OVERVIEW OF THE CHICAGO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TASK FORCE 2014 ANNUAL REPORT

Read the Full Report and Appendices at:

Background: The Illinois General Assembly created the “Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force” in 2009, and re-authorized it to continue operating in 2011. Known as the “CEFTF,” the task force is a 15-member panel, 12 of whose members are appointed by the leaders of the Illinois General Assembly. The Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association, and the Chicago Teachers Union also sit on the CEFTF.General Assembly Leaders appoint Democratic and Republican State Representatives and Senators; and four representatives of recognized school/community organization experienced in educational facility issues. The CEFTF’s mandate is to examine CPS’ decisions about “School Actions” and facility spending and construction, gather widespread public input from all stakeholders concerned about Chicago’s public schools, study “best practices” in school facility planning and management, and ensure greater transparency in CPS’ facility-related decisions. Additionally, the CEFTF is charged with monitoring CPS’ implementation of state reforms enacted in 2011 to ensure increased public input and help create greater transparency and accountability at CPS. Each year, the CEFTF must issue an Annual Report to the General Assembly, Chicago’s Mayor, CPS, and the public which assesses CPS’ progress on implementing the 2011 reforms and its facility-related decisions and planning.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CEFTF 2014 ANNUAL REPORT

KEY FINDINGS

  • Since 2011 when the reforms were enacted, Chicago Public Schools has generally complied with the law’s technical requirements and deadlines for disclosing more information on facility conditions, capital spending, and schools’ use of their facility space; and for notifying schools and taking public input in the ‘School Actions” process. CPS also complied with the requirement to adopt a 10-Year Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) for the first time in the school district’s history (Sept. 2013).
  • The 10-Year Plan was adopted after CPS closed 49 schools in 2013, and lacked broad public input. Some requirements for the Plan –such as extensive community input and intergovernmental coordination -- were not fully addressed.The requirement to create individual school Master Plans was not met. Additionally, CPS did not undertake a full “Community Analysis” to assess recent and planned neighborhood and housing redevelopment that will affect future enrollment. The EFMP is notably lacking any discussion or planning regarding the role and impact of CPS’ ever-expanding Charter School sub-system for the future of the district.
  • The CEFTF Report raises concerns and doubts about CPS’ 2013 mass closings premised on an “Under-Utilization Crisis” and promised savings. Even as CPS was closing schools based on declining enrollment trends and under-enrolled schools, the school district opened 33 new Charter Schools with 23,368 “seats” for students since 2011. Promised cost savings from the Closings have not been documented.
  • The impacts on the more than 21,000 students affected by School Closings in 2012 and 2013 have not been fully assessed:
  • The majority of impacted students did not get into significantly higher-performing schools. 52% of students whose schools closed in 2013 (and then chose to stay in a CPS school) went to schools on academic probation in 2013-2014; while roughly 25% went to somewhat higher-performing schools.
  • The Report raises the concern that CPS’ aggressive strategy of school closings may be contributing to the overall enrollment decline.The number of students who didn’t return to CPS after the 2013 Closings is equivalent to 29% of CPS’ enrollment decline from 2013 to 2014.
  • The mass 2013 School Closings cost money, and left behind shuttered vacant school buildings. CPS had already invested $196 million in capital improvements in the schools closed in 2013. Closing-related costs were over $263 million, from the costs of shutting down the closed schools, providing instructional and programmatic support to Receiving (“Welcoming”) Schools, “Safe Passage” costs, and facility upgrades to the Receiving Schools. CPS had no advance planning process to determine the Repurposing of vacated schools. Instead a process emerged months after the closings, which depends on local Aldermen to conduct community input and planning meetings. While this has happened on a limited basis, and a few closed schools have been sold or repurposed, community meetings have yet to occur in most impacted Wards. Vacant schools continue to deteriorate, while CPS has ongoing maintenance and security costs.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

  • The 10-Year Master Plan needs a major overhaul. The CEFTF 2014 Annual Report urged CPS to consider this a priority to be “fast-tracked,” and recommended that the school district…
  • Revamp its controversial “classroom-centered” Space Utilization formula in favor of a “student-centered” approach seen in educational facility planning “best practices” around the nation. These practices assess schools’ use of space based on educational programming needs, and often have an explicit goal of reducing class size to support students’ academic progress.
  • Commit to an inclusive and pro-active community engagement process to get widespread public input into the Master Plan.
  • Conduct a frank and open public conversation about the effects and future place of the charter school sub-system for the district as a whole.
  • Work with the CEFTF, sister government agencies, and communities to thoroughly assess neighborhood redevelopment that will impact future space needs and enrollment.
  • Springfield needs to do more. The State needs to increase investment in all of Illinois’s public school facilities, and find new revenues to modernize schools and relieve overcrowding. The State also must be more transparent when state capital dollars are allocated for school construction and renovation.
  • CPS should embrace an inclusive community planning process to determine the future use of closed and vacant schools. The CEFTF also recommended that any proceeds of sales of “surplus” CPS real estate should be reinvested in low-income, economically distressed communities’ schools.
  • School Actions should be put on hold until the CPS long-range Master Plan is overhauled. At a minimum, the General Assembly should broaden the definition of School Actions to include other CPS major school restructuring decisions – such as Turnarounds, Charter School openings/expansions, grade re-structuring, and changes in curriculum – so that the modest protections of notifications to the potentially impacted schools, public input, and “transition planning” currently in State law apply in these cases as well.
  • CPS should have to account for the full costs and any savings from School Closings and other School Actions. Looking to the future, CPS needs to examine whether its aggressive School Actions and other school re-structuring strategies are really “paying off” for the district and taxpayers.
  • The school district also needs to fully evaluate the student-level outcomes for children who’ve been affected by School Actions. The most important question for CPS to ask and answer is whether students have benefitted from its policies. In an era in which the performance of students, teachers, and principals is constantly being evaluated, CPS should likewise be evaluating its own performance, and the outcomes of its policies.

For more information on the CEFTF, go to the website of the IL State Board of Education:

To send comments to or request information from the Task Force; or request notice of CEFTF Meetings,

Email the Task Force at:

IL GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHICAGO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TASK FORCE –2014 ANNUAL REPORT HIGHLIGHTSPage 1