DFC | Chicago's LSCs: What the Research Says

Findings from "LSCs--Local Leadership at Work" (Consortium on Chicago School Research)

LSCs - Local Leadership at Work by the Consortium on Chicago School Research was based on survey responses from a representative cross-section of Local School Councils, including their parent, community, teacher, and principal members.14 To preview the major conclusion reached as a result of this research:

"The vast majority of LSCs are viable governance organizations that responsibly carry out their mandated duties and are active in building school and community partnerships. The initial worries that councils would infringe on professional autonomy have proved unfounded...we view the findings presented here as largely validating the wisdom of the 1988 Reform Act. By devolving significant resources and authority to local school communities and by expanding opportunities for local participation by parents, community members, and staff, this reform has enlarged the capabilities of communities to solve local problems." [emphasis added]15

Below, we summarize some major findings of the Consortium study; specific page references appear in the Endnotes.

LSC Members' Educational Levels

The researchers conclude that "LSC parents and community representatives are relatively well-educated."16 As Table 2 below indicates:

31% of parent and community LSC members hold a bachelor's degree, 32% have completed some college, and only 13% lack a high school degree.

The average Chicago LSC parent and community member is better educated than the average adult in the United States (or in Illinois).17 For example, 63% of Chicago's parent and community LSC members hold a bachelor's degree or have completed some college, compared with 46% of Illinois adults.

TABLE 2. LSC Parents and Community Representatives Are Relatively Well Educated

Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research
and U.S. Census Bureau

LSC Members' Race and Ethnicity

As indicated by Table 3, Chicago's LSC members closely reflect the racial composition of the city:

42% of LSC members are African American, compared with 38% of the Chicago population.

14% of LSC members are Latino, compared with 20% of the Chicago population.

40% of LSC members are white, compared with 38% of the Chicago population.

However, as Table 3 also indicates, there is a lower percentage of African American and Latino LSC members, compared with the school system's student enrollment, and a higher percentage of white LSC members, compared with the school system's student enrollment.

TABLE 3. Race and Ethnicity of Students, LSC Members, and the Chicago Population

Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research

Chicago's LSCs represent a major opportunity for African American and Latino grassroots leaders to serve their communities as elected public officials:

About 1,800 African American parents and community residents and 700 Latino parents serve on Chicago's LSCs.18

These African American and Latino LSC members represent the vast majority of elected minority officials in Illinois.

There are 4,500 African American members on all the school boards in the United States,19 compared with 1,800 African American parent and community LSC members in Chicago.

There are 1,400 Latino members on all the school boards in the United States,20 compared with 700 Latino parent and community LSC members in Chicago.

According to the Consortium study, LSC involvement has helped members acquire "valuable civic skills, including organization, budgeting, listening to others, and the ability to work in groups."21

Level of LSC Activity

When LSCs were established, many critics were skeptical that they would continue to function over the long-term. However, the Consortium research indicates that:

88% of LSCs meet at least nine times a year.

56% of LSCs have a quorum at all meetings and an additional 35% have a quorum at all but one or two meetings.

81% of LSCs have two or more active committees. 27% have more than six active committees.22

LSC members make a major time commitment in working to improve their school. As Table 4 below indicates:

The average LSC member spends 11 hours per month on official duties.

The average LSC member spends 17 hours per month volunteering in the school, beyond their regular LSC work.

Thus, across the school system, parent and community LSC members volunteer about 120,000 hours per month in assisting their schools.

TABLE 4. Hours Per Month LSC Members Spend on Official Duties
(Parents and Community Representatives)
Average equals 11 hrs/month

Hours Per Month LSC Members Spend in School Beyond Regular LSC Work
(Parents and Community Representatives)
Average equals 17 hrs/month

Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Average hours computed by Designs for Change

Cross-Checking the Accuracy of LSC Reports about Their Effectiveness

The Consortium survey asked LSC members to rate their own effectiveness in carrying out their key responsibilities in: principal evaluation and selection, school improvement planning, and budget planning. One issue that the researchers scrutinized was whether the LSC members who responded were inflating their answers. However, the research team concluded that this was not a significant problem, for several reasons:

LSC members were asked detailed questions about whether they carried out particular actions (such as checking the resumes of principal candidates or holding a community forum to gain input on the school improvement plan). They were not simply asked to gauge their overall effectiveness on a broad issue.

Within schools, there was a high level of consistency between the responses of parents and community representatives, on the one hand, and teachers and principals, on the other.

There was a strong correlation between the responses of LSC members on this survey and a separate study two years earlier in which teachers had rated the effectiveness of the LSC at their school.23

Principal Evaluation

LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether they had carried out specific steps in principal evaluation that would reflect a thorough evaluation process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with such statements as the following:

Based on ratings for six such statements about principal evaluation, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings:

18% carried out a very comprehensive evaluation (i.e., the LSC members strongly agreed with all six statements about principal evaluation).

38% carried out a comprehensive evaluation.

32% carried out a minimal evaluation.

12% carried out no evaluation.25

Principal Selection

In carrying out principal selection, the study indicated that a high percentage of LSCs took steps that reflected a thorough selection process. For example:

84% checked candidate references.

81% interviewed several candidates.

75% contacted other members of the school community for input.

68% presented final candidates at a community forum.26

Further evidence about the role of LSCs in principal selection is discussed later in this report.

School Improvement Planning

LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether LSCs carried out specific steps in school improvement planning that would reflect a thorough planning process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with statements like the following:

"The LSC monitors the SIP on a regular basis." (76% of the LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)

"We held a community forum for SIP input." (61% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)27

Based on ratings for six statements about school improvement planning, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings:

14% were very active in developing and monitoring the school improvement plan (i.e., the LSC strongly agreed with all six statements about school improvement planning).

35% somewhat active.

10% were inactive.28

School-Based Budgeting

LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether LSCs carried out specific steps in school-based budgeting that would reflect a thorough budgeting process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with statements like the following:

"Our LSC gets plenty of time to review/improve the budget." (73% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)

"I can explain the technical details of the budget." (58% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)29

Based on ratings for statements about school budgeting, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings:

22% were highly involved in approving and monitoring the school budget (i.e., the LSC strongly agreed with all statements about their involvement in school-based budgeting).

58% were moderately involved.

16% were minimally involved.

4% were uninvolved.30

Other LSC Contributions

In addition to their effectiveness in carrying out their key legally-mandated responsibilities, the Consortium found evidence that a significant portion of LSCs had aided the school through their efforts in the following areas:

Helping create collaborations with local agencies and institutions.31

Pressing for improved academic programs.32

Securing improved facilities.33

Increasing parent involvement.34

Personally volunteering in the school.35

Elementary Versus High School LSCs

Studies have consistently found more effective educational practices and better results in Chicago elementary schools, as compared with high schools.36 Thus, it is logical to investigate whether there were differences between elementary and high school LSCs. The researchers summarize their conclusions about these differences as follows:

"Elementary school council members offer somewhat more positive reports about their operations and contributions to the school. This occurs despite the fact that high school councils have higher education levels of their members, have a more extensive subcommittee structure, and meet more often. "37

Problem Councils

The researchers found serious problems in 10% to 15% of LSCs:

4% of LSCs were basically inactive, while another 13% showed evidence of serious inconsistencies in carrying out their basic responsibilities.

12% of LSCs had two or more members who reported excessive sustained conflict.

5% of LSCs had two or more members who reported unethical behavior.38

The issue of LSC corruption is discussed later in this report.

The Consortium researchers identified some common characteristics of LSCs experiencing problems. Some common characteristics of problem LSCs were:

Weak leadership from the principal and/or LSC chair.

Weak knowledge and skills in such areas as running effective meetings and new educational practices.39

The researchers found no differences among the most productive and least productive LSCs in their educational or occupational levels.40

Overall Effectiveness

The researchers combined their indicators of the competence of LSCs in carrying out their key responsibilities to arrive at an overall rating of the effectiveness of each LSC. As shown in Table 5 below:

50% to 60% of LSCs were found to be "highly functioning."

25% to 33% were found to be "performing well but need support."

10% to 15% had "serious problems," ranging from inactivity to sustained conflict to unethical behavior.41

TABLE 5. Consortium Ratings of Overall LSC Effectiveness

Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research

Summarizing the study's key conclusion, the researchers write:

" The vast majority of LSCs are viable governance organizations that responsibly carry out their mandated duties and are active in building school and community partnerships. The initial worries that councils would infringe on professional autonomy have proved unfounded....we view the findings presented here as largely validating the wisdom of the 1988 Reform Act. By devolving significant resources and authority to local school communities and by expanding opportunities for local participation by parents, community members, and staff, this reform has enlarged the capabilities of communities to solve local problems." 42

The implications of the Consortium study's findings are discussed later in this report.

Home Page | About DFC | Publications | Resources/ Links

TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Summary Research Should Guide the Debate About Chicago's Local School Councils Original Framework and Rationale for Chicago's Local School Councils Findings from "LSCs -- Local Leadership At Work" (CCSR) Findings from "What Make These Schools Stand Out" (DFC) Other Research Evidence Interpretative Summary Endnotes The average Chicago parent or community LSC member is substantially better educated than the average Illinois resident. "The vast majority of LSCs are viable governance organizations that reponsibly carry out their mandated duties. . ." --Consortium on Chicago School Research		Chicago's Local School Councils: What the Research Says by Donald R. Moore & Gail Merritt, Designs for Change January 2002
		Findings from "LSCs--Local Leadership at Work" (Consortium on Chicago School Research) LSCs - Local Leadership at Work by the Consortium on Chicago School Research was based on survey responses from a representative cross-section of Local School Councils, including their parent, community, teacher, and principal members.14 To preview the major conclusion reached as a result of this research: "The vast majority of LSCs are viable governance organizations that responsibly carry out their mandated duties and are active in building school and community partnerships. The initial worries that councils would infringe on professional autonomy have proved unfounded...we view the findings presented here as largely validating the wisdom of the 1988 Reform Act. By devolving significant resources and authority to local school communities and by expanding opportunities for local participation by parents, community members, and staff, this reform has enlarged the capabilities of communities to solve local problems." [emphasis added]15 Below, we summarize some major findings of the Consortium study; specific page references appear in the Endnotes. LSC Members' Educational Levels The researchers conclude that "LSC parents and community representatives are relatively well-educated."16 As Table 2 below indicates: 31% of parent and community LSC members hold a bachelor's degree, 32% have completed some college, and only 13% lack a high school degree. The average Chicago LSC parent and community member is better educated than the average adult in the United States (or in Illinois).17 For example, 63% of Chicago's parent and community LSC members hold a bachelor's degree or have completed some college, compared with 46% of Illinois adults. TABLE 2. LSC Parents and Community Representatives Are Relatively Well Educated Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research and U.S. Census Bureau LSC Members' Race and Ethnicity As indicated by Table 3, Chicago's LSC members closely reflect the racial composition of the city: 42% of LSC members are African American, compared with 38% of the Chicago population. 14% of LSC members are Latino, compared with 20% of the Chicago population. 40% of LSC members are white, compared with 38% of the Chicago population. However, as Table 3 also indicates, there is a lower percentage of African American and Latino LSC members, compared with the school system's student enrollment, and a higher percentage of white LSC members, compared with the school system's student enrollment. TABLE 3. Race and Ethnicity of Students, LSC Members, and the Chicago Population Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research Chicago's LSCs represent a major opportunity for African American and Latino grassroots leaders to serve their communities as elected public officials: About 1,800 African American parents and community residents and 700 Latino parents serve on Chicago's LSCs.18 These African American and Latino LSC members represent the vast majority of elected minority officials in Illinois. There are 4,500 African American members on all the school boards in the United States,19 compared with 1,800 African American parent and community LSC members in Chicago. There are 1,400 Latino members on all the school boards in the United States,20 compared with 700 Latino parent and community LSC members in Chicago. According to the Consortium study, LSC involvement has helped members acquire "valuable civic skills, including organization, budgeting, listening to others, and the ability to work in groups."21 Level of LSC Activity When LSCs were established, many critics were skeptical that they would continue to function over the long-term. However, the Consortium research indicates that: 88% of LSCs meet at least nine times a year. 56% of LSCs have a quorum at all meetings and an additional 35% have a quorum at all but one or two meetings. 81% of LSCs have two or more active committees. 27% have more than six active committees.22 LSC members make a major time commitment in working to improve their school. As Table 4 below indicates: The average LSC member spends 11 hours per month on official duties. The average LSC member spends 17 hours per month volunteering in the school, beyond their regular LSC work. Thus, across the school system, parent and community LSC members volunteer about 120,000 hours per month in assisting their schools. TABLE 4. Hours Per Month LSC Members Spend on Official Duties (Parents and Community Representatives) Average equals 11 hrs/month Hours Per Month LSC Members Spend in School Beyond Regular LSC Work (Parents and Community Representatives) Average equals 17 hrs/month Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Average hours computed by Designs for Change Cross-Checking the Accuracy of LSC Reports about Their Effectiveness The Consortium survey asked LSC members to rate their own effectiveness in carrying out their key responsibilities in: principal evaluation and selection, school improvement planning, and budget planning. One issue that the researchers scrutinized was whether the LSC members who responded were inflating their answers. However, the research team concluded that this was not a significant problem, for several reasons: LSC members were asked detailed questions about whether they carried out particular actions (such as checking the resumes of principal candidates or holding a community forum to gain input on the school improvement plan). They were not simply asked to gauge their overall effectiveness on a broad issue. Within schools, there was a high level of consistency between the responses of parents and community representatives, on the one hand, and teachers and principals, on the other. There was a strong correlation between the responses of LSC members on this survey and a separate study two years earlier in which teachers had rated the effectiveness of the LSC at their school.23 Principal Evaluation LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether they had carried out specific steps in principal evaluation that would reflect a thorough evaluation process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with such statements as the following: "Our LSC has a clear set of criteria to evaluate the principal." (86% of the LSC members strongly agreed or agreed, and 74% of principals strongly agreed or agreed.) "Our LSC has a formal process and timeline for evaluating the principal." (82% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed, and 74% of principals strongly agreed or agreed.) "Our evaluation helped the principal make changes." (74% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed, and 56% of principals strongly agreed or agreed.)24 Based on ratings for six such statements about principal evaluation, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings: 18% carried out a very comprehensive evaluation (i.e., the LSC members strongly agreed with all six statements about principal evaluation). 38% carried out a comprehensive evaluation. 32% carried out a minimal evaluation. 12% carried out no evaluation.25 Principal Selection In carrying out principal selection, the study indicated that a high percentage of LSCs took steps that reflected a thorough selection process. For example: 84% checked candidate references. 81% interviewed several candidates. 75% contacted other members of the school community for input. 68% presented final candidates at a community forum.26 Further evidence about the role of LSCs in principal selection is discussed later in this report. School Improvement Planning LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether LSCs carried out specific steps in school improvement planning that would reflect a thorough planning process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with statements like the following: "The LSC monitors the SIP on a regular basis." (76% of the LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.) "We held a community forum for SIP input." (61% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)27 Based on ratings for six statements about school improvement planning, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings: 14% were very active in developing and monitoring the school improvement plan (i.e., the LSC strongly agreed with all six statements about school improvement planning). 41% were active. 35% somewhat active. 10% were inactive.28 School-Based Budgeting LSCs were asked detailed questions about whether LSCs carried out specific steps in school-based budgeting that would reflect a thorough budgeting process. In response, the following percentages of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed with statements like the following: "Our LSC gets plenty of time to review/improve the budget." (73% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.) "I can explain the technical details of the budget." (58% of LSC members strongly agreed or agreed.)29 Based on ratings for statements about school budgeting, the Consortium judged that the following percentages of LSCs deserved one of four quality ratings: 22% were highly involved in approving and monitoring the school budget (i.e., the LSC strongly agreed with all statements about their involvement in school-based budgeting). 58% were moderately involved. 16% were minimally involved. 4% were uninvolved.30 Other LSC Contributions In addition to their effectiveness in carrying out their key legally-mandated responsibilities, the Consortium found evidence that a significant portion of LSCs had aided the school through their efforts in the following areas: Helping create collaborations with local agencies and institutions.31 Pressing for improved academic programs.32 Securing improved facilities.33 Increasing parent involvement.34 Personally volunteering in the school.35 Elementary Versus High School LSCs Studies have consistently found more effective educational practices and better results in Chicago elementary schools, as compared with high schools.36 Thus, it is logical to investigate whether there were differences between elementary and high school LSCs. The researchers summarize their conclusions about these differences as follows: "Elementary school council members offer somewhat more positive reports about their operations and contributions to the school. This occurs despite the fact that high school councils have higher education levels of their members, have a more extensive subcommittee structure, and meet more often. "37 Problem Councils The researchers found serious problems in 10% to 15% of LSCs: 4% of LSCs were basically inactive, while another 13% showed evidence of serious inconsistencies in carrying out their basic responsibilities. 12% of LSCs had two or more members who reported excessive sustained conflict. 5% of LSCs had two or more members who reported unethical behavior.38 The issue of LSC corruption is discussed later in this report. The Consortium researchers identified some common characteristics of LSCs experiencing problems. Some common characteristics of problem LSCs were: Weak leadership from the principal and/or LSC chair. Less training. Weak knowledge and skills in such areas as running effective meetings and new educational practices.39 The researchers found no differences among the most productive and least productive LSCs in their educational or occupational levels.40 Overall Effectiveness The researchers combined their indicators of the competence of LSCs in carrying out their key responsibilities to arrive at an overall rating of the effectiveness of each LSC. As shown in Table 5 below: 50% to 60% of LSCs were found to be "highly functioning." 25% to 33% were found to be "performing well but need support." 10% to 15% had "serious problems," ranging from inactivity to sustained conflict to unethical behavior.41 TABLE 5. Consortium Ratings of Overall LSC Effectiveness Source: Consortium on Chicago School Research Summarizing the study's key conclusion, the researchers write: " The vast majority of LSCs are viable governance organizations that responsibly carry out their mandated duties and are active in building school and community partnerships. The initial worries that councils would infringe on professional autonomy have proved unfounded....we view the findings presented here as largely validating the wisdom of the 1988 Reform Act. By devolving significant resources and authority to local school communities and by expanding opportunities for local participation by parents, community members, and staff, this reform has enlarged the capabilities of communities to solve local problems." 42 The implications of the Consortium study's findings are discussed later in this report. continue return to DFC Home download a pdf file of this report