Dylan Sharkey

Assistant Editor

October 4, 2024

Where Chicago school board candidates stand on school choice

Chicago Public Schools Board of Education candidates have varying positions on school choice, according to a Chicago Sun-Times and Chalkbeat Chicago questionnaire.

Candidates for Chicago Board of Education went on the record about school choice in a recent Chicago Sun-Times and Chalkbeat Chicago questionnaire.

Click here to find which school board district you live in, courtesy of Chalkbeat.

Candidates were asked three school choice questions. Here’s where they stand:

District 1

Do you support the current board of education’s decision to prioritize neighborhood schools and shift away from the current system of school choice with selective enrollment, magnet and charter schools?

Jennifer Custer: No

Michelle N. Pierre: No

Given the board of education’s decision to prioritize neighborhood schools, how would you balance supporting those schools without undermining the city’s selective enrollment schools and other specialized programs?

Jennifer Custer: These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I believe we can not only do both, but we can look at some of these selective enrollment schools and learn from what they are doing well to support neighborhood schools and raise the bar.

Michelle N. Pierre: To balance supporting neighborhood schools while maintaining the excellence of selective enrollment and specialized programs, I would ensure equitable funding and resources for all schools. Implementing community-based initiatives and fostering partnerships can enhance neighborhood schools without detracting from specialized programs.

The first charter school opened in Chicago in 1997 and these privately run, publicly funded schools grew in number throughout the 2000s. Today, 54,000 Chicago Public Schools students, or about 17%, attend charters and contract schools. Do you support having charter schools in CPS as an option for students?

Jennifer Custer: Yes

Michelle N. Pierre: Yes

District 2

Ebony DeBerry: Yes

Kate Doyle: No

Bruce Leon: No

Maggie Cullerton Hooper: Other

Ebony DeBerry: I believe that the new funding model will help ensure that no school goes without the necessities. I have faith that the parents and teachers of selective enrollment students have the ingenuity to continue to succeed. It is undeniable that the students at our selective enrollment schools are wealthier and have access to more support services outside of the classroom.

Kate Doyle: Every student deserves a quality school in their neighborhood. Unfortunately, that is not the current reality for many disinvested communities across Chicago. I wholeheartedly support directing more resources toward building up our neighborhood schools in need of investment. However, this cannot come at the expense of other schools in the district. Overall, I believe the richness of programming across the entire CPS portfolio, from IB to Montessori to CTE to World Language and more is responsive to the fact that every student and family has different needs. Our ability to meet those varied needs is one pillar of our commitment to diversity as a district, but we must ensure access to this variety of programming is equitable. Our goal as a district must be that every CPS student can go on to a thriving future in the community upon graduation.

Bruce Leon: Need to learn more as a board member.

Maggie Cullerton Hooper: The board’s implementation of the need-based funding model allocates funds using a methodology that is evidence-based, need-centered and that finally attempts to address the legacy of extraction, segregation and oppression of marginalized students. However, the lack of transparency and disregard for community input has fueled distrust. The late budget approval timing for schools and their LSCs, the refusal to allow principal appeals and uniformity of application with no consideration of specialization, language programs or other educational commitments to students all contribute to a faulty start of this new funding model. My intention to continue and greatly improve the need-based funding model does NOT mean that I am interested in closing, underfunding or ignoring the families served by ANY schools (selective enrollment, neighborhood, charter or magnet).

Ebony DeBerry: Yes

Kate Doyle: Yes

Bruce Leon: Yes

Maggie Cullerton Hooper: Yes

District 3

Carlos A. Rivas Jr: Other

Jason C. Dónes: Yes

Carlos A. Rivas Jr: I fully support strengthening neighborhood schools. I believe we can strengthen neighborhood schools without sacrificing the city’s selective enrollment and magnet school programs that so many families seek out for their children.

Jason C. Dónes: Our selective enrollment schools are some of the best schools in the nation. In fact, I hope to continue to learn from what makes them thrive. You can design and fully fund a school system that both prioritizes neighborhood schools while maintaining the strong legacy of achievement within these other programs. These are not mutually exclusive. My vision is to ensure all families have access to a quality school within walking distance of their home. That does not mean selective enrollment schools are at risk. I reject the fear mongering that has started to pit CPS families against one another.

Carlos A. Rivas Jr: Yes

Jason C. Dónes: No

District 4

Kimberly Brown: No

Andrew Davis: No

Thomas Day: No

Carmen Gioiosa: No

Ellen Rosenfeld: No

Karen Zaccor: Yes

Kimberly Brown: Every board is presented with resource challenges, and CPS is no different. First, we create a clear culture and vision of One CPS that treats every school as equally important and deserving. Second, we need to create radical transparency in the budgets so everyone sees where the resources and needs are located now and future projections. Third, we need to work with the community and elected officials to increase resources through innovative ways. Chicago was built by community innovation; CPS will be saved the same way.

Andrew Davis: After appropriate belt-tightening in the central office CPS must pursue additional funding from DC, Springfield and the private sector. The starting point for significant increase of resources for our students is for Springfield to shoulder the responsibility for our teacher pensions JUST AS THEY DO FOR EVERY OTHER DISTRICT IN THE STATE.

Thomas Day: Any school that produced Michelle Obama should be protected. As a board member representing the 4th District, I’ll ensure selective enrollment schools like Lane Tech and Whitney Young (where our former first lady attended) continue to support high-achieving CPS students and accelerate excellence. I understand the need to increase diversity at these schools and to strengthen our neighborhood schools. The original intent of selective enrollment schools — to merge Chicago’s diverse communities in classrooms — is an aspiration I hold for all public schools.

Carmen Gioiosa: Neighborhood, selective enrollment, magnet and charter schools serve all the children in Chicago. I agree a balanced approach is necessary to support the individual unique talents, abilities and needs of all CPS students. I do believe there are invaluable benefits to supporting all types of schools and they outweigh any unintended consequence. Our students deserve to have a school or schools that will build their capacities, their curiosities, their knowledge at any given point in their pre-K-12 career … not to restrict them! To reiterate, I do not support prioritizing one type of school over another.

Ellen Rosenfeld: As someone who has sent children through selective enrollment and a teacher who has seen the importance of specialized programs for students who struggle, I do not support undermining either of these programs. They are some of the best schools in our city, so to decrease support would be diminishing more schools, when the ultimate goal is to tap into the potential of every school and make it as strong as it can be. The board must take what is working at selective enrollment institutions and begin applying those practices to neighborhood schools so all students across the city have an equal shot at success.

Karen Zaccor: We certainly want to continue powerful programming for selective enrollment schools, but we need to establish what that means. We currently have schools with “73-page course catalogs” as cited in a recent article by WBEZ, while other schools cannot fully staff the basics. That’s an excessive imbalance. Selective enrollment schools should have the means to offer a full menu of challenging, fast-moving courses that prepare students to excel in college or actually gain college credits, but that cannot come at the expense of the rest of our schools. Evidence-based funding doesn’t take away funding from selective enrollment schools. Instead, it dictates that as new funding comes to CPS, that money should go to schools based on need. That’s just a commonsense approach to budgeting when we want all our students to have access to well-resourced, well-rounded education.

Kimberly Brown: Yes

Andrew Davis: Yes

Thomas Day: Yes

Carmen Gioiosa: Yes

Ellen Rosenfeld: Yes

Karen Zaccor: No

District 5

Aaron “Jitu” Brown: Yes

Jousef M. Shkoukani: Yes

Aaron “Jitu” Brown: I believe that Kenwood Academy, a neighborhood school with a magnet component, is an excellent model for supportive advanced academic programming while not turning away neighborhood students. Peer-to-peer learning is an evidence-based strategy that is lost when top academic performers are segregated from their classmates. In addition, I respect every parent’s desire to have their child in the best academic climate possible and will not support dismantling selective enrollment schools.

Jousef M. Shkoukani: Very good question. Over time, I think the new funding model will build back trust with parents who may down the line begin trusting in their neighborhood schools again, naturally reducing the number of charter schools (market equilibrium will favor neighborhood schools I suspect). If this does occur, I imagine the budgetary concerns between neighborhood schools and selective enrollment schools or magnet schools will be lessened by the likely natural market shift in the need/number of charter schools, thus shifting the funds from those existing charter schools (whose attendance significantly dropped on account of parent trust in neighborhood schools increasing — thus increasing pool of available funds). As for right now, CPS must leverage its purchasing power and bid contractors for certain services (like infrastructure) against each other to ensure the same quality service at a lower market price based on sheer competition.

Aaron “Jitu” Brown: No

Jousef M. Shkoukani: Yes

District 6

Jessica Biggs: Yes

Anusha Thotakura: Other

Andre Smith: No

Danielle Wallace: No

Jessica Biggs: I support the use of CPS’ Opportunity Index to ensure that all of our schools are adequately and equitably funded. However, with any new blanket formula we need to investigate the impact of its implementation to ensure that no students are left out. Metrics need to be added to ensure that specialty programming is available where schools or communities seek it. Strong schools mean strong communities and every neighborhood in Chicago deserves a strong school.

Anusha Thotakura: I would support a “hold harmless” provision in the CPS budget that would prioritize additional funding for neighborhood schools without cutting funds for selective enrollment schools and other specialized programs.

Andre Smith: I would: 1. Ensure Fair Resource Allocation: Distribute resources equitably among all types of schools. 2. Encourage Collaboration: Promote sharing of best practices between different school types. 3. Allow Flexibility: Maintain diverse educational options to meet various student needs. 4. Monitor and adjust: Regularly evaluate the impact to ensure all schools are effectively supported.

Danielle Wallace: N/A

Jessica Biggs: Yes

Anusha Thotakura: Yes

Andre Smith: Yes

Danielle Wallace: Yes

District 7

Yesenia Lopez: Other

Eva A. Villalobos: No

Raquel Don: No

Yesenia Lopez: I’ll ensure a balanced approach that enhances these institutions while continuing support for selective enrollment and specialized programs. By allocating resources strategically and equitably, we can uplift neighborhood schools and promote their value and positive image, without diminishing the standards or opportunities offered by selective programs. My commitment is to an inclusive education system where every school, regardless of its model, is equipped to provide exceptional world-class education regardless of the neighborhood.

Eva A. Villalobos: First, we start by balancing the budget with an equitable approach because that will guide the work and clarify our purpose. When considering how resources are allocated across our 600+ schools, we need to remember that all of our schools are public schools. The current board’s approach to equity is based on a false premise that our schools should be ranked and prioritized. All our schools serve neighborhoods and all our schools serve neighborhood students. Where there are opportunities for some of our schools to leverage outside grants and external resources, we should seize them and ensure that additional funding gets distributed equitably.

Raquel Don: Students deserve a budget that will allow their school to successfully fulfill their needs.

Yesenia Lopez: Other

Eva A. Villalobos: Yes

Raquel Don: Yes

District 8

Angel Gutierrez: No

Felix Ponce: Yes

Angel Gutierrez: Instead of eliminating options for students, parents and communities, we should be doubling down our investment and creating more opportunities for them to succeed. It means finding a funding formula that does not take money away from one school to give to another. In District 8 schools have lost millions of dollars due to the new funding formula

Felix Ponce: There is no reason that neighborhood schools should have less funding than selective enrollment schools and specialized programs. No matter where a student goes to school in the city, their school should be fully funded.

Angel Gutierrez: Yes

Felix Ponce: Yes

District 9

Therese Boyle

Lanetta M. Thomas

La’Mont Raymond Williams

Miquel Lewis

Therese Boyle: Other

Lanetta M. Thomas: No

La’Mont Raymond Williams: Other

Miquel Lewis: No

Therese Boyle: Parents in District 9 told me they’ve had great experiences with both selective enrollment and other specialized programs — and they expressed a desire for the board to continue to offer these options for families. District 9 is currently home to two SE High Schools, a regional gifted program — as well as magnet cluster schools, International Baccalaureate Programs, STEM programs, fine & performing arts programs and Montessori programs. There is fear that these programs will not be able to survive if the board shifts to providing more funding to neighborhood schools. Balancing the needs of our highly regarded CPS selective enrollment schools and other specialized schools programming with those of our declining neighborhood schools will be one of the most challenging tasks the newly elected school board will tackle in light of the growing budget deficits that have been predicted for the next five years.

Lanetta M. Thomas: We need to ensure that all schools, including neighborhood and selective enrollment schools, have the resources and support they need to succeed. This includes equitable funding, access to specialized programs and fostering collaboration between schools to share best practices.

La’Mont Raymond Williams: I do not propose limiting parents’ options to choose what is best for their children. CPS can and must improve our neighborhood schools by raising the acceptable standard, while sustaining selective enrollment schools. This is a “both/and” situation. This will be difficult but worthwhile for our students. Difficulty will not stop me from pursuing what is right. My family lived the disparity within CPS through my brother’s and my journey through CPS. I went to Ogden and Lincoln Park for the IB programs, and my brother attended neighborhood schools. The difference was the breadth and depth of curriculum, access to arts and extracurricular activities. We can raise the standard utilizing the evidence-based funding model while tailoring our funding process as we see data trends through this funding model. Improving the neighborhood school will not take away from our selective enrollment schools and programs when I am on the board.

Miquel Lewis: It is important to hear from the students and families of our magnet, selective enrollment, charter and contract schools to know and understand the impact of this approach to educating Chicago’s students before making any judgments about the current board’s decision.

Therese Boyle: No

Lanetta M. Thomas: Yes

La’Mont Raymond Williams: Yes

Miquel Lewis: Other

District 10

Adam Parrott-Sheffer: Other

Che “Rhymefest” Smith: Yes

Karin Norington-Reaves: No

Robert Jones: Yes

Adam Parrott-Sheffer: Addressing the inequity our neighborhood schools experience does not require that we raid the bank accounts of other schools. We should view selective enrollment schools as guidance in the bare minimum that all schools need. Our focus should be on finding those resources in ways that do not harm any school while recognizing that neighborhood schools, typically serving kids with more needs, will need even greater resources.

Che “Rhymefest” Smith: I envision Chicago Public Schools to be the driver, striver, and provider of high-quality public education for every child in every neighborhood, preparing them for success in college, career, business, and civic life. Every school in Chicago should have the highest standards, equivalent to schools in the highest achieving neighborhoods, selective enrollment, charter and magnet schools. Regardless of school, I support the children, parents, staff, and teachers in all schools.

Karin Norington-Reaves: I am the product of neighborhood, magnet and selective enrollment schools. I recognize the benefits of all of them, and I support the right of access to each. Our students have diverse needs, they should have access to a diverse array of schools. I do not believe that we have to sacrifice selective enrollment schools for the sake of much-needed neighborhood schools. Ideally, all schools should be well-resourced and offer high caliber education for every student regardless of need. We must offer strong instruction, extracurriculars and supportive services at every school, and yet students with talents in STEM, the performing arts, languages or accelerated learning shouldn’t be held back from their potential — regardless of their ZIP code or race.

Robert Jones: By making sure that the existing selective enrollment and specialized programs are not starved the way many of our neighborhood schools have been starved.

Adam Parrott-Sheffer: Yes

Che “Rhymefest” Smith: No

Karin Norington-Reaves: Yes

Robert Jones: No

Dylan Sharkey

Where Chicago school board candidates stand on school choice

Want more? Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox.