Do Any Schools Beat The Odds?

It's quite late, and I really should be stepping away from the computer, but I wanted to point to a post by Harry at Crooked Timber. Harry discusses the depressing conclusions of Richard Rothstein's book.

Rothstein examines urban schools that have received a lot of press for their amazing results with at-risk kids. He questions whether these schools are really beating the odds. These schools have children who are more motivated than their peers and have more committed parents. The schools are led by charismatic leaders. In addition, their test results haven't improved in a systematic way. 

Scaling up innovation in education is a long standing problem. Separating educational success from SES has been darn near impossible. Sure, it's highly unlikely that the KIPP model can be fully replicated by the public school system - Rothstein's conclusions aren't that earth-shattering -- but I think the KIPP model and other recent success stories shouldn't be entirely dismissed.

These urban charter school do help a small group of motivated students. But that's a good thing, right? We may not be able to help out thousands at this minute, but let's help a few hundred. 

There are some characteristics of these schools that can't be replicated. The public school system can't chuck out every problem child. They have to educate kids with special needs. Charismatic leaders don't grow on trees. That's true. But are there other practices that can be scaled up? A longer school year, for example. 

Luckily, we have more to work with than merely the KIPP schools. The Obama administration is putting in place new reforms. The urban teachers' unions can no longer call the shots. NCLB may be cursed by suburban parents, but the teacher certification requirements and tougher standards may have helped a lot of city kids. We need layers upon layers of education reform. We also need to improve the economic health of the cities.

Comments

[Wendy]

I would definitely support a longer school year. I'm also still peeved that the average length of a school day is 6.5 hours, and my kids go to school for 6 hours. What is up with that? And as you all know, I support switching things up so that the K-5 kids go to school at 8 and the HS students go to school at 9.

[Lisa V]

Can Kipp really decide who to take and not take kids with special needs? Charter law in our state prohibits that. We have a public lottery, you get in no matter what. We have problem kids in terms of behavior (their parents are desperate and think we are miracle workers) and we have a high special ed population (over 20%).

But you are right that the majority of our students (like 70%) come from motivated parents who seek out educational options for their children. However, those kids get to us and are just as diverse academically as most schools in our area.

So much of this comes down to community. I think charter schools that focus on a specific curriculum more easily form community in parents, students and staff.

[stranger]

"Special Ed" means different things in different towns. Even affluent, neighboring, towns differ on the definition of Sped.

I support mechanisms to create school communities, that is, schools whose families choose that school over others. The "good school districts" get that by default, as middle class families weigh perceived school value when deciding where to settle.

I would not support a longer school year by default. The current school year is quite long enough. Certain inspired administrators and teaching teams may be able to put the time to good use, but most administrations are not inspired.

There's also the problem of HOW TO PAY FOR IT. I would be happy to see our local schools able to maintain something like the current level of staffing and services. Longer hours with larger class sizes is a recipe for disaster.

[harry b]

KIPP schools take kids by lottery. But by requiring that parents sign a demanding contract with the school they select out the most difficlt-to-teach kids. Children with really serious special needs are almost all in the regular public schools, which is where their parents want them to be.

I agree with Laura about KIPP schools, and people should be fair to Rothstein -- he does not say that he opposes or dismisses KIPP schools, and in the text he sometimes hints that he rather approves of them (I should emphasize that I haven't asked him whether he does approve, and he may not, but there are definite hints in the book, which makes it odd that he has been so relentlessly attacked as a critic).