"A child's learning is the function more of the characteristics of his classmates than those of the teacher." James Coleman, 1972

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Why KIPP Is Not a Model for Urban Education

KIPP schools are designed for black and Hispanic kids from inner-city ghettos. The success of these schools proclams, "Here is how you raise the achievement of poor minority kids." In fact, most of the press I read about them says this explicitly.

I'm concerned that KIPP, Edison, and other "back to basics" approaches operate under the implicit assumption that the best we can hope for (re: the achievement of black and Hispanic children) is to give them nothing but the basics. Yes, KIPP, et al, might improve test scores, but at what price? Less social studies? Less art, foreign languages, and music? Yes, KIPP might offer a trip to Central Park as a reward for good behavior, but middle-class white parents such as me cringe at the idea that our children would be taken on field trips only as a reward for good behavior. Middle-class whites assume that it is the duty of schools to provide our children with a high-quality education and that every child, regardless of whether he or she is deemed "good" or "bad," has a right to such an education. Student behavior might influence the kinds of options that white middle-class children are exposed to, but good or bad behavior is not the sole determinant of these options.

Why, then, should poor black and Hispanic parents not have the same assumptions? Why should poor black and Hispanic students not have the same rights and the same options? Ultimately, it appears that approved behavior is the key to success at KIPP. I can think of no middle-class white school that makes this kind of bargain with its students except for military academies.

By "docile" I don't (necessarily) mean "quiet" and "inactive." Students may be noisily and actively engaged in practices that (1) confirm their own thoughts concerning their self-perceived racial and intellectual inferiority and (2) fail to interrogate or critique systems of government that produce institutionalized racism. For example, "skills-based" programs like Open Court, Direct Instruction, and Success for All are -- by definition -- created for low-achieving populations of students. "These programs have proven to be especially effective for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, have limited proficiency in English, or have special needs. Lesson plans are highly structured." (from The McGraw-Hill Companies "2005 Investor Fact Book") If you've read the Report of the Subgroups from the National Reading Panel, you know that this claim is completely groundless. Nevertheless, poor children are given strict instruction in unproven literacy and numeracy programs because they are poor children. The curriculum itself -- designed for "disadvantaged children" -- creates an artificial ceiling on achievement and, thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How many wealthy districts use these programs? What kinds of ceilings are imposed on the achievement of wealthy children?

As for interrogating and critiquing socio-historical systems that produce the status quo, I'd be willing to bet that the name "Malcolm X" is not uttered at KIPP schools. I'm sure there's not enough time to cover everything. But, then again, what do they cover in the time they have? Surely black children should know not just who Malcolm X is, but why he believed what he believed and how he conducted his activist work.

I don't mean to suggest that these kinds of racist practices are intentional. They are not. They are undertaken with the best of intentions. But they start with the unexamined premise, "This is how you teach these kind of children." Simply by asserting that "these kind of children" exist empirically and that "they" have certain a priori needs and inherent limitations on what they are capable of achieving as reflected in the curriculum and the structure of the schools (with their heavy emphasis on "the basics" and large doses of rewards and punishments), KIPP schools contribute directly to the educational achievement gap between wealthy whites and poor blacks. Yes, it may appear that this gap has been closed by these same poor black children scoring higher on standardized tests. But I would seriously question these gains as anything other than illusory, especially when these gains are made at the expense of these children knowing about themselves and their oppression as well as at the expense of their intellectual potential.

Here's the troubling thing: KIPP schools appear to work. But what they work at remains in question. What does it mean for a school to "work"? Some would say that KIPP works because it produces high test scores and gets kids into elite prep schools and then on to college. But others would say that KIPP fails because it does not produce democratically-engaged, independently-minded critical thinkers. In its worst form, KIPP represents a failure of imagination and an abdication on the part of educators who are convinced, albeit with the best of intentions, that this is the best "these kids" can hope for.

But would the KIPP approach be welcomed by a mostly white, affluent school? After all, if KIPP works so well to get black kids into good schools, then why don't the best elementary and middle schools -- both public and private, black and white -- immediately adopt its approach?

Are KIPP schools serving as surrogate parents for their students, given the amount of time students spend at school? To what extent does the apparent success of each KIPP school serve to mask the underlying problems of the neighborhoods where KIPP schools are found? In other words, is KIPP a way to treat the symptoms of the achievement gap, with its insistence on personal triumph over adverse conditions, and turn attention away from the more pernicious causal factors at the root of the achievement gap?

KIPP works because it brings a kind of suburban, middle-class milieu to an urban, working-poor milieu. But let's imagine the implications of this for a moment. KIPP schools are basically charged with raising these children. That in itself may or may not be a good thing, e.g., should a publicly-funded educational institution overseen by the state be charged with unofficially raising children? Maybe yes, maybe no. But if yes, what kinds of parents are these KIPP schools? And whose interests do they have in mind? Biological parents have an investment in the well-being of their children that differs on several different orders of magnitude from the interest that a state-controlled parent might have. In some instances, the KIPP parent might actually be better than the biological parent. But in other cases, the biological parent might do a better job inculcating in the child the values that are important to his/her family, race, religious tradition, and practices of ethnic origin.

If we leave it to KIPP to raise poor black children, how will they raise them? With what outcome in mind? As many social dominance theorists have suggested, the most stable societies are those in which historically oppressed groups accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical structure, thus internalizing their oppression by rationalizing to themselves their place in the order of things.

Left to choose its own priorities, surely the state (through the mechanism of KIPP) will choose stability over something else. The effect and impact of this choice can only be guessed at, but I'd venture an educated guess and say that stability means more phonics and less Malcolm X. Again, this is by no means a consciously-constructed plan to exert racial dominance. It is, in a word, efficient. And, according to the KIPP people, what these children need.

Until we look at the totality of education reform and stop insisting that education reform should be exclusively about school reform, we will never come close to closing the gap. Even a best case scenario with KIPP -- where KIPP schools flourish across the country -- can only hope to educate an extraordinarily small percentage of poor urban kids. So in praising KIPP, we actually lose sight of the bigger issues and the bigger challenges. And, with KIPP, we say, "This is good enough for them" while we send our kids to private schools or the best suburban schools.

10 comments:

  1. Perhaps one way to make headway in this case to to discuss the "opportunity gap" as a close relative of the achievement gap.

    What I mean is that achievement in school generally leads to opportunities in life - opportunities that are educational, professional, and social. Instead of looking at the KIPP schools as tools of the state to ingrain a system of state-sponsored stratification, perhaps we should look at them as a way of providing traditionally oppressed groups with the means to move up within the system. Having done this, it may be possible for them to manipulate the system to more adequately serve their particular interests.

    One lesson from history seems to be that no group of people can be "saved" by another group; witness the dire straits in which our Native American population finds itself after attempts by the government and missionaries to "save" them through an education that completely discounted their values and traditions. Those who are successful in improving their lot are generally those who do it for themselves.

    Providing minorities and the economically disadvantaged with a "back-to-basics" education may not in itself balance the scales. But it might enable those at the bottom to begin making the system work for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good points, darkblue03. Perhaps a "back-to-basics" education will do the trick. Or not.

    Why not? Consider two points.

    1) Why are we even having this conversation about poor black and Hispanic kids getting or "deserving" a back-to-basics education? As I wrote in my post:

    "Simply by asserting that 'these kind of children' exist empirically and that 'they' have certain a priori needs and inherent limitations on what they are capable of achieving as reflected in the curriculum and the structure of the schools (with their heavy emphasis on "the basics" and large doses of rewards and punishments), KIPP schools contribute directly to the educational achievement gap between wealthy whites and poor blacks."

    2) As I argued in this post and as I suggested in another, KIPP's slogan -- "Work hard. Be nice." -- has some troubling implications for historically oppressed people.

    Imagine the poor African-American and Hispanic kids at KIPP wearing shirts that read, "Stand Up for Your Civil Rights" instead of the required slogan, "Work hard. Be nice."

    Imagine if the original colonists had worked hard and been nice. Imagine if Susan B. Anthony, Julia Howe, and Lucretia Mott had worked hard and been nice. Imagine if Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, or Cesar Chavez had worked hard and been nice.

    For more and more kids, especially kids in urban apartheid schools, working hard and being nice is all that is expected of them. Some might say it's all that's required.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a former KIPP student from one of the founding schools, I am appalled that you would say KIPP does not raise “democratically-engaged, independently-minded critical thinkers” when that is far from the truth. I challenge you to take one day and visit a KIPP school. It would open up your mind to how this program has changed the lives of both students and parents. KIPP Schools do not serve as “surrogate parents for their students” because KIPP is about a team and family. They take in the parents in as apart of the team to help their students rise to success. They work together, not separate. No public education does that.
    All the hours of working hard helped me to earn a full scholarship to a board school and then now, a scholarship to college. Though I spent many hours in school at KIPP, part of it was in extra curricular activities as well. I took art, was in the performance band, took karate, and even learned how to play the piano. I also learned about how to balance a checkbook, what hard work meant, what it meant to go to college, and how to get what you want in life, you must earn it. From this KIPP experience, I have also learned that education is the key to success.
    I never gained as much life experience if it was not for KIPP. I got to travel the country and visit colleges when I was only 13 years old. I got to climb the mountains of Yellowstone national park, and I got to see a Broadway pay in New York City. I even got the opportunity to look out onto to the world from the Sears Tower, as well as much much more. They opened my eyes to the kinds of opportunities that were out there for me to reach, and they have helped me, even to this day. They have given me a scholarship to help me with college, they are helping me with my resume, and they even helped me earn an internship for the summer.
    They don’t do these things for their “good” kids. They do these things for the kids who have earned it. Who have worked hard, and who show a commitment to strive for the best. A student of 11, 12, 13, 14 can learn these ideals. I am one of millions. If no one believed in KIPP, then why are there over 50 schools nationwide with more opening up? They are for everyone, all students of all races, no matter class status. They teach kids how to be the best they can be.
    I’ve seen KIPP schools change those students for which average public school labeled as “useless” or “unchangeable”. I’ve seen parents who were extremely skeptical change the way they think after having their kids go to KIPP for a week.
    Again, I challenge you, for a day. Experience what KIPP is all about by going to visit a KIPP school. It changed my life forever. Because of them, I am a better person.

    ReplyDelete
  4. kippster - as the famous New Yorker cartoon reminds us, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Maybe you went to a KIPP school. Maybe you didn't.

    Even if you did, and your comments are to be believed, why should your experience be the basis for what others believe about KIPP?

    Moreover, your comments do not address crucial aspects of my critique.

    As I argued in this post, KIPP can't scale. Right now, there are 45 KIPP schools with 400 teachers serving over 9,000 students in 15 states and the District of Columbia. 9,000 students out of the total population of 54,593,000 students in all of public K-12 schools means that KIPP serves 0.00016486% of the population. And yet, 0.00016486% of students makes us stand up and say, "This should work for the remaining 99.999835% of students!"

    The average KIPP teacher is in his/her early 20's, is single, and has no kids. They are clearly very dedicated young people who are not only willing to work longer hours and on Saturdays, but who are ABLE to work longer hours and on Saturdays. Teachers with families simply can't do this. They have to go home, fix dinner, do the dishes, walk the dog, and help with their kids' homework.

    Moreover, the "success" of KIPP is tarnished when you consider where the students come from. Interviews with KIPP teachers indicate that they refer mostly already high-achieving students to KIPP who come from intact families and whose parents are unusually involved in the school (Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining evidence on enrollment and achievement. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute and New York: Teachers College Press., p. 58).

    So again - a TOTALLY remarkable, unique, unreproducible model is held up as the hope for all.

    To achieve the tipping point, we have to trash the logic that underlies the "Poverty Is No Excuse" crap. Certainly some kids like you can pull themselves up out of the inner-city despite the tremendous odds. Certainly some great schools have formed and will continue to form in poor neighborhoods and attract motivated teachers, students, and parents to work together to improve the educational outcomes of poor kids. KIPP is a good example of this. But the dozens of examples of personal success like yours pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of personal failures. The 45 KIPP schools make up a tiny fraction of the thousands and thousands of schools where children are ground up and spat out. So why do so many poor kids fail? Why are so many poor children chewed up and spat out?

    We obviously need to craft both short and long-term stategies. TFA, KIPP, etc. are short-term strategies. But we have to get at the source of the problem if we are serious about leaving no child behind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason why KIPP schools exist is to give those families who live in poverty stricken homes the chance to give their kids the best education. I never said that poverty was an excuse. I do believe that it can hold people back – that is why KIPP tries to open up schools in the hardest areas. The hardest areas happen to be where many minorities live. But take for instance KIPP Summit Academy in San Lorenzo, CA with 16% Caucasian, 33% Asian or KIPP Lynn in Lynn, MA with 19% Caucasian. Though this is not a huge percentage of non-minority students, this shows that there are schools out there with diversity (KIPP: Report Card, 2005). Most students do not come from intact families.
    Many other average public schools like YES college Prep, Pacific Rim College Prep, Cole College Prep, New Orleans West College Prep, among others are staring to adopt KIPP principles of teaching their students, and now their schools are turning around for the better. So this model does and has helped average schools.
    KIPP is there to help those children who “are ground up and spat out”. This may seem to be a “short term” strategy, but they have the right idea of how to change education for the better. They are working to become a long term strategy for all kinds of all types of schools. At least they are doing their best to make a difference, and it works.

    ReplyDelete
  6. kippster - you argue, "(KIPP is) working to become a long term strategy for all kinds of all types of schools."

    If you read what I wrote, you'll see that this is not possible. In other words, KIPP can't be a long-term strategy. There are only so many energetic 20-somethings who are willing to work 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, 4 hours on Saturdays, and an extra month in the summer. This is a niche labor market. Because it is a niche, it -- by definition -- can only reach a certain size. A "solution" that is inherently limited in terms of growth and impact is no solution at all.

    Furthermore, KIPP is wildly celebrated in the mainstream media. There is very little critical analysis done. Each laudatory puff piece, each congratulatory high-five, and each paean to KIPP founders Levin and Feinberg takes the focus away from the root causes of the achievement gap and turns instead to feel-good stories such as this. At best, all KIPP can do is make an infinitesimally small dent in the gap. At worst, KIPP creates the illusion that "poverty is no excuse" and, therefore, undermines the efforts of those who are committed to social and economic justice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope one day you will "hear the bells".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just a little thought: Think about the great leaders and thinkers of the world and in history. Think about the great inventors. They were self-motivated. From my observations in spending time in many classrooms within a low achieving school district, most of the children have no motivation to learn. They are always bored and have no desire to learn more about a topic. This will sound cruel to say, but most teachers would agree that these children are mini- replicas of what's at home. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but the rule usually prevails. If we do inherit physical characteristics from our parents, then we also inherit personality characteristics. Humans usually become a product of their environment. There is no ideal solution to this problem. Public school districts just bandage up the problem until the wound seeps through and new bandages are placed. The bandages are the ideals that the public believes will bring salvation to their children. The children who want to make it will and those who don't won't.

    What do the politicians want? They want what corporate America wants, a mass of mindless individuals who will willingly accept the status quo. They want a labor force, robots, and people to give their life’s energy away without a thought. They want a nation who is in debt so they can have wage slavers to feed their ego driven lifestyles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:18 PM

    Liz Ditz here, from I Speak of Dreams.

    Relative to the comment that "Ultimately, it appears that approved behavior is the key to success at KIPP. I can think of no middle-class white school that makes this kind of bargain with its students except for military academies."

    "Back-to-basics" private, for profit schools are growing at a very fast clip, at least in the west. Two such chains are Challenger School Chain and the Stratford Schools Chain.

    And there are "back to basics" public schools in wealthy districts. I direct your attention to Faria School in the Cupertino School District. It is a "school of choice" meaning that any student in the CSD may attend...if the student wins the enrollment lottery. I believe that families enrolled in the lottery are about 4x capacity.

    "The mission of Faria A+School is to provide a traditional, structured, teacher directed, back to basics environment for student learning. The academic program strongly emphasizes the development of critical thinking and deep conceptual understanding of the basic core academic subjects of reading, language arts and mathematics including social studies and science. This program also emphasizes the development of social skills and character traits to enable children to be successful, responsible citizens in school and the community."

    Faria has scored at the top or near the top of API for the last several years.

    As to the issue of KIPP's weakness being that "it isn't scaleable". That is true. But are there non-KIPP schools that are changing achievement? Some...but many use similar methods. I direct your attention to Mathson Middle School

    Lee Mathson Middle School in East San Jose is proof that an ordinary public school can transform itself radically and rapidly. Its experience refutes the fatalistic notion that demographics -- poverty, ethnicity -- are destiny.

    Three years ago, Mathson hit rock bottom in Alum Rock. Test scores were abysmal; staff morale was terrible; parents were concerned enough about safety in school that the district shipped sixth-graders back to the feeder elementary schools, leaving Mathson with only two grades.

    Since then, Mathson has been a textbook case of change. With a 198-point rise in its Academic Performance Index, the state's primary test score, Mathson went from worst to first among the district's six neighborhood middle schools. (KIPP Heartwood, a charter middle school, and Renaissance Academy, a small school, actually had higher scores.)
    [snip]

    A combination of factors led to Mathson's progress: extensive use of data to place students and monitor their progress, a constant effort by teachers to perfect methods of instruction, an extended school day, and high expectations. Then there was the leadership of Glenn Vander Zee, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce's Principal of the Year and the driving force behind the changes.

    The first step was to counter the myth that low-income students of immigrant parents cannot or do not want to learn. One strategy was enforcing rules and discipline consistently; another was persuading teachers to collaborate and not to rationalize away poor results. That is not easy in schools filled with doubters. Dropping the sixth grade, with one-third of the faculty, made it easier to weed out teachers who didn't believe in the new ethic."

    Read the rest of the article. Or go to Schools Moving Up: Mathson one teacher's presentation on what worked.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:35 PM

    I recently spent the day at a KIPP school in an impoverished Chicago community. I witnessed a brutal, oppressive, and dehumanizing scene that I will not soon forget. I saw young, overworked, and poorly-skilled teachers who seemed much more interested in dolling out cruel and constant discipline than teaching children. I remember a little girl humiliated before her class for innocently forgetting to push in her chair. I watched another teacher brutally debase a disabled boy for slouching in his seat. Menacing hall-monitors enforced absolute silence in the hallways and no talking was permitted in the lunchroom. It felt much more like a prison than a school. Please go and see for yourself. The school seems to have a liberal visitation policy (i.e., they allow people to come observe). The more people that see what is going on the better. At the very least, it will contribute to this important discussion.

    ReplyDelete