, B., Lugg, C., Howley, C., Downey, D., Glass, G., Bracey, G., Kupermintz, H., Finn, J., Carini, R., Reitzug, U., & Barnett, S. (2002). School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/school-reform-proposals-the-research-evidence.

[19] Meier, D. (2002). In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning in an Era of Testing and Standardization. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Strike, K. (2010). Small Schools and Strong Communities: A Third Way of School Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

[20] Gilliam, W. (2005). Prekindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in State Prekindergarten Programs. New York: Foundation for Child Development. http://www.fcd-us.org/resources/prek-3rd-policy-briefs. Gregory, A., Skiba, R., & Noguera, P. (2010). The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68. Himmelstein, K., & Bruckner, H. (2010). Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against Non-Heterosexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 48-57. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155-189. Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/Suspended_Education.pdf.

[21] Anderson, G. L. (2009). The Politics of Another Side: Truth-in-Military-Recruiting Advocacy in an Urban School District. Journal of Educational Policy, 23(1), 267-291. Diener, S., & Munro, J. (2005). Military Money for College: A Reality Check. Peacework Magazine. http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0506/050607.htm. Hagopian, A., & Barker, K. (2011). Should We End Military Recruiting in High Schools as a Matter of Child Protection and Public Health? American Journal of Public Health, 101(1), 19-23.

[22] Biegel, S., & Kuehl, S. J. (2010). Safe at School: Addressing the School Environment and LGBT Safety through Policy and Legislation. Tempe and Los Angeles: Education Policy Research Unit and UCLA Williams Institute. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/research-that-reaches. Illinois Safe Schools Alliance. (2010). Visibility Matters 2010: Higher Education and Teacher/Social Work Preparation in Illinois: A Web-based Assessment of LGBTQ Presence. Chicago: ISSA. http://www.illinoissafeschools.org/page_attachments/0000/0116/visibility_matters_full_report_final.pdf. Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. D. (2009). Shared Differences: The Experience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Students of Color in Our Nation’s Schools. New York: GLSEN.

[23] Collier, V. P. (1989). How Long? A Synthesis of Research on Academic Achievement in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509-531. Gandara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

[24] Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic Youth Dropping Out of U.S. Schools: Measuring the Challenge. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=19. Lopez, M.P., & Lopez, G. (2010). Persistent Inequality: Contemporary Realities in the Education of Undocumented Latina/o Students. New York: Routledge. Mehta, C., & Ali, A. (2003). Education for All: Chicago’s Undocumented Immigrants and Their Access to Higher Education. Chicago: UIC Center for Urban Economic Development. http://www.urbaneconomy.org/sites/default/files/undocumentedImmigrants_edu_22.pdf. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005). Policy Alert. Income of U.S. Workforce Projected to Decline if Education Doesn’t Improve. San Jose, CA: NCPPHE. http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_decline/pa_decline.pdf.

Prepared January 2011 by

CReATE (Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education)

http://createchicago.blogspot.com

createchicago@gmail.com

Download this statement as a PDF here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2561000/CReATEjan2011.pdf

Copyright 2006-2020 by Substance News. All rights reserved.