Chicago’s population stood at an estimated 2,716,450 as of July 1 last year, compared with 2,720,275 the same day in 2016.
Ledbelly once sang about Washington DC:
Lord, in a bourgeois town
It’s a bourgeois town
I got the bourgeois blues
Gonna spread the news all around
Home of the brave, land of the free
I don’t wanna be mistreated by no bourgeoisie
Lord, in a bourgeois town
Uhm, the bourgeois town
I got the bourgeois blues
Gonna spread the news all around.
But if Ledbelly was still with us, he could sing the same song about Chicago.
If you are poor, working class or African American, Chicago is becoming a bourgeois town.
Of course, the bourgeoisie always owned it.
But the poor, the immigrants and the working class were allowed to stay.
In fact, as a city of workers, we were needed for the city’s big and small manufacturing.
And we were a union town.
Over the course of the last three decades those numbers have been reversed. When Harold Washington was elected Mayor, Chicago had over a million African American residents.
Now the African American population is around 800,000.
New numbers out today show a continued exodus of African Americans and those who make less than $75,000 a year.
Chicago’s population is exploding for those who make over $75,000 a year.
Demographer Rob Paral says, “The estimates display population trends that have taken place in Chicago the last few years: African Americans are leaving the city while immigration slows down and wealthier people move in.”
The population drop since 2006 among native-born residents is exclusively concentrated among those who earn less than $75,000 a year and, in the case of the foreign-born, less than $25,000. But the region has gained more than 350,000 residents since 2006 who earn at least $75,000 year, she says. (Those figures are not adjusted for inflation.)
Slow employment growth in many sectors likely is the reason, she says. “Our job growth is just lower than (in) other regions,” for middle-skilled positions in fields such as manufacturing and administration that require some post-high school education but not a college degree. But among the college-educated, the region continues to grow.
Another finding: While immigration from Latin America has tailed off, more people are arriving from Asia, boosting the Asian-born population here by an estimated 60,000 since 2010.
The report’s bottom line: “Continued population loss is a worrisome trend. While the region appears to be gaining high-income residents, this increase is not offsetting losses due to stagnant immigration and domestic outmigration of low- and moderate-income residents.” Crain’s
It is interesting that the City’s Hispanic population continues to grow, but not one of the growing number of challengers to Rahm Emanuel is Hispanic.
As an artist and retired art teacher I believe that classrooms, like all the built environment, should reflect good design principles.
But what are those?
A tweet by Michael Antonucci intrigued me.
Is Your Classroom Overdecorated? https://t.co/LpKWILAjEC
— Mike Antonucci (@UnionReport74) February 21, 2017
Some of you may know Antonucci as a guy obsessed by teacher unions and a writer on the same topic. As you might guess, he is critical of the NEA. Not like I’m critical. I believe in the value of teacher unions. He thinks they are an assault on individual liberty. We have met a few times at NEA national meetings, which he covers for his web site and other outlets. I enjoyed our conversations even though we rarely agreed on the main stuff.
Antonucci rarely gets into teaching practice which is why I was intrigued by the tweet.
I went to the source.
Two researchers at Carnegie Mellon did a funded research study comparing test success in a sparsely decorated classroom as compared to highly decorated classroom.
Students did better in a sparsely decorated classroom.
You can see the picture of the sparsely decorated classroom in the video. It looks like a jail cell.
The study consisted of 24 kindergarten students divided into two groups. They were given a science lesson and then tested.
For the study, 24 kindergarten children were taught in laboratory classrooms for six science lessons on topics they were unfamiliar with. Three of these lessons were taught in a decoration-heavy classroom, and three lessons were given in a spartan classroom.
The results showed that children learned in both classrooms but they learned more when the room was not heavily adorned. Children’s accuracy on test questions was higher in the sparse classroom (55 percent correct) than in the decorated classroom (42 percent correct).
I want to stop for a second and comment on the two researchers in the video. It appears that one of them has arranged her books on the shelf by color spectrum. I’m sorry. But even for someone advocating sparse classrooms for kindergarten students being taught science, arranging books on a shelf by color seems to be behavior that is a little obsessive.
I don’t want to even get too much into the issue of what conclusions can be drawn from a study of 24 kindergarten students.
I taught art to kindergarten students. Way more than 24 of them. They are snowflakes. No two are alike. Generalizing from a group of 24 is dangerous.
What if a study showed that after teaching science (whatever that means) to a room of 40 kindergarten students who came from poor families, had no breakfast, walked a mile through a safe passage zone in sub-freezing weather, then scored lousy while in a room with peeling paint, no heat and no books.
I suppose that is a different design issue.
There is a telling remark by one of the researchers. She says that since we can’t do anything about the impact of poverty, teaching in a sparse classroom is something we can do to improve test scores.
I’m sorry, but why exactly can’t we do anything about poverty?
Now there’s a research question!
In doing research it is important to define the question properly.
These two researchers wanted to know whether a highly decorated classroom distracted 24 kindergarten students from performing well on a science test.
I think the question was whether a science test distracted 24 kindergarten students from looking at things that interested them.
There is this thing that happens when you talk to Republican (and some Dems too) politicians. I offer this up to readers who don’t have or don’t seek the opportunity to do that.
They are convinced that the problem with Illinois is that we have an economy and tax structure that threatens to force rich people and corporations to leave the state.
No matter that we have the most regressive tax system imaginable. No matter that we still allow the largest corporations in Illinois to collect and keep the state income tax they collect from employees.
I say to them, “You know who is leaving the state? High school kids because Illinois public colleges and universities are too damn expensive. 40% of Illinois high school graduates who go on to college have to go somewhere else.”
Yes. Props to State Reprsentative Will Guzzardi for introducing a bill to make college tuition free in Illinois.
I got into a discussion with one Republican candidate at yesterday’s Illinois Retired Teachers Association luncheon. He swore to me that taxes were driving the wealthy out of state.
“Which one of the many homes are they going to?” I asked. “How many is Rauner up to now? Nine is it? Including the one he bought to clout his kid into CPS’ Walter Payton?”
The recent news reports on the improvement in family income shows that the problem in Chicago and Illinois isn’t who is leaving the state, but who in the state is being left behind.
Across the country and in Illinois family income has risen for the first time since the Great Recession,.
The increase in family income does not include African Americans families.
While the median income of white Chicagoans continues to climb, the black median income was more stagnant. That’s created a widening gap between the median incomes of white and black Chicagoans, even as the gap remained steady nationally. Median income for black Chicagoans now equals about 39 cents on the dollar compared to white Chicagoans.
When I pointed this out to some of the Repugs in the room, they looked at me like I was speaking German.
Where, by the way, there is no college tuition.
-Bev Johns, Chair, ISELA – Illinois Special Education Coalition
ISELA, the Illinois Special Education Coalition, opposes the inclusion in ESEA of Pay for Success as a possible use of Federal funds authorized under ESEA.
A majority of the 15 Statewide Associations that are Members of the Illinois Special Education Coalition voted last week to seek to remove in the Conference Committee between the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, used to be called No Child Left Behind) the provisions that allow States and local school districts to use Federal funds for Pay for Success.
In both the State of Utah, and in Chicago, Illinois, Goldman Sachs and the Pritzker Family Foundation are being paid public funds for children NOT receiving special education.
For every child that avoids special education in a specific population receiving early education, Goldman is paid a fee ($9,100 in Chicago) every year for each and every child that continues to avoid special education.
This is a dangerous incentive not to identify children as needing special education.
In Utah a demonstration project claimed a 99 percent success rate: of 100 children suspected of being eligible for special education, 99 were later NOT so identified.
There is no evidence that any complex educational program exists that has a 99 percent success rate,let alone for the tremendously varying types of disability recognized under Federal law.
The permissive use of Federal funds for Pay for Success is now in both the House and the Senate ESEA bills.
These are the parts of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate ESEA bills that need to be removed in the Conference Committee.
House ESEA (was No Child Left Behind): HR 5 – Student Success Act Title II Subpart 1 Grants to States Sec. 2113 (b)(2)” (F) support State or local Pay for Success initiatives that meet the purposes of this part.”
Title II Subpart 1 Formula Grants to States Sec. 2211 (d)(3)(A) “(ix) Supporting State or local Pay for Success initiatives that meet the purposes of this part.”
Senate ESEA (was No Child Left Behind): S.1177 – Every Child Achieves Act (1) allows states and local school districts to invest their Title I, Part D funds (Programs for Neglected, Delinquent, and At Risk Children and Youth,
$47.6 million in FY15) in Pay For Success initiatives; 2) allows local school districts to invest their Title IV, Part A funds (Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, $70 million in FY15) in Pay For Success initiatives; and (3) allows states to invest their early childhood coordination funds (Early Learning Alignment and Improvement Grants, newly authorized program) in Pay For Success initiatives
Contact your own U.S. Representative and your two (2) U.S. Senators.
SAY TO YOUR TWO U.S. SENATORS:
In Conference Committee on S.1177, please remove Pay for Success as an allowable use of funds through Title I, Part D (Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk) and Title IV, which funds programs addressing student health and safety, from the Senate version of ESEA on the ESEA bill.
SAY TO YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE:
In Conference Committee, please remove from H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, the provisions that make Pay for Success initiatives an allowable use of state and local funds in Title II and in the Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant.
TELL THEM WHY:
Pay for Success has been used in Utah to prevent 99 percent of children supposedly headed for special education from actually being identified for special education, and paid Goldman Sachs and other investors for each child NOT placed in special education. This is a huge financial incentive to NOT identify children as needing special education, and there is absolutely no research stating 99 percent Keeof students in special education should not be there.
In Chicago, Pay for Success may allow Goldman Sachs to double its investment, depending on how many students are NOT identified for special education.
As a retired teacher just looking at the data I suppose I should be thankful to Linda Lutton from WBEZ and Melissa Silverberg and Tim Broderick from the Daily Herald for providing some.
Rather than just rank schools without regard for issues of poverty, they have created a Poverty-Achievement Index.
Now we can bracket out kids who live in poverty and compare them to one another and compare how their schools compare to one another and how they compare to kids and schools who don’t face the challenge of being poor.
And we can compare the teachers who teach kids in poverty to one another.
Why doesn’t this put a smile on my face this morning?
On the one hand, at least they are taking poverty into account when talking about schools.
Frankly, to her credit Linda Lutton has been doing this for years.
But a little voice in the back of my head is telling me that the last thing schools need is more bar graphs and pie charts comparing kids, schools and teachers to one another.
Didn’t we know that kids who live in poverty face incredible learning challenges?
And that the teachers who teach them face incredible teaching challenges?
And the parents who raise them face incredible life challenges?
How does a new way of ranking help us?
In the richest country in the world children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the United States; they are 24 percent of the total population, but 36 % of the poor population.
In 2010, 16.4 million children, or 22% lived in poverty.
There is value in looking at how teachers, schools, students and parents face the challenges of poverty and manage to beat the odds.
I don’t see how that really comes from a new index that ranks and compares them.
The shame is in that so many face the odds.
The map on the left shows how Chicago wards voted in the last election for mayor. Green wards voted for Mayor Rahm. Red wards voted for Chuy Garcia. The map on the left shows segregated Chicago. Blue is white. Green is Black. Orange is Latino. The line up perfectly with the results of the election.
This morning I found two pieces of data that I think are interesting and that I wish to share with you.
The New York Times has published a map and data that shows that if you are born in Cook County and poor, the odds are you will stay poor your entire life.
They call that lacking income mobility.
A passive phrase. Like shit happens.
This is a timely piece of information because I just got into one of those Facebook exchanges with a friend over the idea of American exceptionalism and the ability to pull yourself up by your boot straps if you just tried hard enough.
This is a myth. In America most poor kids grow up to be poor adults.
Friday, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver posted an article with data about the relationship of diversity to segregation.
At some point the words racial integration became the word diversity.
I can’t pinpoint the moment. But there was a point when I noticed it. Maybe 1982.
Maybe it was around the same time we changed the way we pronounce the name of the planet, Uranus.
We no longer had racial segregation. We had a lack of diversity.
Segregating people was an active phrase. It was something we actively did.
Lacking diversity was a passive phrase. As in, how did that happen? It was like that when I got here.
The change in language led to things like corporations having diversity training.
Which never challenged racism.
Nate Silver’s data shows that Chicago is an incredibly diverse city and an incredibly segregated one.
It is diverse because lots of different kinds of people moved here.
It is segregated because of intent and policy.
What Silver doesn’t mention is how the policy and practice of segregation impacts political power.
As in our last election for Mayor.
The votes of four Lakefront white wards elected Mayor Rahm.
In fact most white Chicagoans have never voted for a mayoral candidate of color.
I believe that before something can be addressed, it must be named.
Thirty-three percent of African-American boys in CPS high schools were suspended in 2013-14 — versus 6 percent of white and Asian boys.
Twenty-four percent of students with disabilities in CPS faced suspension and 27 percent for students with the lowest test scores, compared with 7 percent for those with the highest scores.
Sixty percent of the suspensions in CPS were due to breaking school rules – not for violence or criminal behavior.
This is the data that comes from the report on CPS discipline from the University of Chicago’s Consortium on Chicago School Research.
While CPS was forced to cut back out-of-school suspensions when earlier numbers exposed similar bias, the numbers suggest that not much has changed.
Out-of-school suspensions have been replaced by other measures that keep students out of classrooms.
A far better measure of student learning or performance in school than a PARCC test is the data that they are kept out of the classroom by biased school discipline practices.
CPS leaders continue with policies that force the most needy students out of the classroom while doing nothing to address the underlying issues and conflicts that give rise to the suspensions.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to paint a glowing picture of his governance of CPS and mayoral control.
He wants to own it.
He owns this too.