CPS’ Capital Improvement Program FY 2003: An Analysis of Shifting Priorities

The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has done a great deal to repair and rebuild our public schools since 1996, spending more than $2.4 billion so far. However, more than $2 billion worth of capital repairs and construction needs remain unfunded. As construction funds are beginning to shrink, schools are becoming worried that their much needed and long-time promised, yet unfunded and delayed capital projects may not be fixed anytime soon.

In fact, NCBG’s recent 2002 “Teachers & School Facilities” survey, not surprisingly found that as schools were invested in more, teachers reported less problems with the facility conditions. What’s alarming, however, is that despite the $2.4 billion invested in our Chicago schools, teachers still reported major design flaws that have gone uncorrected. While schools may look nice from the outside, were capital investments always meeting the greatest priorities?

Examples for why we need reform for the school capital program:

Seven schools were slated to receive funds for a new school or addition, according to last year’s FY 2002 CIP plan, at a projected cost of $159 Million. However, much to these schools’ surprise, parents were shocked when they learned that their school was bumped from the FY 2003 school construction project list, only to find two new schools funded for new construction. The schools projected in 2002 and displaced from the 2003 funded list include: 1) New Area School (to relieve overcrowding at Cameron/Casals/and Munoz-Marin), 2) Carroll, 3) Langston Hughes and Davis Developmental (shared facility), 4) Davis/Shields Area School, 5) Hammond/Kanoon/Spry Area School, 6) Lee/Pasteur, 7) Sandoval/Sawyer/Peck l. Five of the seven 2002 projected schools were to have relieved overcrowding among the overcrowded neighborhood schools. While dwindling funds may partially explain why all of the schools were NOT funded this year, 2 schools that did receive New School Construction funds for FY 2003 were not priorities in last year’s CIP. These 2 schools may be overcrowded and have also patiently for funding for their new school; CPS skipped over seven other schools from last year’s CIP, and bumped 2 schools to the front. Again, this is all the more reason parents and schools are asking that CPS create more comprehensive, clear, and public “rule book” for funding new schools. In the least, parent can become more appreciative and trustworthy of the process once people are made aware of fair and strategic guidelines.

In another example, CPS had promised Duke Ellington School (Austin) a brand new school several years ago. Design plans were drawn up; however funds to build the school were never encumbered. Three years later, while the school was finally funded (a major victory for the parents!), so too is the need to pay architects to “go back to the drawing board” so that the school design meets the needs of the school and neighborhood today, not three years ago. Again, was this the best use of public funds, when architects are being paid to review and design the school all over again?

As a result of dwindling dollars, unmet capital needs, and “lessons learned,” this has lead frustrated school parents and community leaders to provide some meaningful policy reform recommendations, so that CPS becomes more fiscally responsible with their capital spending to ensure that neglected and vital capital needs are addressed, and the process is clear and fair. Below are policy reform recommendations that leaders are urging CPS to adopt as strategies for improving their capital program and becoming more accountable.

1. Re-constitute a Citizens’ Advisory Committee. Such a committee can give the public a voice in examining to sustain long-term funding for the capital program, recommending more meaningful ways to engage the public in school facility issues, and developing the Master Plan to balance school facility needs across the city. It is NCBG’s recommendation that the advisory committee be comprised of 15-20 community stakeholders—CPS CEO or Board President, Mayoral representation, finance experts, architects, community based organizations, teacher union representatives, and parent and Local School Council leaders.
   
   
2. Establish a Facilities Master Plan, developed by a public Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The above examples illustrate why CPS needs to establish a clear Facilities Master Plan that would establish greater accountability over the priorities CPS sets. Projects should be ranked and funds allocated based on the greatest need. A Facilities Master Plan would serve as a clear and transparent “rule book” and “road map” so that the public is not wondering about delayed and promised projects, and schools and communities can feel confident that CPS’ projected timeline can be counted on. School construction needs would be based on community development and population trends, as well as looking at the older, modular facilities that need replacing. A Facilities Master Plan would create greater public trust in CPS’ spending priorities and decisions.
   
   Commit to work with parents and communities to develop creative solutions for:
   • Underutilized schools and schools closings, and
   
   
   • Overcrowded schools
   
   There is clearly a need for more inclusive participation in capital planning. By acknowledging these two critical issues as key priorities for Chicago public schools, CPS can gain the public’s commitment to participating in the process of finding solutions to these challenges.
   
   
3. Commit to full disclosure and publication of the annual Capital Budget and CPS’ Capital Improvement Plan, in hard-copy form, so that the public can readily identify school capital projects (completed and projected), building assessments, code violations, the amount of funding for projects identified, and their funding sources. CPS’ capital budget is vitally important information that parents, community stakeholders, and teachers are deeply interested in being able to access. Having some information in the CPS web site is not enough.
   

Parent leaders also recommend that Local School Councils or schools form a Facilities Committee, that monitors school facility needs, interacts with LSCs, principals, the school engineer, the property advisors, PPAC (Personal Problems Advisory Council), and educators, and works to prioritize and advocate for capital projects. This group keeps the parents, school educators, and CPS administration informed on capital priorities and needs.

For more information, contact:
Andrea Lee, NCBG Schools Initiative Coordinator, @ (312) 939-7198.