Chicago-Style School Reform a National Model?

There are indeed radically different opinions as to how Arne Duncan has succeeded in creating lasting school reform in Chicago. Some say we should use his and Mayor Daley's Renaissance 2010 reform as a national model, while others have poited out the dissapoitments and contradictions apparent from the intiative. Here are two examples of professional opinions each highlighting their understanding of Chicago-style reform. I think the disagreements highlight why it is crucial to try a different type of reform that is saving money and giving parents the freedom to choose.

An article from the Washington Post today explains (kind of) why Chicago could be used as a National model and describes Duncan's reform tactics and his personal ambition:

"What sets Duncan apart, education experts said, is his willingness to embrace a range of reforms and his ability to work with people who hold diverging, often conflicting views on how to fix schools. He has straddled the reform divide: On one side are advocates of dramatic shake-ups and tough accountability, and on the other are teachers unions and some educators who want more flexibility, support and money." -Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer

On the other hand, here is a commentary in today's Chicago Sun-Times by Julie Woestehoff, Executive Director of P.U.R.E. (Parents United for Responsible Education) calling for the end of Renaissance 2010's school closings, policy under Arne Duncan. She proposes that these closings have done much more harm then good for students and that unfortunately, test scores that may have improved at several Renaissance 2010 schools are merely results of a change in student population.

"A close look at Sherman (Elementary) shows less than exciting results, which also are compromised by a significant alteration in the student population as evidenced by the enrollment drop and the drop in the school's low-income rate, from 99 percent in 2006, the year before the takeover, to 84.2 percent in 2008."

What is significant about both the Washington Post article as well as the commentary from a well respected parent and public advocate, is that there simply are mixed results as well as mixed feelings across the board as how well the initiative is working. Many newspapers are touting the Chicago-Style Reform as a clear path, while plenty are also speaking out against such a move, or that it simply won't happen.

Although Duncan an Daley have done a great deal in exercising more innovative approaches to education reform by creating some exciting new Charter schools, this has not opened up enough options for parents. Unfortunately most of the Charter schools that have opened have limited space, and students (even if they live in the neighborhood), are regularly put on a waiting list. Why not focus on reform initiatives that have proven to work? If the local charter does not have enough space, or if the local neighborhood public school is not performing up to high-quality standards, we should be giving parents the options to send their child to a high-performing charter, private or public school outside of their neighborhood. By using a corporate tax-credit scholarship program such as in Florida, parents could potentially send their child to private schools with a tuition, or charter and public schools that require more resources (i.e.; transportation) then their neighborhood school would.