I have to admit that my initial analysis of the Urbana School District 116 drama’s most dynamic plotline of 2022 season – the consolidation of the dual language programs in one school, – was wrong. I surmised, from the general principles, that the main tension is created by the dual mandate of the dual language program: on one hand, it is a way to enable fast integration of the immigrant kids, on the other, it is a free enrichment program for the middle class families.
It turned out, the tension was overdetermined, spanned by a host of sometimes competing, sometimes synergistic forces:
- the strong push to keep and expand DL as a free enrichment program (for those who can get in);
- the desire to maintain neighborhood school (for those who have access to one), DL or not;
- pushes of various groups of teachers (those in the DL program and those outside of it) to secure better working conditions, and to insulate themselves from the competition for resources;
- administration’s maneuvers to use DL to create new
fortressesstructures with built-in patronage systems; - aspirations by various interest groups to create or to expand their influence in the district;
- the metaphysical urge of a (hopefully, small) cult within the district faculty to use the DL program to protect immigrant students from the poisonous contact with English language,
- and so on…
It took me a while to realize that immigrant kids’ welfare, despite all the equity language cast around, was not really on the agenda. All the research literature we surveyed, all the extant examples of the programs we looked at, all the civil rights legal requirements that are so nonchalantly violated in this districts are not really relevant to the fight that was going on.
The key opposition was between the administration (which wanted a restructuring), with few allies, and the middle-class families bound to lose access to their neighborhood school as the result of that restructuring.
The administration imagined that their vapid equity rhetoric would be enough to guilt the district families into submission. They miscalculated: the threat of change of the Leal school’s status mobilized the community. Once the Board realized that, they made the political decision and backtracked.
Not that the Board members didn’t try to do their best to mask the political nature of their move. During the Board meeting on December 13, the Board member Ogolsky went on how community voices were not heard; on how the DL Committee (the body of mostly school district employees allegedly charged with preparing the proposal1In fact the proposal was prepared by the administration, and the Committee was unable to support it, despite all the pressure, as was pointed out many times during the Spring deliberations.) was deeply divided, and on how it is impossible to make the decision without hearing the report form the Equity Audit. Member Orr pointed out the weight of the responsibility to carefully consider the consequences of the momentous decision. Member Hall opined that there is a lot of information to consider, and that it was not all available yet (Equity Audit again made its appearance). And so on and so forth.
All that was offered with a straight face, as if any of these reasons was not in the open and discussed to exhaustion already during the Spring round of this travesty of a process. The difference to the situation in Spring is that then the Board believed that “a word: equity”2To use a helpful phrase by Gabe Nardie. used by the administration to enforce the desired outcome will also magically pacify the community, while by December, with the middle-class parents enraged, the administration’s and the Board’s political mistake became apparent.
On the surface, this all seems like a good development: the community (of middle-class parents) found its voice, and reasserted their due authority over the Board. Politics is an art of finding compromises and coalitions, and I, personally, am glad to see that the usual suburban priorities prevailed over the insane coalition of scheming school administrators, some activists vying for a toehold at the political power centers, and phantasmagorical equity theorists eager to turn their dreams into reality.
But while stopping an irrational decision is always good in itself, this action by the Board did not make the necessary rational moves. The Board did nothing of essence to improve English education for immigrant kids, – a goal that is as vital as neglected in our school district. This negligence violates key civil rights of our vulnerable families, but the administration does not care. The Board members might think they do, but pretend that they have no idea how (un)successfully the district educates English Learners, and so cannot steer the policy.3Steering the district’s educational policy is, meanwhile, major power of the Board, and responsibility too.
Self-imposed ignorance is difficult to break, but we would be happy to help. Just ask, and we will process and analyze the cohort data (something the district is legally obliged to do). If the charts are hard for the Board to read, try qualitative data, – surveys of the families (conducted by our district but never – surpise, surprise! – published) which show how they are worried that their kids are not exposed to English, and have troubles transitioning to the mainstream classes. Our Board is willing to spend hours and hours talking about equity without making the most basic actions (like parsing the charts or surveys available to them) to move towards it, and that is one of the most depressing outcomes of the past season.
But not the only one. Engels wrote that people oppressing other people themselves cannot be free. Similarly, failing our vulnerable families, the district inevitably fails us all. And just as with the immigrant kids, the Board ignores the five-alarm fire consuming the district as a whole.
As you are perhaps aware, the Illinois School Board of Education issued the report card for the Illinois schools and districts in October ’22 (after a covid-related hiatus). The USD 116 administration duly presented the results to the Board, during the Board meeting on November 1st, 2022.
In the administration view, the report card highlight is that “Six schools have been designated as commendable. Two improved from their previous status.” Some translation is due here: the ISBE has 4 summative designations: Exemplary (something like an A), Commendable (B), Targeted (C) and Comprehensive (D).
Two Urbana schools indeed moved from C to B. But two schools slid to the Comprehensive level, – a D. And this is not just your usual covid slide. The Comprehensive designation is defined as being among the bottom 5% schools in Illinois. In our District not one, but two out of eight schools are winning this race to the bottom.
What is more, one of this schools is Urbana Middle School, a now D-level school which leaves its imprints on all kids of the district. Are you happy that your kids during their K-12 journey spend a quarter of their term in one of the 5% worst schools in Illinois? I guess you didn’t really notice, because, – a surprise, again, – the Board did not hear about it during the Report Card presentation, nor attempted to find out…
In fact, listening to the Board’s meeting on November 1 (see here) one might wonder if the degree to which this district fails registered with them at all. Board member Hall talked about “how to keep it going up”; the gist of member Ogolsky’s contribution was “how come we are so good on paper, yet still have some problems”… To his credit, he did admit his ignorance regarding the meaning of the report card metrics. In accessible terms, member Ogolsky, the schools are not good, not in real life, nor on paper!
Did the Board members know that according to the Board’s policy manual, “[t]he major powers and duties of the Board of Education include,” inter alia, “[p]resenting the District report card and School report card(s) to parents/guardians and the community”? Hard to say: presenting the result of the report card to the voters (their official duty) assumes that they bothered to read and to internalize the report card and the attending documents (e.g., these charts4Cringingly, the ISBE presentation talks about stigma and embarrassment the Comprehensive designation brings upon a school… Those idealists from Chicago! Take your note from hardened Urbana realists: nobody will even notice…).
Over the past 18 or so months it became clear to me that the USD116 is in deep trouble. I do not know why the families keep tolerating the administration that spends almost twice the national average per capita on K-12, while pulling all kids through schools that rate at bottom 5% in Illinois. But even if this compromise is acceptable to the middle class families (who can always buy or arrange some better educational outcomes for their kids outside of public school system), we are certainly betraying our vulnerable neighbors, who do not have the same access. And we do it all the while endlessly talking about equity.
Something is wrong here.