Education Outcomes In Illinois’ Lowest-performing Public .
ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTESPECIAL REPORTMARCH 2014EDUCATIONTrapped in Illinois’ worst schools:Education outcomes in Illinois’lowest-performing public schoolsBy Joshua Dwyer, Director of Education ReformAdditional resources: illinoispolicy.org190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1630, Chicago, IL 60603 312.346.5700 802 S. 2nd St., Springfield, IL 62704 217.528.8800Illinois Policy Institute
The problemMost people assume that Chicago is home to Illinois’ lowest-performingschools.And that’s not a far-fetched belief – Chicago’s lowest-performing schoolsare doing a dismal job of teaching students the knowledge and skills theyneed to succeed in the future.Seventy-five percent of students at Chicago’s lowest-performing elementaryschools failed to meet standards on the Illinois Standard Achievement Test,or ISAT, which means they cannot read at grade level or do math at gradelevel.1At the city’s lowest-performing high schools, the situation was even worse– 95 percent of students failed to meet standards.2But Chicago is home to only 45 percent of the state’s lowest-performingelementary schools and high schools.More than half of Illinois’ lowest-performing schools are outside of the city’sborders.3Illinois school districts with highest number oflow-performing schools (outside of Chicago)DistrictNumber of low-performing schoolsRockford SD 20515Aurora East USD 13114Cicero SD 9911East St. Louis SD 1899Decatur SD 618Peoria SD 1508Springfield SD 1868Cahokia CUSD 1877Dolton SD 1497North Chicago SD 1877Source: Illinois State Board of EducationTake, for example, the state’s lowest-performing elementary school: MarkTwain Primary School in Kankakee. Last year, 91 percent of its studentsfailed to meet standards on the ISAT, which means they cannot read atgrade level or do math at grade level.4The real-life effects of apoor-quality educationResearch shows that students who lack basicmath and reading skills are more likely to dropout of high school, are less likely to graduatefrom college, are incarcerated at higher rates,are more likely to be unemployed, are more likelyto enroll in public assistance programs and willmake significantly less money than their peers whoreceived quality educations.According to Project READ, a national programdesigned to improve reading skills, the averageninth-grade student in a correctional facility canonly read at the fourth-grade level.There’s no better time than now to providestudents attending the state’s lowest-performingelementary school and high schools theopportunity to attend higher-quality schools thatwill offer them a chance at a real education.Doing so not only benefits the students, but alsosociety at large.Case in point: A recent Alliance for ExcellentEducation report showed that a 5 percentincrease in male high school graduation rateswould generate – through reductions in crime andincreased tax revenue – an extra 378 million forthe state of Illinois.The stakes are incredibly high. A recent studyconducted by researchers at Harvard Universityshowed that a child born into poverty in Illinois hasonly a 6.1 percent chance of earning an annualwage of more than 100,000 by the time they’re40 – one of the lowest rates among all 50 states.A look at the data for the rest of Illinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools and high schools shows just how poor of a job these schools aredoing:It also found that the areas with the highest ratesof income mobility were those with the highestquality schools, public or otherwise. 72 percent of students at Illinois’ lowest-performing elementary schoolsfailed to meet standards in math, with 53 percent one grade level behind,and 19 percent two or more grade levels behind. Eighth-grade studentswho are one grade level behind in math have difficulty solving one-stepequations that involve addition, subtraction, multiplication and division,while those who are two or more grade levels behind cannot solvefraction problems even when they have common denominators.Some in Illinois will claim that nothing can be doneto help students in the state’s lowest-performingelementary schools and high schools. They arguethat students’ poverty is just too great of a hurdleto overcome.illinoispolicy.org 2But a new study conducted by the University ofChicago’s Urban Education Lab showed thatintense tutoring combined with group behavioralcounseling can help high school students
72 percent of third-graders at Illinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools failed to meet standards in reading. Third-grade students whoare behind in reading are unable to distinguish between the main ideaand supporting details of a story. More than one-third of students at Illinois’ lowest-performing high schoolscan only do middle-school math. Only 6 percent of students at Illinois’ lowest-performing high schoolsscore well enough on the ACT to be considered college-ready, meaningthey have at least a 50 percent chance of getting a “B” or a 75 percentchance of a getting “C” in freshman college classes in reading, writing,math and science.Unfortunately, the poor performance of Illinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools and high schools is not a one-year fluke. Most of these schools arepersistently low-performing – some for more than a decade.Every year a student stays at one of Illinois’ failing schools is another yearhe or she falls further behind his or her peers. That’s a big obstacle, sincesuccess in a school is a direct link to steadier employment, greater wagesand higher self-confidence.In fact, in 2012, the average college graduate earned 50,734, while theaverage high school dropout only earned 21,080.Unfortunately, 137,340 students attend Illinois’ lowest-performingelementary schools and 47,162 students attend Illinois’ 10 percent lowestperforming high schools.It’s time for state’s legislators to rescue students from Illinois’ lowestperforming elementary schools and high schools, and ensure that they willreceive an education that will make a difference in their lives.with weak math skills, chronic truancy anddisciplinary problems improve their performance.These weren’t small gains. In fact, over an eightmonth period, the 106 Chicago teenagersinvolved in the study learned the equivalent ofwhat the average American high school studentlearns in math over three years of school. Theseteenagers were also far more likely to meetindicators of being on track to graduate from highschool on time.This new research flies in the face of people who,as head researcher Professor Jens Ludwig puts it:“are convinced that results like this aren’t possibleat all for disadvantaged teens [ ] more and morepeople are of the view that you’ve got to reachpoor kids by age 6, or it’s too late and the effectson entrenched poverty are already too profound.”This research shows what education reformershave believed all along: that even students whoare two, three or even five grade levels behind arenot lost causes. With the right reforms and theright help, they can succeed.The “underfunding” myth:More money won’t fix broken schoolsApart from highlighting the bleak state of Illinois’ lowestperforming elementary schools and high schools, this specialreport also aims to answer this important question: How canwe best help students in these schools?contend that the state is failing to provide adequate fundingto the districts where these schools are located – somethingit is tasked with doing under the General State Aid, or GSA,budget.The astonishing percentage of students failing to meetstandards at the state’s lowest-performing schools, thepersistent low-quality of these schools and their shockinglylow student academic growth scores make a compelling casethat these are truly failed schools and students attending themshould be given the opportunity to attend other, higher-qualityschools using public money.But, nothing could be further from the truth.A look at the growth of per-student spending at Illinois’ lowestperforming elementary schools and high schools demonstratesas much. As the graph below indicates, per-student spendingat Illinois’ lowest-performing elementary schools and highschools has increased to 12,512 in 2013 from 10,051 perstudent in 2003.5There is, however, a group of people who believe that Illinois’lowest-performing elementary schools and high schools arepoor-performing because they are underfunded. They alsoillinoispolicy.org 3
The “underfunding” myth: More money won’t fix broken schoolsSpending per student at Illinois’ lowest-performing schools has grown 24 percent overthe past decade 15,000 12,000 9,000Percent of funding from state and federalsources, districts with highest number oflow-performing schools (outside of Chicago)DistrictPercent funding statePercent funding federalPercent funding –state and federalRockford SD 205311445Aurora East USD 131591271Cicero SD 99671279East St. Louis SD 189702393Decatur SD 61451156Peoria SD 150451358Springfield SD 186301545Cahokia CUSD 187601979Dolton SD 14926834North Chicago SD 1874724712003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Source: Illinois State Board of EducationA closer look at per-student spending growth in the districtswith the largest number of low-performing schools fits thispattern as well.Growth in spending per student, districtswith highest number of low-performingschools (outside of Chicago)DistrictPercent growth in spending per student:2003-13Rockford SD 205-3Aurora East USD 13119Cicero SD 9932East St. Louis SD 189162Decatur SD 6129Peoria SD 1509Springfield SD 18620Cahokia CUSD 18760Dolton SD 14957North Chicago SD 18728Source: Illinois State Board of EducationIt’s clear from the data above that arguments about underfundingare unfounded. Funding at Illinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools and high schools has increased 24 percent over thepast decade, and yet outcomes remain as poor as they haveever been.Giving these schools more money is not the solution.Source: Illinois State Board of EducationAn analysis of the GSA funding the districts with the largestnumber of low-performing schools received in 2013 showsthat a majority of the funding these schools receive comes fromstate and federal sources. In fact, the average low-performingschool in Illinois receives 64 percent of its funding from federaland state sources.6illinoispolicy.org 4
Determining the lowest-performing schools in IllinoisThis report uses the same criteria the state uses to determinewhether an elementary school or high school is high- or lowquality: student scores on state exams.To determine the list of the 10 percent lowest-performingelementary schools, this report looks at the percentage ofstudents who failed to meet standards on the Illinois StandardAchievement Test, or ISAT.but have a difficult time comprehending and analyzing texts. Inmath, students who score slightly below standards are unableto solve two-step equations that use decimals, while those whoscore well below standards have trouble comparing fractionswith different denominators.11ISAT AND PSAESimilarly, this report uses the percentage of students that failedto meet standards on the Prairie State Achievement Exam, orPSAE, to determine its list of the 10 percent lowest-performinghigh schools.performance categoriesA school is included on the lowest-performing list if its averageISAT or PSAE score is in the bottom 10 percent of all elementaryschools and high schools in the state.A student’s overall score on the ISAT and PSAE in readingand mathematics is placed in one of these four performancecategories, depending on how he or she scores.It’s important to note that before the 2012-13 school year, ISATand PSAE scores overstated the percentage of students readingand doing math at grade level. That’s because the Illinois StateBoard of Education, or ISBE, continuously lowered standardsto help districts and schools escape the penalties associatedwith the No Child Left Behind Act – a federal education lawthat required them to hit certain performance benchmarks yearafter year.However, with the state’s adoption of Common Core standardsin 2010, ISBE decided to make it harder for students to meetstate standards in an attempt to ease the transition to the moredifficult Common Core-aligned tests that students will begintaking in 2014.This has been painful for some schools and districts. In fact,the number of schools that had 90 percent or more of theirstudents pass the reading and mathematics portions of theISAT dropped to 58 in 2013 from 849 the year before – a 93percent decrease.7Urban districts such as Chicago took the biggest hit. In 2012,Chicago Public Schools, or CPS, only had 25 percent ofstudents fail to meet standards on the ISAT. In 2013, more than50 percent failed to accomplish the same goal.8What does it mean when a student doesn’t meet standards?According to the ISBE, students who fail to meet standardson the ISAT in reading either “demonstrate an incompleteunderstanding of grade-level texts or have limitedcomprehension of grade-level texts,” depending on how lowthey score.9In math, the same situation applies – students who fail to meetstandards are not performing at grade level. Most can onlydo basic math, such as adding, subtracting, multiplying anddividing whole numbers.10On the PSAE, students who do not meet standards in readingmay “demonstrate basic knowledge and skills in the subject,”Exceeds standards: Student work demonstrates advancedknowledge and skills in the subject. Student creativelyapplies knowledge and skills to solve problems andevaluate the results.Meets standards: Student work demonstrates proficientknowledge and skills in the subject. Student effectivelyapplies knowledge and skills to solve problems.Below standards: Student work demonstrates basicknowledge and skills in the subject. However, because ofgaps in learning, student applies knowledge and skills inlimited ways.Academic warning: Student work demonstrates limitedknowledge and skills in the subject. Because of majorgaps in learning, student applies knowledge and skillsineffectively.For the lowest-performing elementary schools, this reportanalyzes these statistics:State standards – the percentage of students that failed tomeet state standards in reading and mathematics on the ISATcombined; the percentage of students that failed to meet statestandards in reading and mathematics on the ISAT separately;and the percentage of students that scored in the academicwarning category in reading and mathematics on the ISAT.Third-grade reading – the percentage of third-graders thatscored in the below standards category and the academicwarning category in reading.Student academic growth – a measurement of students’academic growth from one year to the next.For the lowest-performing high schools, this report examines:illinoispolicy.org 5
Determining the lowest-performing schools in IllinoisState standards – the percentage of students that failed tomeet state standards in reading and mathematics on the PSAEcombined; the percentage of students that failed to meet statestandards in reading and mathematics on the PSAE separately;and the percentage of students that scored in the academicwarning category in reading and mathematics on the PSAE.enough on the ACT to have a 75 percent chance of earninga “C,” or a 50 percent chance of earning a “B,” in a freshmancollege class in reading, writing, math and science.Graduation rate – the percentage of freshmen that graduatedwithin four years.College readiness – students’ average ACT compositescores, and the percentage of students that scored wellThe lowest-performing elementary schools in IllinoisOutside of Chicago, Illinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools are clustered in its most prominent cities.Rockford and East Aurora school districts are each hometo 15 and 14 of the lowest-performing elementary schools,respectively. In 2013, 71 percent of their students failed tomeet standards on the ISAT, respectively, meaning that theystruggle to read at grade level and do math at grade level.12Not all of the state’s lowest-performing elementary schoolsare in Chicago’s suburbs – in fact, East St. Louis, Peoria,Springfield and Waukegan are each home to at least a halfdozen low-performing elementary schools.13State standardsStudents at Illinois’ lowest-performing elementary schoolsare underperforming their peers statewide. In fact, anoverwhelming majority of students at these schools fail to meetstate standards.1471 percent of students at Illinois’ lowestperforming elementary schools cannot readat grade level or do math at grade levelPercentage of students that failed to meet standards on the ISATin 201371Illinois school districts with the highestnumber of low-performing elementaryschools(outside of Chicago)City/townNumber of low-performing schoolsCahokia CUSD 1877Dolton SD 1497East St. Louis SD 1897Peoria SD 1597Springfield SD 1867Maywood-Melrose Park-Broadview 896North Chicago SD 1876Waukegan CUSD 60641Lowest 10% of Illinoiselementary schools averageThese schools are failing at their most basic responsibility:equipping children with the ability to learn and succeed in thefuture.Illinois averageSource: Illinois Interactive Report CardA student needs only to be performing at grade level to meetstandards.For third-grade students, being at grade level means theycan comprehend text aimed at their age group and reachconclusions about an author’s intended purpose of a passage.In math, it means they can solve basic addition and subtractionproblems.15For eighth-grade students, being at grade level means theyunderstand text suitable for their age group and can identifyan author’s use of literary elements and devices, includingpoint of view and dialogue, and their impact on a passage’sillinoispolicy.org 6
The lowest-performing elementary schools in Illinoiseffectiveness and tone or mood. In math, it means they canunderstand and can solve algebraic equations with at least onevariable.1672 percent of students in Illinois’ lowestperforming elementary schools cannot dograde-level mathThe dismal 2013 ISAT scores for Illinois’ lowest-performingelementary schools aren’t a fluke. Most of these schools havebeen persistently low-performing for almost a decade. A lookat their average ISAT scores from 2004 to 2013 shows asmuch.17Percentage of students that failed to meet standards in readingand math on the ISAT in 20137172ReadingMathIllinois’ lowest-performing elementaryschools have performed poorly for yearsPercentage of students that failed to meet standards on the ISATfrom 2009 to 2013414180Illinois average706050Lowest 10% of Illinois elementary schools averageLowest 10% of Illinoiselementary schools average40Source: Illinois Interactive Report Card3020Illinois average20092010201120122013Source: Illinois State Board of Education; Illinois Interactive Report CardNote: In 2013, the Illinois State Board of Education made it more difficultfor Illinois students to meet standards on the ISAT. Because of this,fewer students statewide and in the state’s lowest-performing schoolsmet standards. These new scores are more accurate representations ofwhether students are performing at grade level.Breaking down the percentage of students that failed to meetstandards on the ISAT by subject reveals where studentsin Illinois’ lowest-performing elementary schools are reallystruggling.Compared to other schools across the state, students at Illinois’lowest-performing schools are scoring significantly belowaverage in math and reading. Slightly more than 71 percentof students in Illinois’ lowest-performing schools failed to meetstandards in reading while 72 percent failed to meet standardsin math.18 Compared to the statewide average of 41 percent inboth math and reading, these schools fall far short.19When a student fails to meet standards, they can score in twodifferent categories: below standards or academic warning.Scoring in the below standards category means that a studentis at least one grade-level behind. Students who score in t
More than half of Illinois’ lowest-performing schools are outside of the city’s borders.3 Illinois school districts with highest number of low-performing schools (outside of Chicago) District Number of low-performing schools Rockford SD 205 15 Aurora East USD 131 14 Cicero SD 99 1
Creative Die Mold Corp. Glendale Heights, Illinois Simmons Knife & Saw Glendale Heights, Illinois J.H. Botts LLC Joliet, Illinois Termax Corporation Lake Zurich, Illinois RG Manufacturing Machesney Park, Illinois Metal Resource Solutions McHenry, Illinois Lyon LLC Montgomery, Illinois Sko-Die, Inc. Morton Grove, Illinois NTN USA Corporation
Phase I SSIP Stakeholder Group City of Chicago SD 299 Higher Education Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education Illinois Advisory Council on Bilingual Education Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools Illinois Association of School Administrators Illinois Association of School Boards
ANN L. ECKHARDT EDUCATION Ph.D. University of Illinois at Chicago 9/12 Chicago, Illinois B.S.N. Illinois Wesleyan University 5/03 Bloomington, Illinois PROFESSIONAL 8/12 – present Assistant Professor EXPERIENCE School of Nursing, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, Illinois 7/06 –
Early Learning Council, Illinois 94 Eastern Illinois Economic Development Authority 97 Eastern Illinois University, Board of Trustees 98 Education Funding Advisory Board 99 Education of Children With Disabilities, Advisory Council on 100 Education, State Board of 101 Educational Commission of the States (Illinois Delegation) 102
INTRODUCTION Clinton Lake, located in DeWitt County in central Illinois, was constructed by Illinois Power Company to provide cooling water for the Clinton Power Station. Normal pool elevation was reached in 1978, the same year in which the Illinois Department of Natural Resources signed a 40-year lease with Illinois Power Company.
M Thrive Center for Dance - Indian Head Park, Illinois N Dixon Dance Academy - West Dundee, Illinois O VDW Dance Company - Rockford, Michigan P Engage Dance Academy - Crystal Lake, Illinois Q Steppin’ Up Northshore Academy - Lake Bluff, Illinois R Determination Dance - Huntley, Illinois S Sunshine Dance - Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Human Services Commission, Illinois 92 Human Trafficking Task Force 94 I Illinois Global Partnership, Inc., Board of Directors (inactive) 95 Illinois P-20 Council 96 Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council 98 Illinois Youth Development Council 99 Immigrant Impact Task Force, Illinois 101 Inclusive American History Commission 102
Petitioner-Appellee Albert Woodfox once again before this Courtis in connection with his federal habeas petition.The district c ourt had originally granted Woodfox federal habeas relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, but weheld that the district court erred in light of the deferential review affordedto state courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of .
