Work Hard. Get Evidence.

Every so often I come across something that captures almost exactly what I think, but it explains it so much better than I would have been able to do. I hate it when that happens. So you can imagine my dismay to read Sarah Mosle's Slate article from Monday called "The Educational Experiment We Really Need." It's like she was reading my mind and translating into clear, persuasive prose.

The gist of the article is that the KIPP model of education reform is extremely powerful and may even be the best chance for affecting a widespread reform of the education system. However, it's premature to say that it would work for all (or event most) kids on a system-wide basis. So far the samples from within each district are too small and too self-selecting. So it provides promise, but we can't start saying yet that it is the answer that we've all been seeking.

I feel like I should be handing out this article on street corners or something.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mosle is absolutely right. The research shows that comparing KIPP schools to traditional public schools is not comparing apples to apples in terms of student achievement going into the schools, parental willingness to be involved, and even parental affluence. On all of these measures, KIPPsters start at an advantage that makes it harder to gauge how effective the school is at teaching as opposed to selecting students likely to learn.

And that's to say nothing of the fanatical band of teachers (god bless them all) who form a staff that it's probably not realistic to say could be replicated at every urban school across the country.

Like other charter schools, KIPP has yet to show that it can operate an entire system rather than simply in pockets. And until KIPP (or any other program) shows that it can operate the entire system better than what we're seeing now, it's premature to say that the answer has been found.

KIPP Union

As broken by Gotham Schools and later reported by the Times, it looks like two of the KIPP schools in New York are going to be unionizing and entering into collective bargaining. This is pretty big and I think that the Times headline kind of captures why: "Teachers at 2 Charter Schools Plan to Join Union, Despite Notion of Incompatibility."

That headline sums up a lot of the comments I've been reading about this since the story broke. Namely that the presence of a unionized workforce at these schools is going to destroy any chance for success that they have because the whole beauty of charter schools is that they aren't unionized.

Now, I've written before that I'm not sure if KIPP schools are the unalloyed good that they are often portrayed to be in the press. Let's set that aside for today. For today at least, let's pretend that there is no debate and that KIPP schools are all model schools that should be replicated across the country. (I do believe that KIPP schools serve their populations quite well. I just don't think it's a model for success everywhere.) If we assume this, the unionization of the KIPP schools is a major gamble for the UFT.

There are three potential outcomes after the teachers at these schools begin collectively bargaining. Either the school achievement stays the same, it gets better, or it gets worse. Despite predictions to the contrary, we don't really know which of those outcomes is most likely yet. But within a year or so, we should be starting to get a look. If results stay about the same or if the school improves, it's a major victory for the union. It would show that high achievement in schools is not incompatible with having a unionized teaching force. All those people who blast the "teachers union lobbyists" and "status quo defenders who are ruining education" would have to think twice (not that they would).

If, however, achievement at the school declines, it will be like throwing jet fuel onto the fires of those who want to abolish unions. There would be a widespread presumption of guilt for the union that it was the cause for ruining the utopian schooling system of KIPP. And that would present a very bleak situation for the unions.

I don't think it's obvious in any way right now which way the chips are going to fall on this. But in a little over a year when the test results start coming out for the unionized KIPP schools you can bet that things are going to get heated.

More on KIPP

I posted last week some of my thoughts on KIPP schools essentially comparing them to a shock and awe military strategy. My general point is that while KIPP schools get immediate resuls, I have doubts as to whether or these schools actually do present the best hope for reforming urban education. This sentiment drew several comments in response, so I wanted to return to the topic for at least one more posting.

First, I should say that I am in no way detracting from the gains or achievements of the students for whom the KIPP schools are successful. There is definitely a kind of child for whom this model of education is very effective. Nothing I wrote last week or will write today is designed to take away from that fact.

However, with that being said, I still have serious doubts about the general wisdom of KIPP schools as a model for urban education.

While I have not visited a KIPP school myself, I have spoken with KIPP employees and school leaders, including KIPP co-founder Dave Levine. From those conversations it's clear that the system employed by KIPP is very similar to that used by the military. That is to say, drilling, no excuses. Levine said, "We try to look at what the military does well." In Ravitch's phrasing that's "rote behavior and rote learning."

This is the point that bothers me. Through education we are trying to prepare students for a world where rote behaviors are not the ideal or the norm. I understand the need to equip students with the tools to move beyond their present station, but one of those tools needs to be the ability to move beyond basic training. I don't see where that falls in the KIPP model.

The other thing that bothers me about those who rush to point to KIPP as the model for urban education reform is that I don't think the model is replicable on the large scale needed to truly reform the system. Expecting to find a huge cohort of exceptional teachers just isn't possible. Not every teacher can be exceptional. Certainly there is more that can be done to recruit, train, and support high quality teachers. But we cannot base a system of educational reform around finding heroic teachers willing/able to work incredible hours and skilled at motivating children. We need systemic supports in place so those who lack the superb talents of the exceptional teachers can still be useful in the system.

Further, the KIPP model has several anomalies regarding student sustainability, as Paul Tough writes here. He cites statistics that students at the KIPP school in the Bronx came in already near the top of their peer group (the oft maligned charter school skimming the cream criticism). He also found that the KIPP school in San Fransisco suffered a 60% attrition rate between fifth and eighth grade. Tough concludes: KIPP schools are "accomplishing an important but somewhat limited mission: providing an excellent education to that group of low-performing, low-income students who are able to keep up with the schools' intense demands."

This is not a model for widespread educational reform.

Shock and Awe Education

In a recent post on her blog, Diane Ravtich poses the question of whether conventional wisdom is now saying that KIPP-style schools are the solutions to the problems of educating kids in poor urban settings. In particular, is the "regimen of test-prep, test-prep, test-prep, no-nonsense discipline. Drill, drill, drill" really what gets results in these high needs schools?

Paul Tough in his blog write sort of a response that I don't think quite gets to the heart of what Ravitch was saying. Perhaps that's because the answer to Ravitch's questions is so obviously yes.

Look around at the discourse on education and listen to what the people are talking about. When both presidential candidates and school leaders across the country are talking about one school model, you can bet that the conventional wisdom is firmly established. Certainly in the popular mind it is.

Tough, though, pivots the question a little bit. Rather than ask if this is what everyone seems to be believing, he focuses on whether or not it's the right thing to believe. Ultimately, this is a more useful question. As he writes:

I think students from low-income families in blighted neighborhoods who enter middle school way behind grade level need something more than just extended hours and expert teaching (though they need that, too). They also need adults around them who believe in them and care about them and who can guide them toward the behaviors and the mental habits that will help them succeed in school and in life.

Hard to argue that point. There's no question that in these underserved areas, the system we have in place simply isn't working. That's not entirely the fault of the schools (remember there are issues about family life, access to health care, nutrition, etc. that also come into play), but the schools strike me as the best way to reverse the situation. Educating children is providing them with the best chance to escape their circumstances and live a better life.

So, then are these schools the best? Is this the best possible model that we can use in order to give kids the tools that they need to succeed in life?

I can't help but think that the answer is no. While KIPP schools certainly have had success at boosting test scores, I firmly believe that there is more to education than the rote knowledge that enables passing scores on tests. The unanswered question in all this is whether or not the children from KIPP schools continue to succeed in education and in life when the chanting, no-nonsense discipline, and drilling end.

KIPP is the equivalent of educational shock and awe. No question it breaks the kids out of the mindset and educational culture that they knew. That's an unqualified asset to the system. But once they've broken out, what replaces it? Where do they go from there?

Like shock and awe, the initial result can be spectacular. But once the flash and bang have faded, do the kids really have the skills to take control of their lives and create the best possible lives for themselves? I'm not sure that a test-prep, firm discpline, drill-heavy regime is really the best way to go about do that.