KIPP gets grant to expand. Is this the solution?
by Eric Braxton on Jun 04 2009
Last week it was announced that KIPP Philadelphia was awarded a $4.6 million grant to expand. The grant will help KIPP meet its goal of operating ten schools in Philadelphia. I visited KIPP a few weeks ago and I was impressed with a lot of what I saw. Nonetheless, I am concerned that just adding more KIPPs is not the answer to improving education in our city.
At what point do we start to take what is working in charter schools and other places and apply it to our public schools? I thought that was the point.
I saw a lot of things I liked during my brief visit to KIPP. Students clearly knew that their teachers cared about them. Students seemed engaged in learning. Teachers were not using a scripted curriculum. When I asked why I was told that they hire the best teachers and then they let them practice their craft.
I have some questions about how broadly replicable the KIPP model is. Teachers work from 7:30 to 5:00 and then they are on call for homework help until 9. I’m not sure how many teachers would sign up for this or how many would do it for the length of their career. I wonder what their teacher turnover rate is. I never got the chance to ask.
Another issue is that before students are accepted to KIPP, staff members sit down with the parents and the student and everyone signs a contract agreeing to do their part to the support the student. This is great in terms of ensuring strong parental involvement, but what does it mean for the many students who come from families that are not stable enough to sign such a contract?
KIPP is clearly doing many things right, and I support the idea of creating charter schools to show us what is possible, but the idea of creating more and more of them is concerning.
Will we just create more and more charter schools until we have no public schools system? My concern is that if that were to happen there would be little to ensure equity across the city or to protect special education students, English language learners, or others students that charters don’t want.
These large charter managers get a lot of support from right wing organizations that would like to destroy anything public. They would like to throw health care, education, and social security into the free market. The results could be disastrous for our most vulnerable citizens.
I think it is important to create a public school system that really works and is accountable to the public. If bureaucracy is in the way of that, then we need to change the rules.
Comments (15)
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 17:26.
Teacher turnover and burnout do seem to be major problems at KIPP schools although I couldn't find hard data. It was a major factor in a recent union organizing campaign in Brooklyn and is cited in a range of articles and reports including some that are positively celebratory about the KIPP model. Here are some links:
http://edjustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/kipp-charter-school-teachers-organ...
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0416mw.html
http://www.hewlett.org/news/closing-the-education-gap
http://epicpolicy.org/newsletter/2008/11/%E2%80%9Crealistic-expectations...
Submitted by Erika Owens on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 17:33.
Looks like there was a HELP hearing on this very topic yesterday, "The real takeaway was not replication, but responsibility..."
I am not interested in fostering "competition," but the idea of charters as incubators for innovation does make a lot of sense to me. I mentioned this a bit in an in case you missed it a couple weeks ago in regard to Green Dot. If charters have good ideas, let's use them! If they're giving students new options like say, a dual language program or focus on the arts, let's build that into regular public schools.
I don't quite understand why there isn't an emphasis on that part of charter schools. I would guess part of the problem is with sustainability and teacher burn out and replicability and heavy requirements on parental involvement.
Also, this is a more general aside, but as much as I bristled at the idea of "freedom" in terms of having more choices actually being limiting, as a philosophical idea, in reality, it really is! It can be completely paralyzing to make decisions when you have so many options and not enough information to effectively evaluate the options. Throw in the fact that the school you go to can impact the rest of your life and...wow.
Helping people deal with the explosion in options is also something we need to consistently draw attention to--from the application processes for high school and charters to even finding out where to get info about the schools. My school district had one high school and strict primary school boundaries. At least once my mom decided to move us there I couldn't make any wrong choices about what school to go to! (till college anyway, ha.)
Submitted by Sonia (not verified) on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 01:04.
What frustrates me most about charter schools is that, while some of them are employing interesting instructional strategies and organizational models, almost none of these ideas are actually new. That is, there's been a lot of good thinking over the past few decades about ways to serve the needs of marginalized student populations, so it's not exactly fair to attribute this kind of innovation to the charter school movement.
Why, then, should we privatize public education in order to start implementing these innovative ideas? Sadly, in the current context (and it looks like this movement will continue indefinitely under Obama), the push for more charter schools allows for private sector institutions to be deregulated and destandardized and simultaneously emphasizes standardization and over-regulation of public schools, eclipsing the possibility for significant innovation in the public sector.
Even worse, as private institutions that claim to offer underserved communities "choice," charter schools are not directly accountable to the students, parents, and communities they are meant to serve. Instead, they are held accountable to the districts that fund them, but only based on very limited quantitative performance measures rather than the day-to-day experiences of individuals in their communities.
And don't get me started on the way charter schools deny teachers and staff their collective bargaining rights! I taught in a charter school, and the pay scale was not at all equitable. This system in which individual employees had to negotiate their own salaries consistently resulted in lower pay for women and people of color.
Thanks, Eric, for your contribution to this discussion!
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 08:55.
Your comments are right on target. It would be good to hear more about your experiences teaching in a charter school. What do you think the prospects for unionization are at these schools?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 13:36.
Ron...are unions that great?
They have done wonders for our Philly S.D.
Why have a union...when it rubbers stamps everything its masters in the district tell them to rubber stamp...?
Unions also have destroyed our auto-industry...so I am not so keen on them...
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 15:27.
Before Philadelphia teachers unionized class size was 40 students to a class, salaries and benefits were terrible and principals ruled as autocrats with no checks on their power. Without unions teachers are largely powerless. If there are policies you don't like, then get involved and work to change them. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 19:57.
Yes, the pay is real good in Philly...and the principals are rabbits, now...with little power...
In fact, you know who has power in the neighborhood schools: the students...
The students run these schools...and quite well...
Get involved? I would urge the Commonwealth take over the schools...(although, they already have done so)...but I would urge the Commonwealth take over the schools...and run them like the successful suburban public schools are run...or like the Catholic schools are run...
Discipline...
You laud the union...Ron...the union is a partner of the district...they work hand in glove...
The union is about as effective as a wet noodle...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 20:09.
I am curious about the School of the Future...I was told it is an excellent school...
How is the graduation rate?
Is it a safe school?
Does anyone know?
Submitted by EnoughIsEnuff!!! (not verified) on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 20:08.
There was a thread on the Philly Blog site, the education section, about the School of the Future this past winter. It is DEFINATELY NOT SAFE, the kids run rampant according to the posts there. Use the search engine on the site and you should be able to find the thread.
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 21:50.
enuff...someone either here or in the Inquirer said the School of the Future is an excellent school that Bill Gates' funded...
I heard it was on the most persistently dangerous list of schools in the Philly School District...
Submitted by EnoughIsEnuff!!! (not verified) on Sat, 06/13/2009 - 11:30.
Gates did Fund the School of the Future, but that has nothing to do with the way its run or, in this case, run down. The kids are running it because backbone is something you cannot fund. You either got it or you don't.
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 06/13/2009 - 18:16.
That sounds like a song from Guy and Dolls...
You mean Bill Gates funded the School of the Future...which, by the way, was built on Fairmount Park ground...and the school has become the School of Failure...?
No-one complains...the tax-payer blithely accepts this?
Outrageous...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 09:08.
My thought on charter schools is...why do we need charter schools when the Philly neighborhood schools are doing such an excellent job...?
A 50 percent graduation rate...empowered students...teachers who are docile...
I say...get rid of the charter schools...because the Philly schools are fine...doing a cracker-job job...I know...because Ackerman and Company...tell us...
Submitted by Angela Chan on Wed, 07/22/2009 - 17:04.
Has anyone read Paul Tough’s Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America?
I’ve been really intrigued by the Harlem Children’s Zone (www.hcz.org) and their Promise Academy Charter Schools (www.hczpromiseacademy.org). Please read Notebook book review to find out more : http://www.thenotebook.org/winter-2008/08310/harlem-families-are-getting...)
Unlike most charter schools, Promise Academy students all come from the same neighborhood. The Harlem Children’s Zone is truly seeking to change the odds, not only for the children, but also to transform their communities as a part of the process. They want to reach large numbers of kids with Geoffrey Canada’s conveyor belt model, a sequence of unbroken programs and schools in Central Harlem that, ideally, would follow a child from birth (by working with their parents) through college.
As a teacher, I find that his model really makes sense. At HCZ, parents participate in programs that support them in childrearing, so Promise Academy children enter kindergarten ready to learn. The curriculum in school, therefore, is more meaningful and respects and celebrates the best in children, rather than unreasonably focusing so much on testing. Moreover, whereas I let my third graders go at the end of the year with no sure guarantees that they will be fully supported along the way, HCZ runs programs through college, so kids do not fall through the cracks. The model is designed to be seamless.
When I learn about wonderful programs like this, I want our public schools to aspire to be a system that works just as well. It can feel overwhelming when our system is so huge with so many complex issues. But Eric writes in his post, “If bureaucracy is in the way…then we need to change the rules”. Sometimes I feel that this is a naïve and unrealistic goal. Other times I believe that it isn’t a choice – we simply must do everything it takes, because it’s the lives of our children at stake here.
I made a visit to Promise Academy a few weeks ago, and it confirmed the quality of the program described in the book. So I have put in a recommendation to make Whatever It Takes the book for One Book-One Philadelphia for next year. I think this will raise public awareness on what inner city children and our public schools need. If you would like to make the same recommendation, you can email Gerri Trooskin, Free Library Communication and Development: Troosking@freelibrary.org
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 05:41.
I'm leery of the Harlem Children's Zone. Canada has a reputation for being very dictatorial and has been able to provide a relatively small number of students with enormous support because of private funding. It is also another model where not all children are welcome if they don't abide by all of the rules.
This is from a NY Times article (2010):
....in spite of private donations that keep class sizes small, allow for an extended school day and an 11-month school year, and offer students incentives for good performance like trips to the Galápagos Islands or Disney World.
The parent organization of the schools, the Harlem Children’s Zone, enjoys substantial largess, much of it from Wall Street. While its cradle-to-college approach, which seeks to break the cycle of poverty for all 10,000 children in a 97-block zone of Harlem, may be breathtaking in scope, the jury is still out on its overall impact. And the cost of its charter schools — around $16,000 per student in the classroom each year, as well as thousands of dollars in out-of-class spending — has raised questions about their utility as a nationwide model. "(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pagewanted=1&_...)
Here's a study from the Brookings Institute (yes, a middle of the road institution):
The Brookings team writes:
Our issue is not with the HCZ as a philanthropically supported endeavor to improve the lives of children in Harlem, but with the use of the HCZ as evidence that investments in wraparound support services and neighborhood improvements are a cost effective approach to increasing academic achievement. In an era of stress on public budgets, we think there should be good evidence that an expensive new approach works before it is scaled up and widely implemented with taxpayer funds. Our findings and our view are that the HCZ does not provide that evidence. Our quarrel is not with the HCZ but with the evidence for the Obama administration’s request to Congress for $210 million to replicate the HCZ in 20 communities across the nation. (http://www.good.is/post/brookings-responds-to-canada-s-jabs-at-harlem-ch...)
Post new comment