Dea Meyer

Executive Vice President,

Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago

Student Achievement in Chicago Public Schools

1

ISAT and PSAE Results

2

Standard Analysis of Student Achievement Over Time

Source: Chicago Public Schools website [Note that English Language Learners (ELLs) are included in 2008 totals. If ELLs are excluded in 2008, ISAT composite increases to 67.8% M/E and PSAE composite increases to 27.9% M/E]; Illinois State Report Cards.

3

2008 PSAE Results: 99 Reporting CPS High Schools

4

Student Achievement in 8th Grade MathISAT vs. NAEP

Source: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005 and 2007 Math Assessments; Interactive Illinois Report Card; State Report Card

5

Student Achievement in 8th Grade Reading ISAT vs. NAEP

Source: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005 and 2007 Reading Assessments; Interactive Illinois Report Card; State Report Card

6

ACT "College Readiness" Benchmarks

7

The majority of CPS 11th graders (those who have not already dropped out by the spring of their 11th grade year) are not likely to be ready to succeed in college-level courses.

The lack of preparedness of graduates of CPS for college is confirmed by test results of students entering the Chicago City Colleges in the fall of 2006 (the most recent year available). The analysis showed that 69% of CPS graduates entering CCC were not prepared for college level reading, 79% were not prepared for college level writing, and 95% were not prepared for college level math.

Source: Civic Committee Analysis

Chicago Public SchoolsPercent of 11th Graders Meeting/Exceeding “College Readiness” Benchmarks on the ACT

College Readiness BenchmarksMath: 22English: 18Reading: 21Science: 24

8

By comparing the scores of CPS 8th graders who took the Math ISAT in 2004 to their scores on the Math ACT in 2007, we can determine what the probability is of achieving the college readiness benchmark on the ACT given a student’s score on the ISAT.

To have a 50/50 chance of reaching the college readiness benchmark ACT score in 11th grade, 8th graders must score 297 on the Math ISAT (and 263 on the Reading ISAT). Students who only meet State standards have a low probability of reaching these benchmarks.

In 2008, only 9.2% of CPS 8th graders achieved a score of 297 or better on the Math ISAT. Only 15.9% of CPS 8th graders achieved a score of 263 or better on the Reading ISAT.

Probability of Reaching College Readiness on the Math ACT(Based on Score on the 8th Grade Math ISAT)

Source: Analysis from the Consortium on Chicago School Research

50/50 chance of meeting Math college readiness benchmark

9

Charter Public Schools

10

The Facts About Charter Public Schools

Charter schools are public schools open to all, with no entrance exams.

Charter public schools can be formed by teachers, parents and other non-profit entities, and are authorized by a school district or the State before they open.

Charter public schools are measured by the same academic standards as all other public schools. In Chicago, they consistently outperform the traditional neighborhood schools that their students would have attended.

In exchange for strict accountability to maintain high standards, charter public schools are given freedom from many of the regulations that apply to other public schools – which allows for greater flexibility and innovation in the classroom.

This freedom allows charters to get to know the needs of every student – and then meet those needs while maximizing students’ time for learning.

Charter public schools generally offer longer school days and a longer school year than traditional public schools, with 45 minutes more instruction per day, and two weeks more instruction per year, on average, in Chicago.

11

Performance on the 2008 ISATCharter Elementary/Middle Schools vs. Comparison Schools

Source: Chicago Public Schools “Charter Schools 2007-2008 Annual Performance Report”

Note: Charter schools that have not yet administered the ISAT – for example, those that only include grades K-2 – would not be included in this analysis

12

Performance on the 2008 PSAECharter High Schools vs. Comparison Schools

Source: Chicago Public Schools “Charter Schools 2007-2008 Annual Performance Report”

Note: Charter schools that have not yet administered the PSAE – for example, those that only include grade 9 – would not be included in this analysis

13

Summary of Charter School Performance

Out of 38 charter elementary/middle school campuses reporting results, 34 outperformed their comparison schools on the 2008 ISAT on a composite basis.

Out of 11 charter high school campuses reporting results, 10 outperformed their comparison schools on the 2008 PSAE on a composite basis.

While, on average, charter schools outperform their comparison schools, it also appears that charter schools that have made it past the “start-up” phase (their first 1-4 years in operation) perform relatively better than “start-up” charters.

Charter elementary/middle schools that were open 1-4 years by the fall of 2008 averaged 6.9 percentage points higher in terms of meets/exceeds than their comparison schools. Those that were open 5-11 years by the fall of 2008 performed even better – averaging 16.5 percentage points higher in terms of meets/exceeds than their comparison schools.

Charter high schools that were open 1-4 years by the fall of 2008 averaged 8.7 percentage points higher in terms of meets/exceeds than their comparison schools. Those that were open 5-11 years by the fall of 2008 averaged 12.9 percentage points higher in terms of meets/exceeds than their comparison schools.

14

APPENDIX

15

Total State Debt and Unfunded Obligations

8.92.09.9

80.0

24.0

1.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

FY 2009

$ B

illi

on

s

Unfunded Pension Liability

Unfunded Retiree Healthcare Liability

Medicaid

Pension Obligation Bonds

General Obligation Bond Debt

Build Illinois Debt

$126 Billion

Note: GO bond debt and Build Illinois debt are COGFA forecasts of June 30, 2009 amounts outstanding. Pension Obligation Bond debt is forecast of June 30, 2009 debt based on POB principal repayment schedule from COGFA. Unfunded pension liability estimate is based on recent COGFA projection of total pension liability at the end of FY 2009 (June 30, 2009) of $124.8 billion. Pension assets are forecasted to be approximately $44 billion on June 30, 2009 based on current market trends, leavingan unfunded pension liability of approximately $80 billion at the end of FY 2009. April 2009 COGFA Pension Briefing estimated FY 2009 unfunded liability of $79 billion. Unfunded retiree healthcare liability estimate is point estimate from the Governor’s office of the 2008 unfunded retiree health care liability. Medicaid debt assumes that half of projected unpaid Medicaid bills at the end of FY 2009 are the responsibility of the State (based on 50% federal match).

Source: Various reports of the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability; Governor’s office estimates; Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois analysis.16

Total Annual Budget Gap

5.1

3.2

1.1

0.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

FY 2009

$ B

illio

ns

$10 Billion

Source: “Report on the Financial Condition of the State Retirement Systems,” February 2009, Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability; Governor’s office estimates; Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois analysis; House Democratic staff estimates.

“Cash” Budget Def icit

Pensions

Retiree Healthcare

Medicaid

Note: Cash budget deficit assumes State revenues for FY 2009 will be down $2.2 billion from the previous year (April 2009 estimates from House Democratic staff show decline in General Revenue funds [excluding federal recovery dollars] from $29.7 B in FY2008 to $27.5 B in FY 2009). Pension gap is equal to Normal Cost Plus Interest payment in FY2009 of $6.1 billion minus Total Employer Contribution of $2.9 billion. Retiree healthcare gap is equal to FY2008 ARC of $1.7 billion min us FY2008 State healthcare payments for retirees of $.6 billion. Medicaid gap is equal to forecasted increase in State share ofunpaid Medicaid bills from FY2008 to FY2009 ($.3 billion) plus amortization of State’s share of FY2008 Section 25 liabilities(assuming $1.3 billion in State Section 25 liabilities are amortized over 4 years).

17

General State Aid and the Foundation Level

The purpose of General State Aid (GSA) is to ensure that every district, regardless of local property wealth, will have no less than the foundation level of per pupil expenditures. This foundation level is supposed to reflect the per pupil cost of providing a basic educational program in a high-performing, efficient school.

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) begins by calculating how much in per pupil revenue each school district should be able to collect with a reasonable “formula” property tax rate*. By multiplying this formula rate by the value of property wealth (Equalized Assessed Valuation), ISBE determines each district’s “Available Local Resources” per pupil.

The Available Local Resources per pupil for each district is then compared to the State’s foundation level. The difference between the district’s Available Local Resources and the foundation level determines how much GSA each school district will receive using one of the following formulas:

Foundation formula: If the district’s Available Local Resources are less than 93% of the foundation level, GSA makes up the difference. [GSA= (Foundation level -Available Local Resources) X Average Daily Attendance (ADA)**].Alternate formula: If the district’s Available Local Resources are more than 93% but less than 175% of the foundation, GSA provides between 5% and 7% of the foundation level per pupil.Flat grant formula: If the district’s Available Local Resources are 175% or more of the foundation level, the district receives a flat grant of $218 per student (based on ADA).

Most school districts in the State – around 80% – receive GSA under the foundation formula. CPS is one of the unit school districts that receive foundation formula funding.

In addition to GSA, school districts also receive Supplemental Poverty Grants*** based on their proportion of low-income students, as well as categorical funding for programs such as special education and transportation. Chicago’s categorical funding amounts are aggregated into one lump sum as part of the 1995 Chicago School Reform Law. For all other districts, these funds are separate, and cannot be moved from program to program.

*Formula rates are 3.00% for unit districts,2.30% for elementary districts, and 1.05% for high school districts.

** Average Daily Attendance is equal to the aggregate number of pupil days in attendance divided by the number of days in the regular school session.

***The poverty grant formula is calculated as follows for school districts with greater than 15% low-income students: [$294.25 + ($2700 x square of low-income rate)] x low-income student count. Districts with less than 15% low-income students receive a flat grant of $355 per low-income student.

18

Foundation Level Funding Over Time

In 2009, the difference between the CPI-Adjusted EFAB Recommendation and the Actual Funded Level is $1,040 per pupil. Increasing per pupil funding to this level would require an additional $1.5 billion in State spending.

Note: The EFAB is the Education Funding Advisory Board, which is appointed to identify and recommend the foundation level to the General Assembly in January of odd-numbered years. The foundation level is supposed to reflect the per pupil cost of providing a basic educational program in a high-performing, efficient school. The EFAB has not met since 2005.

19

Will More State Funding By Itself Improve Student Achievement?

From 2003 to 2007, CPS’s operating expenditures per pupil increased by $2,247; the State average increased by $1,425.

Yet student achievement remained essentially flat.

Why should we assume more money will impact student achievement going forward?

Source: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005 and 2007 Reading Assessments; Interactive Illinois Report Card; State Report Card

Source: Chicago Public Schools Website

Source: Illinois State Board of Education ILEARN database

20