Most KIPP supporters argue that KIPP caused the achievement. But I have some problems with this argument.
1) The extent to which any school -- or any single intervention, for that matter -- can "cause" higher achievement is debatable. If you could isolate and control for all other variables, you might be able to test this theory. But you can't, so you can't. At best, there might be a positive correlation between KIPP and higher achievement. But what, exactly, are the factors that are correlated with higher achievement? Better teachers? Enriched curriculum? Longer school day? Better prepared, more academically motivated students? Higher degree of parental involvement? For KIPP, all of these factors are at play.
Indeed, it's certainly possible that one major correlation is parental involvement. In fact, you could easily find strong evidence that parental involvement is much higher at KIPP than at other schools. It is, after all, a requirement for admission to a KIPP school.
As proof, here is the pledge that parents/guardians must sign before their children can be admitted to KIPP Tech Valley, a KIPP school in Albany, NY:
PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ COMMITMENT
- We will make sure our child arrives every day by 7:30 A.M. (Monday – Friday), or boards a bus at the scheduled time.
- We will make arrangements for our child to remain at KIPP until 5:00 P.M. (Monday – Thursday) and 3:00 P.M. on Friday
- We will make arrangements for our child to come to KIPP on appropriate Saturdays at 9:00 A.M. and remain until 1:05 P.M.
- We will ensure that our child attends KIPP summer school.
- We will always help our child in the best way we know how, and we will do whatever it takes for him/her to learn. This also means that we will check our child’s homework every night, let him call the teacher if there is a problem with homework, and try to read with him/her every night.
- We will always make ourselves available to support our child’s education at KIPP TECH VALLEY. This also means that if our child is going to miss school, we will notify the teacher as soon as possible, and we will read carefully all the papers that the school sends home to us.
- We will allow our children to go on KIPP field trips.
- We will make sure our child follows the KIPP dress code.
- We understand that our child must follow the KIPP rules in order to protect the safety, interests, and rights of all individuals in the classroom. We, not the school, are responsible for the behavior and actions of our child.
- We will always protect the safety, interests and rights of all individuals in the classroom.
- Failure to adhere to these commitments can cause my child to lose various KIPP privileges.
So it's possible that KIPP is merely a way to get parents more involved and -- once they are more involved -- students' academic achievement is positively affected. I'm not saying this is "the" reason that "causes" higher achievement. But I would argue that it has a very strong influence. So, my question is, "How many schools can replicate this degree of parental involvement?" Indeed, how many schools can demand it as a prerequisite for enrollment in the same way that KIPP does?
2) As for "leap in achievement," the obvious problem with averaging anything is that the average often does not depict the typical outcome. If there is one outcome that is very far from the rest of the data, then the average will be strongly affected by this outcome. In short, some really high achievers will make the others look pretty good, even if these others are not doing so well. To my knowledge, no one has done a statistical analysis of these data to determine the variance and standard deviation. The variance and standard deviation describe how spread out the data are. If the data all lie close to the average, then the standard deviation will be small, while if the data are spread out over a large range of values, it will be large. Having outliers -- very high achievers that make the KIPP scores seem better than they really are -- will increase the standard deviation. If the standard deviation is small, then the claim about "leap in achievement" would be quite substantive. But if the standard deviation is large, then the claim about "leap in achievement" would be pretty sketchy. In fact, it would be distorted and misleading.
3) KIPP claims that it has a broad-based curriculum and does not shirk on subjects that are not tested under NCLB, e.g., social studies. According to the SRI report on Bay Area KIPP schools, "Students have 90 minutes of (English Language Arts) and math every day. They also have 90 minutes of social studies and science on alternating days." (p. 33) The report does not indicate what is actually taught in the social studies and science blocks, nor how it is taught. However, there is no evidence that KIPP students receive a "broad-based education" other than the fact that science and social studies are taught for 90 minutes every other day. Because students are not tested in these subjects, we have no way of knowing if they are learning anything. More troubling, we have no way of knowing if the instruction they receive is substantive or superficial.
3 comments:
Peter, you understand the technicalities of research much better than I do, but I have to be impressed by the numbers here. But if they can require parents and students to do the things they promise to do in the agreements that they sign, why should anyone be surprised? I'm wondering, however, what the consequences are when parents or students don't keep their agreements. What is meant by, "they will lose some KIPP privileges"? Can they be dismissed from the school? I apologize if I sound ignorant, but I've been living in small towns in northern Minnesota all of my adult life, so I know nothing about KIPP Schools other than what I just read on the Internet after checking your post.
Dennis - good question. No, no one should be surprised by the results that are attained by parents signing what amounts to a contract to provide high degrees of support to their children. But here's the thing: it's not the contract that makes the difference. It's not even the parent that is willing to sign such a contract. The key marker here is the parent who is able to provide this kind of support.
So the question is, "What kinds of parents are able to provide this level of support?" Now we come to the moral/ethical dilemma. Many people would argue that all parents, regardless of the material conditions of their lives, should be able to provide this kind of support. And if they choose not to provide this support, the argument goes, this is due to the fact that these are bad parents. The other side is to consider the material conditions and contexts of parents' lives and to consider what the range of choices actually is. Some parents are able to make some kinds of choices, the argument goes, while other parents are not. I accept the grounds of this latter argument and reject the former because moralizing about and judging what parents should do is always subject to what parents are able to do, not in terms of "innate" ability or talent, but in terms of how their realities are shaped by the conditions in which they work, live, eat, sleep, and parent. Please note: this is not an excuse for bad parenting. There are lots of great parents who live in horrid conditions of squalor. There are also lots of bad parents who live in opulent conditions and want for absolutely nothing. However, a disproportionate percentage of children who are failing in schools come from poor families living in squalor.
So is it possible for all people who live in squalor to make these kinds of commitments? Those who answer "yes" argue that no matter what kinds of material and economic constraints parents operate under, they should sacrifice everything for the well-being of their children.
While this sounds great, consider this: how many affluent parents have to sacrifice their lives for the well-being of their children?
For two-parent affluent couples, it's typical these days for one of the parents -- usually the mother -- to be a "stay-at-home mom." A "stay-at-home mom" works full-time, taking care of the child/children while the "go-to-work dad" commutes to work for 8 to 10 hours a day, generating enough income single-handedly for the mother to be able to stay at home. With less affluent parents, both the mother and the father have no choice but to go to work to be able to afford to raise a family. But in both cases, if the affluent or highly affluent parents are too busy or simply want a break from the kids for a while, they send their kids to daycare, to camp, to piano lessons, or to a private tutor.
But with low-income parents, a typical situation in the inner-city involves a single mother raising a child or children on her own. She must work as much as possible to make enough money to pay her bills, her groceries, etc. Often this involves working more than one job. Often this involves working very long hours. If she is too busy or simply wants a break from the kids for a while, she cannot send her kids to daycare, to camp, to piano lessons, or to a private tutor. Why not? Because she cannot afford to do so.
So, what kinds of choices are made possible for all these parents? How do their realities differ? Clearly, the "stay-at-home mom" has more choices than the single mother living in the inner-city. The choices she makes are not because she is morally or ethically superior to the single mom in the innner-city. The choices she makes are there for her to choose. For the single mother, the choices are simply not there.
In the case of KIPP, there are some parents who live in squalor who, despite these conditions, are able to sign these support agreements and abide by them. While this is clearly possible for them, the question is, "Is it possible for all people who live in squalor to make these kinds of commitments?" The answer is clearly "No." Again, not because these are bad parents who choose not to support their children. Rather, these are parents who are not able to support their children because they are too busy working to pay for food and rent.
Here's my point: we simply cannot look at KIPP as a model for the country. It will always be a very limited solution for a very limited number of people. Unfortunately, KIPP enthusiasts fail to appreciate this point and over-sell it. In so doing, they raise false hopes and focus attention away from the real issues. This may or may not be intentional.
As for your question about losing privileges, I don't know what the policy is. I suspect that it differs with each KIPP school. I just called one of the KIPP schools and will find out.
Dennis - one other point:
Don't be impressed by the numbers until you know two things:
1) are the kids in 8th grade the same kids that began in 4th grade? If these were the same kids, then the numbers might indeed be impressive. But how many of the 4th graders dropped out after being at KIPP for a year or two? It's entirely possible that a large number of the original 4th graders dropped out, leaving only the higher-performing students, resulting in fewer 8th graders. Also, how many of these 8th graders came from outside KIPP schools? According to published research on this issue, KIPP teachers tend to recruit already high-performing students with highly-motivated parents to come to KIPP. If this is true, then the achievement gains would be distorted and misleading.
2) what is the standard deviation on achievement gains? As I said in my original post, the scores are averaged. If you average the numbers together, it conceals the low achievers if there are a number of high achievers. For example, let's say there were 5 students taking a test. The scores (out of 100 possible points) were as follows: 45, 47, 52, 98, 99. The average of these five scores is 68.2 So you could truthfully and accurately say, "Student scores were near the 70th percentile." But how many students scored a 70? None. If you look at the scores, 3 out of the 5 did really badly. But 2 of the 5 did really, really well. The result? It looks like great things are happening when, in fact, they are not.
It might be possible that (1) the same group of 4th graders made these incredible test score gains and (2) there were a large percentage of students who scored highly. But it's also possible that this is not the case. Bottom line: we simply don't know. And, because we do not know, we cannot say, "Wow! Look at these great scores! Here's proof that KIPP is working!" Until we know all the facts and can examine all the evidence, we actually know nothing at all.
Post a Comment