Does KIPP Push Students Out? Too Soon to Tell in New York

The data from NY apparently contradict what you see in CA. Maybe NY KIPP schools don't have the attrition problem that most CA KIPP schools do? In the end, there simply aren't enough data to come to a conclusion about NY and KIPP, i.e., it's too soon to tell.

There are enrollment data for 3 of the 6 KIPP schools in New York. According to these data, there is no large-scale attrition of the kind we see in California.

But we don't know if these are the same students from year to year. It's possible that a number of students left and were replaced by others, masking the fact that there was an exodus from the school. Such an exodus might be the result of students moving, students being "counseled out," students choosing to leave, or students being expelled. This is complicated by the fact that drop-outs, or at least transients, are a common phenomenon in low-income schools, even good ones. So attrition numbers would not be surprising if they were associated with your average public school. But KIPP is not your average public school. Many supporters of KIPP see it as the answer to the problems that vex inner-city schools. But from what we can tell from the California enrollment data, even KIPP cannot solve the drop-out/transient problem. And from what we can tell from the NY data, KIPP may simply be better at filling the spots left by students who leave. This would be consistent with what we know about KIPP and its "creaming" and recruiting practices.

KIPP enrollments, New York State (2004-2005 span is the most recent data)

KIPP Sankofa Charter School, Buffalo (opened in 2003)
5th grade (2003-2004) - 84
6th grade (2004-2005) - 85
0% decrease in enrollment in one year

KIPP TECH VALLEY, Albany (opened in 2005, so no data available)

KIPP Success Through Teamwork, Achievement and Responsibility College Preparatory Charter School (KIPP S.T.A.R.), Manhattan (opened in 2003)
5th grade (2003-2004) - 87
6th grade (2004-2005) - 84
.03% decrease in enrollment in one year

KIPP Always Mentally Prepared Charter School, Brooklyn (opened in 2005, so no data available)

KIPP Infinity Charter School, Manhattan (opened in 2005, so no data available)

KIPP Academy, Bronx (opened in 1995)
5th grade (2002-2003) - 69
6th grade (2003-2004) - 65
7th grade (2004-2005) - 63
.08% decrease in enrollment over three years

Oh, You Poor Dear

Gloria Ladson-Billings, in a recent presentation to the North Dakota Study Group, cited several myths that go along with teaching low-income minority children. One of these myths she labeled "Oh, you poor dear." Here's how it goes:

A low-income minority student doesn't want to do something the teacher asks her to do. "Oh, you poor dear," says the teacher. "Maybe you'll feel like doing it tomorrow."

Ladson-Billings points out that this response, ostensibly a caring, empathetic gesture on the part of the teacher, serves only to create a self-fulfilling prophecy for the student. She argued that an affluent white student in the same position would be challenged by her teacher and encouraged -- maybe even pushed -- to do as she was told.

Or maybe not.

I'm a middle-class white male. I know that with my middle-class, white 4-year-old daughter, I allow space in my parenting. I don't make her do everything I want her to do because I believe it's important to allow her voice to develop.

In some democratic, progressive classrooms, students are often allowed to develop their voices, too. In such an environment, saying "Maybe you'll feel like doing it tomorrow" is not such a bad thing. In fact, saying "Maybe you'll feel like doing it tomorrow" is quite a radical thing to say, especially compared to classrooms where students are thoroughly disempowered and silenced into passive submission.

So when does "Maybe you'll feel like doing it tomorrow" make sense? And when does it serve, as Ladson-Billings noted, as a way to reproduce the status quo? Does it suggest that "tough love" or "cruel to be kind" pedagogy is effective, maybe even necessary, with low-income minority students? I hope not. But it may help to contextualize why such pedagogical approaches seem to be so popular these days, from Edison to KIPP and their ilk, and why so many "liberals" endorse such approaches.

The implicit message seems to be, "We have to push these kids." And while there might be truth in this, I worry what pushing them looks like --- and what happens when a push becomes a shove. Of course, a good teacher would be able to tell the difference between the two. But if the teacher's judgment is taken away and replaced with the kind of institutionalized forms of "pushing" we see at KIPP and Edison, perhaps we see a different kind of reproduction of the status quo, one that punishes "miscreants," rewards the compliant, and encourages those that do not make it to blame themselves for their shortcomings.

Does Segregation Matter?

As I said in this post, A Vision Statement, we need to spend more time together with people who are not like we are. We need to combat the paralyzing, dangerous stereotypes that the media passes out like candy at an Easter parade. How do we do this? As I said, there are very few -- if any -- non-commercial spaces where people can do this, except one: public schools.

Public schools today are largely segregated on the basis of the socioeconomic context of their surroundings. So, inner-city schools are made up largely of low-income minority students and rural and suburban schools are made up of white students. But rural and suburban schools often have large populations of low-income children, the majority of whom are white. And rural and suburban schools are undergoing rapid change, as new waves of immigrants flood into the country and move into the zone between the suburban and rural areas (often referred to as "the exurbs" or "exurbia"). For the first time, these school districts are faced with the challenge of educating children who do not speak English as their first language and who do not share the same cultural associations as their native-speaking peers.

So we have two things going at the same time:

1. rural, suburban, and exurban schools are becoming increasingly diversified
2. inner-city schools are becoming increasingly segregated

For the rural, suburban, and exurban schools, there is no choice about dealing with difference and diversity. The growing difference and diversity in their schools is right there in front of them.

And for the inner-city schools, there seems to be no choice either about dealing with the lack of difference and diversity. The growing homogenization in their schools is right there in front of them.

So is that a problem? In other words, is there something inherently wrong with low-income minority children, i.e., blacks and Latinos, going to school with other low-income minority children and never going to school with any other child from any other socioeconomic strand?

Yes, there is.

It's wrong because these children never get a chance to interact with anyone outside their socioeconomic realm. They have no knowledge of white people outside what they see on TV.

Many people in public school reform reject this isolation. They say there's nothing that any of us can do about it, that we can't just make these neighborhoods into something they aren't, and that we can't force white students to go to school there. They cite the experiments with desegregation programs and mandatory busing programs that moved white and black kids all over the place and conclude, "We tried that and it didn't work. So now we have to make the best of it."

In short, life has given these children lemons. The best we can do is make lemonade.

Schools like KIPP and Edison have a nifty way of justifying the fact that they make segregated schools work and continue to support their existence. They say, "Our schools serve the population of students who live in the area." Nice. Clean. No edges. It's not their problem. They simply serve the children who are there.

But why are these children there? And what are the odds that they will make it out of there? Why are their parents there? And why were their parents and their parents' parents there?

"Saving" a few kids does not make the pernicious cycle of poverty and misery go away. It simply sugar-coats it. It makes it more palatable to once guilt-ridden policy-makers who can now blame all those inner-city children for not pulling themselves out of the ghetto through their own efforts. These policy-makers and educational reformers now have license to abandon efforts to eradicate systemic poverty and inequality and proclaim instead, "If they can do it, why can't you?!?!"

Segregation matters because it serves to remind us that we have a long, long way to go on the path to social justice. Any effort that takes our focus off this problem leads us off the path. We must not be distracted.

The ABC's of Global Competition

A

DaimlerChrysler's long-term commitment to China - a key part of the Company's Asia strategy - is evident in its extensive history in China as well as its future plans. The Company started its business in China in the 1930's by setting up offices and sales networks, and through the years it has continued to increase its presence here. Despite increasing competition, DaimlerChrysler Northeast Asia increased retail passenger car sales by 37% in the first three quarters of 2006, compared to the year before.

B

In an effort to cut costs, DaimlerChrysler AG today announced it would eliminate a production shift at the North assembly plant in Fenton, Missouri next year. The Chrysler restructuring plan also calls for the closure of the Newark, Del., assembly plant in 2009 and the reduction of its North American work force by 13,000 employees over the next three years, according to a press release. That is more than 10,000-job figure that the company had indicated earlier.

C

"American workers are the most productive workers in the world. They demonstrate daily the initiative, creativity and energy that have made American companies competitive and American manufacturing a model for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as recent surveys show, many workers are doing so with inadequate support and eroding skills. To remain competitive in the global economy, America needs to do more -- both publicly and privately -- to educate and train the workforce of today and tomorrow."
National Association of Manufacturers' Statement on Education and Workforce Readiness

D

"We can't let these trade problems lead to retaliation and counter-retaliation that could do irreparable harm to the entire trading system and the enormous gains it has brought the American companies, workers and consumers over the years."
National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler
quoted from a letter sent to US senators in opposition to a bill imposing trade tariffs on Chinese goods

KIPP's Reply Raises More Questions Than It Answers

Based on their non-answers to my questions (which are on their FAQ page), here is what I have concluded about KIPP so far:

1 - KIPP benefits from enrolling already high-achieving students and their parents.

2 - KIPP tacitly yet powerfully promotes the existence of segregated schools by making them "work." Whether this is a good thing or bad thing remains to be discussed. But it should at least be acknowledged. To paraphrase my friend and colleague Jim Horn, you can call a spade a spade, or you can call it a goddamn shovel.

3 - KIPP has not subjected its achievement data to a rigorous statistical analysis that would determine the standard deviation of the scores; therefore, there is no way to determine if the high scores are the result of a relatively small number of high achieving students or if the scores are representative of the majority of KIPP students (this phenomenon is complicated by KIPP's large attrition rate, which exaggerates the effect of these high scores on the overall averages).

4 - KIPP's rigorous approach contributes to its attrition rate, yet this high attrition rate helps KIPP by making the scores look better than they actually are.

5 - There is no evidence of a broad-based curriculum in place at KIPP schools other than what KIPP claims.

Global Collaboration, Not Competition

Here's a simple but unorthodox question: what would our schools look like if we designed them to foster global collaboration, not global competition?

Implicit in all the rhetoric about the goals of education today is the notion that "they" are after "us," and if "we" don't do something drastic, "they" will eat our lunch -- maybe even eat us FOR lunch.
As I've been posting lately, this makes zero sense. And most large US companies know this. According to CNN, the National Association of Manufacturers, the trade group whose members include the large multinationals doing business in China as well as smaller U.S. manufacturers, was more active than any other trade group pushing against a Senate proposal to impose trade tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the US.

"We can't let these trade problems lead to retaliation and counter-retaliation that could do irreparable harm to the entire trading system and the enormous gains it has brought the American companies, workers and consumers over the years."
National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler
quoted from a letter sent to US senators in opposition to a bill imposing trade tariffs on Chinese goods

So if it's already the case that our countries are collaborating to enhance each other's economies, why do we cling to this silly notion that we are competing against one another?

What if our schools collaborated on a similar level to ensure the greatest benefit to everyone involved?

5 More Bullets on Global Competition

1. According to a 2005 study from Duke University, the numbers are wrong. It's not 70,000 US engineering undergraduates vs. 600,000 Chinese engineering undergraduates. The real figures: China, 341,000; India, 112,000; United States 131,000 — more per capita than either of the others.
2. The comparisons with students from other countries are meaningless - the students I taught in Japan were not getting pregnant, doing drugs, and joining gangs; kids who enter into the top levels of schools in Germany, for example, are there through an elitist gate-keeping system; are we surprised that the chosen few score better than the average scores of US students???
3. Some like to look at Finland as a model for teaching and learning. FINLAND???? How much ethnic, racial, economic, and linguistic diversity do the Finns have to deal with? How many Finnish schools simultaneously serve as healthcare centers, suicide preventers, and drug counselors in the way that many US schools do?
4. We need to focus on the global classroom, not as a Pollyanna thing but as a reality that Little Johnny and Little Wen Lei are not competing against each other; they need each other, if only to buy each other's crap.
5. We keep talking about the US as this economic powerhouse on the world stage, but our global trade deficit has got dry drunk, binge-eater written all over it; is this what we aspire to? buying exponentially more than we make? and then expecting that to be sustainable???

Global Competition and Education: Codependency Meets Xenophobia

I found this piece last night.

It's the testimony before the House Committee on Science from January 2004.

Here is an excerpt that captures the essence of the argument put forward there:

"As the number of U.S. science and engineering students declines, our dependence on foreign students grows. According to the National Science Foundation's Science and Engineering Indicators (2002), the percentage of foreign-born individuals among scientists and engineers in the U.S. is growing at all degree levels, in all sectors, and in most fields. Especially high percentages are found in engineering (45 percent), computer sciences (43 percent) and mathematics (30 percent). At the same time, other nations are aggressively acting to stem their own ''brain drains'' and entice citizens trained in the U.S. to return to their native countries, and many are succeeding. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents estimates that by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia. New opportunities to do high wage, high value work without immigrating to the U.S. may reduce the net ''brain gain'' that has been so critical to our historic economic success."

Translation: it's codependency meets a curious form of xenophobia, Yellow Peril meets What Have You Done For Me Lately? meets You Don't Bring Me Flowers Anymore.

So let's see: there are lots of Asians in the US now, and they are principally the reason why we have such a great standard of living. But in the very near future, these Asians will not stay in the US after they finish their degrees here. They will move back to their home countries and transform those countries into economic and innovation powerhouses.

Hmmm . . . But perhaps these Asians will not move back to their home countries. Perhaps they will have grown accustomed to the niceties of a (relatively) free press, (relatively) free elections, 573 cable channels, and no whip skinny soy lattés. After all, you can still surf the 'Net in the US without being put in jail. Not so for some Chinese dissidents.*

Then again, maybe these Asian engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists will forego the relative freedoms they experience in the US in exchange for vast sums of cash and the possibility of riding the next wave of technological innovation. How do you say "Faustian bargain" in Mandarin?

For what it's worth: even if it were the case that (a) the success of the US economy is due largely to the contributions of non-US Asians and (2) future non-US Asians will flock back to their home countries in huge numbers, this does not mean ruin for the US economy. It means ruin for everyone. The success of the global economy is based on the following conditions: (1) plentiful amounts of cheap Asian labor and (2) inexhaustible demand for goods and services, primarily from the US. So if all these physical scientists and engineers stay in Asia, their economies will heat up, costs will go up, and the cost of production will go up. So good-bye to cheap Asian labor. At the same time, if the US economy tanks because Little Billy can't compete with Little Shunfa or Little Sanjiv, say good-bye to inexhaustible US demand. Since the US imported more than $263 billion in goods from China in 2006 and $20 billion in goods from India in 2006, the end of US demand means curtains for India and China.

Think they can somehow make up those lost dollars with another country? Think again. The fall of the US economy would set off a global domino effect, a catastrophe that would make 1929's Black Monday look like a day at the beach.

Bottom line: there is no "us" and "them" any more. There can be no "success" in a globalized economy at anyone's expense. We all succeed together, and we all fail together. Unless somebody changes the game from global capital, the accumulation of wealth, and individual gain at the expense of the common good, this will always be the case.

---

*"The journalist, Shi Tao, was an editorial department head at the Contemporary Business News in China's Hunan Province. He was arrested in 2004 after sending an e-mail to a New York-based Web site advocating democracy in China. The e-mail contained information regarding a Chinese government warning for its officials, urging them to be vigilant ahead of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and to watch out for dissident activity. It was posted on the site under the alias 198964, the date Beijing crushed the student-led democracy movement, June 4, 1989. With the information provided by Yahoo, Shi was arrested and convicted of divulging state secrets by a provincial court in April 2005, according to information from several sources, including Reporters Without Borders."

Find the story here.

References for Rebuking 2014's 100% Proficiency Goal

Shaded areas are passing percentages. Setting the passing score at level 1 produces a gap of 34 points. At level 2 the gap shrinks to 14 points.

For those of you looking for ways to explain why NCLB's goal of 100% proficiency for all subgroups by 2014 is wholly impossible and designed only for the citizens of Disneyland (or Lake Wobegon), here are some tools for your rhetorical toolkit:

"Acid Tests" by Charles Murray - an unlikley ally in the war against NCLB, but Mr. Bell Curve makes a great case for why NCLB is both inane and deceptive.

"Closing the Racial Learning Gap" by La Griffe du Lion - this funny, witty piece expands on the statistical arguments put forward by Murray.

"'Proficiency for All' — An Oxymoron" by Richard Rothstein, et al - No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that all students be proficient by 2014. But some policy makers think that this goal can be achievable if only schools had more time to improve. This paper by Richard Rothstein, Rebecca Jacobsen and Tamara Wilder concludes that there is no date by which all (or even nearly all) students in any subgroup can achieve the NCLB requirement of proficiency on "challenging" standards, because no goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution. The authors show that even the highest scoring countries in the world cannot meet this standard, nor could they meet a standard that required only basic skills of all students.

Why We Still Need Public Schools: Public Education for the Common Good

It's nice to be reminded some times . . .

This report highlights the history and importance of public education in the United States, dating back to its establishment as a necessary institution for the young republic and Horace Mann's efforts to promote a common school for all. The report focuses on how and why the U.S. system of public education came into being; the six core public missions that public schools have been expected to fulfill, such as unifying a diverse population, preparing people for democratic citizenship, and ensuring equal opportunities for all children; and why these missions are relevant today and why the nation must maintain them while pursuing reforms to help all schools live up to these core ideals.