Other Research Evidence

A great volume of additional research has been carried out about Chicago's Local School Councils, including participant observation studies in particular schools.48 The brief selective review of some additional evidence about LSCs presented below focuses on recent policy-relevant issues:

The LSC's Role in Principal Evaluation and Selection

By December 1997, 83% of those who were principals when the school reform law was passed in 1988 were no longer principals.49 The current principal turnover percentage since 1988 exceeds 90%. The bulk of these changes resulted from principal retirements or voluntary job changes. However, in the first round of principal selections in spring 1990, 18% of principals who sought a new contract were not rehired by their LSC.50

In contrast, the number of principals who applied and were not rehired by their LSCs had dwindled to 3% in spring 1999.51 A state law that altered the principal evaluation and selection process, along with aggressive action in support of many sitting principals by Mayor Daley's school system leadership team, contributed to the fact that 97% of principals who sought a new contract were rehired by their LSCs in 1999.52

In spring 1996, the Mayor was able to secure a change in state law that allowed the Central Board to set standards for the hiring and on-going evaluation of principals.53 This change in the law required that the central administration evaluate each principal annually, and that the LSC also conduct an annual evaluation, using a form approved by the Central Board.

At the end of the 1997-98 school year, the central administration gave every principal in the system a satisfactory rating,54 and many principals used this satisfactory rating as the basis for asserting to their LSC that they should be rehired. Also, in a number of schools (such as Kennedy High School, Jahn Elementary School, and Stowe Elementary School), central office staff campaigned to have the contracts of sitting principals renewed, even though the LSC had clearly documented reasons for seeking a new principal.55 For example, central office staff questioned why a principal who had received a satisfactory evaluation from the central administration was not being rehired, threatened teachers who served on LSCs with transfers, publicly announced that LSCs that proceeded with the process of selecting a new principal were "under investigation," and resisted approving the contracts that LSCs signed with new principals.56 At Jahn Elementary School, for example, Catalyst magazine reported that:

In spring 1999, the school system's Chief Executive Officer mounted a legislative campaign to eviscerate key LSC powers (including the authority to select a principal), through amendments to State Senate Bill 652.58 A key theme of this campaign was that many LSCs were not competent to choose their principal.59 Although the Consortium study documenting the general effectiveness of LSCs had been released nearly two years earlier, CEO Paul Vallas made statements like the following:

As a result of a vigorous campaign by Local School Council members and school reform groups, none of the provisions of the school system's proposed bill that struck at the heart of LSC authority (including principal selection authority) were passed as part of Senate Bill 652. However, the widely-publicized campaign to pass SB 652 made many LSC members feel that their efforts to improve their schools were being undermined and that they were being stereotyped as incompetent and corrupt.

The new school system leadership appointed in summer 2001 has stated that they wish to stop interference by central office staff in LSC decision making about principal evaluation and selection.

The expiration dates for principal contracts cluster in two years of every four. In the 2001-2002 school year, 159 contracts expire, while 170 expire in the 2002-2003 school year.62 Designs for Change and other school reform and community groups are assisting LSCs whose principals' contracts are expiring to help them conduct more rigorous principal evaluations, consider the possibility of seeking a new principal, and navigate the process of principal selection.63

Candidate Turnout for LSC Elections

Presently, there are about 3,300 parent seats, 1,100 community seats, 1,100 teacher seats, and 70 student seats on Chicago's LSCs - a total of about 5,500 positions for elected members.

In the initial 1989 LSC election, nearly 17,000 adult candidates ran for Chicago's LSCs - exceeding all expectations.

However, the candidate turnout dropped substantially in succeeding years, hovering in the range of 7,000 to 8,000 adult candidates:

In the original 1989 election, 98% of schools had contested parent elections (i.e., seven or more candidates were running for the six available seats).65 In the 2000 election, only 59% of schools had contested parent elections, while 26% of schools had just enough candidates to fill the six parent seats, and 14% had fewer than six candidates.66 (In schools with an insufficient number of candidates, those LSC members who are elected appoint others to fill council vacancies.) Not surprisingly, voter participation is significantly higher when an LSC election is contested.67

Several efforts have been made to boost the level of parent, community, and teacher candidacy. Beginning in 1996, the state legislature shifted the LSC election to Parent Report Card Pick-Up Day in the spring. Foundations and corporations have funded candidate recruitment efforts by community groups and school reform groups.  However, a study of the spring 1996 election by the Chicago Urban League indicated that schools targeted by these outside groups achieved only tiny improvements in the number of candidates, compared with schools that were not targeted for special recruitment.68

Designs for Change has helped achieve a 90% rate of contested parent elections during the past four LSC elections in schools that the organization has targeted. This level of candidate participation was achieved by concentrating on direct one-on-one candidate recruitment at the school and at the homes of potential candidates (as opposed to distributing literature and speaking at public meetings).

If 9,000 to 10,000 adult candidates can be recruited for an LSC election, this level of participation will be sufficient to ensure a contested race for the parent, community, and teacher seats in almost every school.

Local School Council Corruption

Given the long tradition of government corruption in Chicago, one early speculation about Local School Councils was that they would become hundreds of small pockets of patronage and corruption. This prediction was based, in part, on New York City's experiment with Community School Boards (with each board serving about 25,000 students); a substantial number of Community School Board members have been convicted in connection with job-selling schemes and other illegal activities.69

The designers of the Chicago school reform plan argued that while some level of corruption was inevitable in any big city school system, bringing decision making down to parent majority councils at the school level would make corruption less likely, since Local School Councils with parent majorities would be motivated primarily by a desire to improve their own children's education. Further, reformers argued in 1988 that sitting on the council of a single school was less attractive to individuals who intended to engage in corrupt activities than (for example) serving on a Community School Board that governed 30 schools and controlled or influenced hiring for hundreds of jobs. Chicago's LSCs have direct authority to hire one person - the school's principal. And they are under strict conflict of interest rules about the hiring of relatives or business associates.

There are several different types of evidence indicating that corruption on Local School Councils is relatively rare:

Undoubtedly, there is some level of corruption among Local School Councils. However, all the hard evidence available indicates that it exists in only a very small number of LSCs.

Local School Council Training

New members of Chicago's LSCs are required by state law to participate in 18 hours of training. LSC members are the only elected officials in Illinois who are required to participate in training after winning elected public office.

In spring 1995, the legislature charged the Council of Deans of the area's schools of education with overseeing this training, with the University of Illinois at Chicago taking the lead role in the process. In the training effort that resulted, school reform groups, academics, and Chicago school system staff collaborated to spell out a basic curriculum for LSC training. Then, specific school system staff members, academics, and school reform group members were certified to teach this curriculum in both large group settings and to individual LSCs or cluster of LSCs.

In spring 1997, the Chicago school system leadership convinced the state legislature to name the Chicago Board as the key group responsible for providing the mandated LSC training. The Central Board then restricted outside participation in providing LSC training, and placed its primary emphasis on providing large-scale citywide or regional training sessions in school auditoriums.

The Chicago Board subsequently loosened its grip a little on the training process, and allowed independent groups to become certified to offer the entire 18 hours of training to individual LSCs or clusters of LSCs.

In addition to this mandated training, some independent groups provide additional education and assistance that reaches a modest proportion of LSCs. This help is typically aimed at helping LSCs at the point when they are about to carry out a major responsibility (such as developing a school budget or evaluating their principal).

When judged in light of best practices for effective adult education,76 the training and assistance experienced by most LSC members is inadequate -- for example, it is not tailored to the LSC's specific situation, not offered at the time when the LSC must carry out a specific responsibility, and not linked with follow-up help.