Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hearing Officer Report for Proposed Chalmers TA 609851

Hearing Officer Report for Proposed Chalmers TA 609851

Ratings: (0)|Views: 418|Likes:
Published by valeriefleonard
Hearing Officer's report for the proposed Chalmers Turnaround by AUSL
Hearing Officer's report for the proposed Chalmers Turnaround by AUSL

More info:

Published by: valeriefleonard on May 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

09/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1Board of Education of theCity of ChicagoIn Re: The Matter of The Proposed Reconstitution of Thomas Chalmers Specialty Elementary SchoolBeforeFredrick H. BatesIndependent Hearing Officer 
BackgroundIntroduction
On or about April 3, 2013, the undersigned was retained by the Chief Executive
Officer (“CEO”) of the Chicago Public Schools (“CPS”) to serve as an Independent
Hearing Officer in this matter. On Thursday, May 2, 2013, a hearing was convened at theBoard of Education of the City of Chicago, 125 South Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois.The purpose of the hearing was to enable the Hearing Officer to receive public commentsfrom concerned persons, specifically including representatives of the CEO, members of the local school council, parents, s
tudents, members of the school’s staff, the Principal,representatives of the Chicago Teachers’ Union, and interested members of the public,concerning the CEO’s proposal to Reconstitute Thomas Chalmers Specialty Elementary
School pursuant to 105 ILCS 34/5-8.3(d)(4) of the Illinois School Code. CPS servednotice of the hearing on the parents, staff members, Principal, and members of the LocalSchool Council. Approximately 62 individuals attended the public hearing, and all 20 of the people who requested to speak, were provided the opportunity to do so at the
 
2hearing.
1
The record was left open for the submission of written materials. Those writtensubmissions are summarized herein below.Pursuant to the directives provided in the document entitled
“PROCEDURE
S
FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SCHOOL RECONSTITUTIONS,”
theundersigned summarizes below the input received at the Public Hearing.
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Board Policies/Procedures
 
The relevant statutory provisions include, but are not necessarily limited to thefollowing, which state in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 34
 — 
8.3. Remediation and probation of attendance centers
 * * * *(d)
 
Schools placed on probation that, after a maximum of oneyear, fail to make adequate progress in correcting deficienciesare subject to the following
action by the general superintendent
with the approval of the board, after opportunity for a hearing: …
 
(4) Reconstitution
 
of the attendance center
and replacement andreassignment by the general superintendent of all employees of theattendance center.
(Emphasis added).
 
Sec. 34-18. Powers of the board
.The board shall exercise general supervision and jurisdiction over the publiceducation and the public school system of the city, and, except as otherwise provided by this Article, shall have power:* * * *7.
 
To apportion the pupils to the several schools; provided that no pupil shall be excluded from or segregated in any such school on account of his or her 
1
The School Principal, Dr. Kent Nolen, requested that the School Community be allowed to present its position through a series of speakers that he asked be called in a specific order that did not coincide with the order in which they had signed in to speak. He alsoasked that they be given more than the two minutes allotted if necessary. Two witnesses yielded their time to this effort. The Hearing
Officer exercised his discretion and accommodated the School Community’s request. The primary presenter of the school’s proposal
was an LSC Parent Representative, W.T. Harris. His testimony is therefore included herein in its entirety. See
infra,
at pages 25-28. Ihave also included the vast majority of the testimony of the other school community speakers who presented the balance of the
school’s plan.
 
 
3color, race, sex, or nationality. The board shall take into consideration the prevention of segregation and the elimination of separation of children in public schools because of color, race, sex, or nationality.* * * *24. To develop a policy, based on the current state of existing schoolfacilities, projected enrollment and efficient utilization of available resources,for capital improvement of schools and school buildings within the district,addressing in that policy both the relative priority for major repairs,renovations and additions to school facilities, and the advisability or necessityof building new school facilities or closing existing schools to meet current or  projected demographic patterns within the district;
The Board’s School Performance, Remediation and Probation Policy
for the2012-2013 School Year provides in part:That the Chicago Board of Education adopt a School Performance,Remediation and Probation Policy for the 2011-2012 School Year.
I. Purpose and Goals
This policy shall establish the standards and criteria for placing a school onRemediation or Probation for the 2011-2012 school year based onassessments administered in Spring 2011 and other performance data from
 prior school years. A school’s accountability status from the 2010
-2011school year shall remain in effect until such time as the school is notified of their new status issued in accordance with this policy.This policy sets out a systematic means for identifying schools in need of remedial assistance and increased oversight due to insufficient levels of achievement. Section 5/34-8.3 of the Illinois School Code provides for theremediation and probation of attendance centers and for the Chief ExecutiveOfficer to monitor the performance of each school using the criteria andrating system established by the Board to identify those schools in which:(1) there is a failure to develop, implement, or comply with the schoolimprovement plan; (2) there is a pervasive breakdown in the educational program as indicated by various factors such as the absence of improvementin reading and math achievement scores, an increased drop-out rate, adecreased graduation rate, or a decrease in the rate of student attendance, or (3) there is a failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of the SchoolCode, other applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, court orders,or with applicable Board rules and policies.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->