As urban school systems experiment with new governance and organizational structures, many political leaders point to high-profile initiatives in Chicago as a model of reform. Rather than interpreting Chicago school reform as being motivated simply by a desire to promote student learning, this article sees the past 10 years of reform in Chicago as layered efforts to legitimize the public school system and promote city growth, as well as improve schools. These common goals have been interpreted and enacted very differently across two major state legislated reforms of 1988 and 1995. The analysis indicates that Chicago school reform has increased system legitimacy and supported city growth, yet it has thus far failed to support the development and exercise of educators' professional capacities. This failure is likely to inhibit substantial improvement in the quality of schooling over time, and consequently, could undermine new found legitimacy and growth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, V.
(1998). Teacher raises trail those of principals, administrators. Catalyst, 10(1), 22.
2.
Beinart, P.
(1997, June 30). The pride of the cities: The new breed of progressive mayors. New Republic, 216, 16-25.
3.
Bennett, A. L.
, Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Luppescu, S., & Sebring, P. A. (1992). Charting reform: The principals' perspective. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
4.
Bryk, A. S.
, Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A view from the elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
5.
Bryk, A. S.
, Hill, P., & Shipps, D. (1998). Decentralization in practice: Toward a system of schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
6.
Bryk, A. S.
, Thum, Y. M, Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Academic productivity of Chicago public elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
7.
Chicago schools: Worst in America. (1988, March). Chicago Tribune.
8.
Designs for Change
. (1998). What makes these schools stand out: Chicago elementary schools with a 7-year trend of improved reading achievement. Chicago: Author.
9.
Duffrin, E.
(1998a). What matters most: Growing a faculty. Catalyst, 9(8), 1-15.
10.
Duffrin, E.
(1998b). Middle grades math stuck in basic skills. Catalyst, 10(1), 1-8.
11.
Firestone, W. A.
, & Bader, B. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or bureaucracy?Albany: State University of New York Press.
12.
Fornek, S.
(1997, October 29). President hails Chicago schools. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 1.
13.
Forte, L.
(1995). New law lets board shift money to balance budget. Catalyst,7(1), 7-10.
14.
Fullan, M.
(1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
Hendrie, C.
(1997, June 4). Increase in test scores leaves Chicago officials jubilant. Education Week, 16,7.
16.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
(1991). School restructuring, Chicago style. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
(Ed.). (n.d.). Implementing reform: Stories of stability and change in 14 schools. Chicago: Chicago Panel on School Policy.
18.
Hinz, G.
(1998, March 9). Teachers, CPS hit the books on long-term pact. Crains Chicago Business, 4.
19.
James, F.
(1997, June 6). Daley lectures on schools: If Chicago can turn around, others can, mayor says. Chicago Tribune, p. B3.
20.
Johnson, D.
(1997, June 6). Chicago schools set standard in insisting students perform. New York Times, p. 1.
21.
Johnson, S. M.
(1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Katz, M.
(1992). Chicago school reform as history. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 56-72.
23.
Kerchner, C. T.
, Koppich, J. E., & Weeres, J. G. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Kyle, C. L.
, & Kantowitz, E. R. (1992). Kids first-Primero los ninos: Chicago school reform in the 1980's. Springfield: Illinois Issues.
25.
Louis, K. S.
, & Kruse, S. (Eds.). (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26.
Martinez, M.
(1997, October 20). Schools still slow to fire inept teachers. Chicago Tribune, p. 11.
27.
Martinez, M.
(1998a). City educators plan remedial high schools: 8th grade transition centers to offer 4-6 year alternative. Chicago Tribune, p 12.
28.
Martinez, M.
(1998b, May 14). Teachers ousted by reforms still in system. Chicago Tribune, p. 24.
29.
McKersie, W. S.
(1993). Philanthropy's paradox: Chicago school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 109-128.
30.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Scott, W. R. (1992). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 199-215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
Mirel, J.
(1993). School reform, Chicago style: Educational innovation in a changing urban con- text, 1976-1991. Urban Education, 28, 116-149.
32.
Moore, D.
(1992). Voice and choice in Chicago. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume II, The practice of choice: Decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 153-198). New York: Falmer.
33.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America 's future. New York: Author.
34.
Newmann, F.
, Lopez, G., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
35.
Niemec, R. P. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1993). Evaluating Chicago school reform. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 59(1), 1-110.
36.
Oclander, J.
(1996, May 24). Firm to charge schools more for supplies. Chicago Sun-limes, p. 1.
37.
Office of the Press Secretary
. (1998). The State of the Union speech by the President. Washing- ton, DC: White House.
38.
Pick, G.
(1998). Student retention: Trying to succeed where others failed. Catalyst, 9(7), 1.
39.
Poe, J.
(1997, October 7). Magnet schools plan stirs criticism. Chicago Tribune.
40.
Rossi, R.
(1997, October 21). Kids held back could get chance to rejoin peers. Chicago Sun- limes, p. 14.
41.
Rossi, R.
, & Speilman, F. (1997, June 5). Daley backs board: Mayor opposes "sham" graduation for 8th graders. Chicago Sun-Times, p. D1O.
42.
Rowan, B.
(1990). Commitment and control: Altemative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 353-389). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
43.
Rumberger, R. W.
(1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583-625.
44.
Ryan, S.
, Bryk, A. S., Lopez, G., Williams, K. P., Hall, K., & Luppescu, S. (1997). Charting Reform: LSCs-local leadership at work. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
45.
Scott, W. R.
(1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46.
Sebring, P. A.
, Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Luppescu, S., Thum, Y. M., Lopez, W. A., & Smith, B. (1995). Charting reform: Chicago teachers take stock. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
47.
Sebring, P. A.
, Bryk, A. S., Roderick, M., Camburn, E., Luppescu, S., Thum, Y. M., Smith, B., & Kahne, J. (1996). Charting reform in Chicago: The students speak. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
48.
Shepard, L. A.
(1991). Will national tests improve student learning?Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 232-238.
49.
Shepard, L. A.
, & Smith, M. L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. Washington, DC: Falmer.
50.
Shipps, D.
(1997). Invisible hand: Big business and Chicago school reform. Teachers College Record, 99, 73-116.
51.
Shipps, D.
(1998). Corporate influence on Chicago school reform. In C. S. Stone (Ed.), Changing urban education (pp.161-183). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
52.
Shipps, D.
, Sconzert, K., & Swyers, H. (1998). Chicago Annenberg Challenge in institutional context. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
53.
Smith, B. A.
(1998). School improvement, student achievement, and the time problem. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
54.
Smith, M. L.
(1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.
55.
Smylie, M. A.
, Allensworth, E., Bilcer, D. K., Greenberg, R., & Harris, R. (1998). Opportunities for teacher professional learning and development in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
56.
Smylie, M. A.
, & Perry, G. S., Jr. (1998). Restructuring schools for improving teaching. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 976-1005). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
57.
Stone, C. N.
(Ed.). (1998). Changing urban education. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
58.
U.S. Conference of Mayors
. (I1996). Best practices of city governments, Vol. III: Focus on the mayor's role in education. Washington, DC: Autior.
59.
Weiler, H.
(1993). Control versus legitimation. In J. Hannaway & M. Camoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 55-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
Weissmann, D.
(1997). Can middle class kids be lured back?Catalyst, 9(3), 1.
61.
Wong, K. K.
, Dreeben, R., Lynn, L. E., & Sunderman, G. L. (1997, January). Integrated governance as a reform strategy in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.
62.
Wong, K. K.
, & Jain, P. (1997, August). Newspapers as policy actors in urban school systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
