Etcetera

Boarding Schools For The Homeless In The Windy City?

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:46:56 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is the nation's third largest public school system. Over 400,000 students attend classes in 655 schools. Unfortunately, around 10,000 of those 400,000 kids have no home to go to once school is over. Trying to get an education in a stable home environment is difficult enough; things get a whole lot tougher for the kid living in a succession of homeless shelters. The school district thinks they might have an approach which will help homeless kids - take them out of homeless shelters and place them in boarding schools. But the approach is expensive and under attack by homeless advocates.

The approach, which is still in the early planning stages, is a departure from the district's current policy on educating homeless students. That policy speaks to providing "equal access to the same free and appropriate educational opportunities as students who are not homeless" and says nothing about the quality of life outside the school. The new plan would take into account children who grow up in a succession of homeless shelters or "couch surfing" at a variety of relatives' homes. According to Josh Edelman, CPS director of CPS' Office of New Schools (ONS):

"Our goal is to say in Chicago, 'We don't think you should have to have financial means to have a great option.' The idea of having a stable home situation is ideal. If that's not the case, that shouldn't preclude you from being able to focus in school."
The key stumbling block is monetary. Currently, the district spends around (US) $7,350 per student per year to educate those in grades 6 through 12 -- most estimates say boarding school would cost between $30,000 and $50,000 per year per student. CPS is looking for some workable proposals to achieve their goal and, beyond that, some organizations to partner with. One organization that CPS won't be partnering with on boarding schools is the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH). CCH's Rene Heybach thinks anything that separates children from their families is a bad idea, "kids are deeply connected to their families, and while there is bad in some situations, there's also a lot of connectedness and good." She believes setting up a boarding room program might "stigmatize" pupils enrolled in it. Heybach also questions whether CPS, which "has a lot of trouble just operating quality schools," should be embarking on housing projects. Rather than spend an additional $23,000 to $43,000 per pupil per year to board them, Heybach believes the money could be better used to help more homeless kids.

Edelman says CPS isn't interested in forceably separating families, thus any program would be voluntary. The soonest CPS could have a complete program up and running would be 2010, but it could start a pilot program by next year. Tinesheia Howard, a homeless CPS graduate and now a college undergrad, says she might have benefited from being enrolled at a boarding or residential school. She allows as how some might not benefit from it and would be better off staying with their families. But, she says she "was in a negative atmosphere -- there was so much arguing." The key, to her, is to help get students "out of a situation that's hurting them."

Tags: written by MayorBob, homeless, school, Chicago, boarding school (all tags)

This story: 6 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

The cost of the moral hazard mentality

postillion.

Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST

none

Often, it seems that the government, on both the national and local level, ends up spending more money on programs because of the "moral hazard' involved in helping someone directly with cash assistance.

So, this program costs roughly $30,000 to $50,000 per child to be placed in a boarding school.  Yet, $30,000 to $50,000 would be more than sufficient to rent an apartment for a family for a whole year and still provide them with leftover money for food....maybe even some job training for the parents.  

Yet, such direct assistance to any family would not be politically feasible because such a program would be seen as giving away money to people who are not behaving responsibly.  Therefore, instead, a program that costs the same amount and helps less people is probably politically more doable.

5

^ 1

Unionized Parenting

Shy Elf.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:15:45 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

$30,000 - $50,000 / child / year is a reasonable guess at what it would cost to raise a child under union hours and pay rules, which is of course which children, with a very few exceptions, aren't raised that way.

Yet $15,000 should be sufficient to rent an apartment for a family for a whole year in a bad neighborhood in Chicago and still provide them with leftover money for food....maybe even some job training for the parents.

And what about all of these homeless parents?  Aren't any of them suitable for raising the kids so we can avoid paying union wages?  If they were employed, wouldn't that avoid the moral hazard dilemma?

Except it wouldn't.  They wouldn't have the right degrees.  If you throw kids out on the street, if anything goes wrong it isn't the city's fault.  If something goes wrong in a city run boarding school, the city has to pay $20M in damages or so.

Even with revenue down in the past few years, a large part of the reason that Chicago has enough money around to even think about doing something like this is extra tax revenue from all the gentrification which was what threw a lot of the people we're talking about out on the street in the first place.  It's zoning laws which make cheap housing unavailable in the first place, and greatly swell the number of homeless.  We view it as better to throw people out on the street for not being able to pay their rent than that some poor people should live in substandard housing.

When we tried to rebuild Iraq, we failed largely because we had a whole lot of reasonably well trained Iraqis willing to do the job for $1,000/year that we refused to use, and instead relied on American contractors paid $100,000 / year, and billed to the government at $200,000/year.  Somehow, we don't see anything but the expensive options.

I think we generally try to do too much with charity/welfare, and consequently often avoid doing anything at all, because the cost to do it very well is prohibitive.  In a country this rich, can't we afford to give even our drunk bums a standard of living well above average for the third world?

6

^ 5

Re: Unionized Parenting

gerrymander.

Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST

none

In a country this rich, can't we afford to give even our drunk bums a standard of living well above average for the third world?

In order for one to have a standard of living above third-world average, one needs to work to keep living conditions above third-world average. This is difficult to accomplish when spending free money to purchase alcohol/drugs and free time to use alcohol/drugs -- as was the case in at least two of the three parent examples in the Tribune story.

2

confused -- please clarify

wetkarma.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM EST

none

Isn't the responsibility of providing a home the domain of child protective services? You know -- those folks who steal babies from mormon nutters. Surely there are already programs to provide housing for kids..foster care and so on -- the concept of a 'homeless kid' seems somewhat of an non-sequitur to me.

I don't really see how this idea is consistent with a public school's mission/vision..but I'm willing to be convinced.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

3

^ 2

Re: confused -- please clarify

thefadd.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST

none

It's mission creep for sure but everyone knows a kid's success at school is directly related to their home environment so the question is whether it's worthy mission creep. I can't find the link to it at the moment, but I know that here in LA there is a public boarding school. If you're going to run schools why not run boarding schools, too? Paying for kids to go to an already established boarding school is a smaller cost in the short term but probably I bigger headache in the long term and distinctly a different issue from running one yourself (as the public school system) and not one that I've personally made up my mind on.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

4

Re: Boarding Schools For The Homeless

skeeter1.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM EST

none

This is a tough one for me.  I do enjoy my ethnic heritage that I learned from MY parents, but understand that some kids don't share my experience.  As far as the homeless go, I'd be pissed-off, too.  It's all too popular to support causes for kids, all the while ignoring the homeless.  

Should kids remain at home, or go to a shelter?  Maybe a foster home?  I really don't have any answers.

there's only one way to find out...

This story: 6 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment