- All KIPP schools are very small. According to Steve Mancini, public affairs director for KIPP schools, the average student-to-teacher ratio at KIPP is 16 to 1.
- All KIPP teachers are highly motivated and really want to teach at the schools where they work.
- KIPP students -- well, those that are not forced to repeat a grade or who are not "counseled out," i.e., encouraged to drop out of KIPP -- are all highly motivated and want to go to school.
- KIPP parents are all highly motivated and go to great lengths to support their kids at KIPP.
- KIPP enjoys lots of private financial support, including support from the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation (Wal-Mart).
- KIPP is widely celebrated in the media.
But KIPP enjoys ALL SIX.
In other words, if you have a small school with highly motivated teachers, students and parents that enjoys the benefits of private financial support and the accolades of the local and national press, you will be a great success.
Ergo, if all schools were small, had highly motivated teachers, students and parents, enjoyed the benefits of private financial support and the accolades of the local and national press, they would all be a great success.
But not all schools can do this. It simply is not possible, given the current paucity of funding and the current mindset that blames low-income people for their own dire straits. So why can't every school repeat KIPP's success?
If we can look at these factors -- (1) student, teacher, and parent motivation, (2) private financial support, (3) small class size, and (4) media celebration -- as goals and try to increase the likelihood of their occurring elsewhere with greater regularity, we might have a worthwhile project on our hands. But to consider KIPP a scalable, reproducible model is silly. Worse, because it attracts the conservative "if they can do it, anyone can" types, KIPP effectively derails substantive dialogue about how the factors that most contribute to its success can be reproduced in other schools.
For example, what policies can be created to increase student, parent, and teacher motivation? What factors decrease motivation? For low-income families without adequate healthcare, living in squalid conditions does not a motivated person make.
What policies can be created to decrease class size? What can be done to provide ongoing high-quality professional development and support to teachers so their desire and ability to teach is lifted up, not smashed down?
Let's have serious discussions about these questions. Let's not be distracted by talk of KIPP and its "magical solution," its hyped stats about its college matriculation rate, and its extraordinarily misleading claim that it helps ALL children learn. KIPP is not the cause of its success. Small class sizes, motivated teachers, motivated students, motivated parents, and tons of private financial support are.
28 comments:
Your information is so far off-base that you must be deliberately twisting the truth. I can speak to all of your points, most of which are not true. Instead of making things up about what you suppose KIPP is, why don't you travel down the road to Newark to see some of the highest performing KIPP schools in the nation? Given the ease with which you could do so and the misinformation you spew in your blog, I can only conclude that you have no interest in facts if they don't serve your narrow purpose.
To your incorrect points:
1. Not true. I've seen a number of KIPP schools, including the ones in Newark, and they tend to have bigger classes than the district schools have, averaging between 25-30 students/class. I don't know this Mancini fellow but he clearly has his facts wrong, or you are misrepresenting what he said.
2. Definitely true. KIPP teachers are very motivated, but they tend to come from the district schools, where their motivation wasn't nearly as well-utilized.
3. Not true. Many KIPP schools, including the ones in Newark, neither expel nor counsel out students. Their students represent a cross-section of the public school system in most cases. Look at their mobility vs. district mobility rates and you will see KIPP holding onto far more of their kids than district schools do.
4. Not true. KIPP parents are no more motivated than district-school parents. Getting a child into a KIPP school is very easy - in some cases easier than getting a student into a district school. To suppose that our nation's cities are full of unmotivated parents who wouldn't even go through the minor process of signing a student up for a charter lottery is definitely ignorant, and possibly racist.
5. KIPP schools spend less money than district schools do, with far higher results. That private funding merely attempts to close some of the gap between the public funding that the district schools get and that which the charter schools get. Surely someone as informed as you are would know that in New Jersey, charter schools get about half the amount that district schools get. Amazing that you didn't include this in your discussion. But why let facts get in the way of your opinions, right?
6. You're right about KIPP being celebrated in the media, but like all these points, media celebration is something a district could certainly achieve if they got KIPP-like results. None of the things KIPP does are impossible for the district to do if they wanted to get KIPP's academic gains. If KIPP can spend less money than the district schools (as they do in every district they serve), then district schools could have smaller schools (KIPP averages around 300) with big classes like KIPP does - it's obviously affordable. If KIPP can get the same kids and parents to be more committed to education then they are doing things with parental involvement and student motivation that the districts should mimic.
I recognize that it's really easy to keep up the status quo by spreading falsehoods about those schools that prove that failure need not persist, but what I don't understand is why you are so determined to protect that failure. For a professor to feel comfortable spreading lies with ZERO real evidence is depressing, and adds fuel to the fire of those who believe that ed schools are complicit in some conspiracy against the children of our urban centers.
Your "Definitive Response" makes some good observations, but it is based on a significant false premise - the idea that anyone "gives" KIPP these six factors. In fact, KIPP works incredibly hard to create these factors because it knows how critical they are to the success of its students. (Actually, #5 and #6 are a result of KIPP's success, not the cause of it.)
You are correct that if you worked as hard as KIPP does to create these factors, you, too, would probably be more successful.
Educators that are waiting to be "given" these factors are unlikely to realize any significant improvement in their student achievement since it is, in fact, their job to create these factors themselves.
Now that you have identified these factors, maybe you can encourage others to work hard to make them happen, rather than criticize dedicated educators who are already doing so.
Hey, educator. Here's the source of the data on KIPP and student-to-teacher ratio.
Steve Mancini is the KIPP public affairs director. According to him, the average student-to-teacher ratio at KIPP is 16 to 1.
You can e-mail him at smancini@kipp.org
If you're going to get all snarky about the facts, then I suggest you choose facts that you can actually substantiate. Saying that you "don't know this Mancini fellow" kinda weakens your argument, no?
educator - as for KIPP and "counseling out" (aka pushing students out) -
* KIPP Academy Fresno went from 60 to 48 kids from 5th to 6th grade, a 20% decrease in enrollment.
* KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy in San Francisco went from 73 to 56 kids from 5th to 7th grade, a 23% decrease in enrollment.
* KIPP Academy of Opportunity in LA went from 88 to 66 kids from 5th to 7th grade, a 25% decrease in enrollment.
* KIPP Bayview Academy in San Francisco went from 81 to 55 kids from 5th to 7th grade, a 32% decrease in enrollment.
* KIPP Los Angeles College Preparatory in LA went from 88 to 57 kids from 5th to 7th grade, a 35% decrease in enrollment.
* KIPP Bridge College Preparatory in Oakland went from 87 to 36 kids from 5th to 8th grade, a whopping 59% decrease in enrollment.
These decreases in enrollment were especially noticeable for African-American boys at four of these schools. Enrollment of African-American boys went from 35 to 23 at KIPP Academy of Opportunity in LA, a 34% decrease in enrollment; 19 to 10 at KIPP Academy Fresno, a 47% decrease in enrollment; 24 to 12 at KIPP Bayview Academy in San Francisco, a 50% decrease in enrollment; and 35 to 8 at KIPP Bridge College Preparatory in Oakland, an extraordinary 77% decrease in enrollment.
Drop-outs, or at least transients, are a common phenomenon in low-income schools, even good ones. So these 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 it seems, at least from what we can tell from the California enrollment data, that even KIPP cannot solve the drop-out/transient problem.
But then you start to wonder: is KIPP causing this high drop-out rate? If it's not causing kids to drop out, then there might certainly be a correlation between KIPP's "unique approach to educating low-income kids" and the fact that so many of them, at least in California, don't make it out of KIPP.
KIPP parents are no more motivated than district-school parents. Getting a child into a KIPP school is very easy - in some cases easier than getting a student into a district school. To suppose that our nation's cities are full of unmotivated parents who wouldn't even go through the minor process of signing a student up for a charter lottery is definitely ignorant, and possibly racist.
Let's get the facts straight, shall we? Unlike the local neighborhood school, charters like KIPP are not the default schooling option for students and parents. So parents have to find out about the charters in their district. Obviously, those parents that know about KIPP and want to send their kids there do so. Those that don't know don't. This winnows the field of applicants down considerably. Once they find out about the KIPP in their district, parents have to attend an informational meeting about the school. This further winnows the field down. KIPP requires parents to sign an agreement, e.g., to help at the school, to help with their kids homework, etc. This winnows the field down even further. Then, because charters like KIPP are often not in the neighborhood, parents and students have to travel — some times long distances — to get to the school. You guessed it: this winnows the field down still further.
So although KIPP is technically open to everyone, the way it's set up tends to limit the field of applicants to parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed. How many low-income families can afford to have one of the parents not work? Give me a bunch of parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed and I will show you a good school. KIPP benefits from this kind of parental involvement and shuts out parents that cannot do this.
KIPP schools spend less money than district schools do, with far higher results. That private funding merely attempts to close some of the gap between the public funding that the district schools get and that which the charter schools get. Surely someone as informed as you are would know that in New Jersey, charter schools get about half the amount that district schools get. Amazing that you didn't include this in your discussion. But why let facts get in the way of your opinions, right?
Oh, please. Spare me. How many schools have a foundation that receives massive contributions from the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation? And KIPP does not, in fact, get half the funding that regular district schools get. KIPP schools get 80 to 90% of the funding that regular district schools get. Amazing that you would so wildly distort this fact.
Anonymous said:
Educators that are waiting to be "given" these factors are unlikely to realize any significant improvement in their student achievement since it is, in fact, their job to create these factors themselves.
So let me get this straight: it's the job of educators to reduce class size? It's the job of educators to address the issue of student and parent motivation and single-handedly come up with a solution? It's the job of educators to solicit foundation funding in the millions of dollars? It's the job of educators to win the praise of the media?
Gee, I've been laboring under the false assumption this whole time that it was the job of teachers to teach. My mistake!
So KIPP works incredibly hard to create the six factors I mentioned. Hmmmm . . . I acutally agree with this. KIPP works hard to keep its classes small, to attract already-motivated students and parents, to raise lots of private money, and to woo the media to tell their misleading tale (they've been featured on 60 Minutes and on Oprah, and Washington Post reporter Jay Mathews is writing not one but two books about them).
So let's do this: let's give every school the money to keep classes at the same 16 to 1 ratio that KIPP enjoys. What's that you say? There isn't enough money to go around to allow every school to do this? OK, well why don't we allow schools to accept only those students that are willing to go through an incredibly grueling gauntlet of time at school and submit to public shaming as a discipline tactic? What's that you say? Not every student and not every family would want to or be able to do this? OK, well then let's just get the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation to pony up the necessary cash to make these things happen. What's that you say? These foundations aren't interested in supporting regular public schools?
But I should just shut up and encourage others to work hard to make these things happen, rather than criticize dedicated educators who are already doing so.
Good advice.
Dude, it really hurts your case that you can't distinguish between student to teacher ratio and average class size. Some simple math: 90 students in a new KIPP school split into three homerooms, which gives you an average class size of 30. Of course that school has a math, reading, science/social studies, writing/PE, and Learning support teacher so the student to teacher ratio is 18. Again, if you care so much about KIPP, go visit and see the classes of 30 students learning.
Per your request, I'll try to keep this response snark-free.
Many of your points about KIPP are factually incorrect, and many of the conclusions you draw are untrue as well.
As anonymous said, you are incorrect in conflating a 16:1 student:teacher ratio with low class size. KIPP schools tend to have 30 or so students in a class. To illustrate the difference in these types of statistic, NYC public schools, which are notorious for their large classes, have a 12.5:1 student:teacher ratio. So KIPP has more students per teacher than NYC public schools do - that's hardly an advantage.
On transferring students: KIPP does not "solve" transience, but neither does it exacerbate it. Most KIPP schools have lower rates of mobility than their surrounding districts - by far. As I believe that same article pointed out, many KIPP schools have single-digit mobility rates while their surrounding districts average 25-30% per year.
On parent motivation:
Your quote: "Let's get the facts straight, shall we? Unlike the local neighborhood school, charters like KIPP are not the default schooling option for students and parents. So parents have to find out about the charters in their district. Obviously, those parents that know about KIPP and want to send their kids there do so. Those that don't know don't. This winnows the field of applicants down considerably."
Not true. KIPP schools recruit heavily in the poorest neighborhoods, and thus poor parents are disproportionately likely to hear about (and thus enroll in) KIPP schools.
You: "Once they find out about the KIPP in their district, parents have to attend an informational meeting about the school."
This is actually just untrue. At the very least it only applies to a few KIPP schools. I have seen no evidence that this is widespread.
You: "KIPP requires parents to sign an agreement, e.g., to help at the school, to help with their kids homework, etc."
This is only sort-of true. Parents do tend to sign agreements in most KIPP schools, but most KIPP schools do not do anything if the parents don't sign it (certainly they don't expel kids if parents don't uphold the agreement), and in some states they are not allowed to have parents sign such documents as conditions of enrollment, yet the kids in those schools do just as well as in other KIPP schools.
You: "Then, because charters like KIPP are often not in the neighborhood, parents and students have to travel — some times long distances — to get to the school."
This is not true, either. Most KIPP schools are in the neighborhood, and in those that aren't, many or possibly all provide busing. Given their location in the poorest neighborhoods, it would seem that the transportation effect that you cite would actually contribute to lower-income parents enrolling their students.
You: "So although KIPP is technically open to everyone, the way it's set up tends to limit the field of applicants to parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed. How many low-income families can afford to have one of the parents not work? Give me a bunch of parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed and I will show you a good school."
It seems to me that if your assertion here is true, the only people who could have time to enroll their kids in a KIPP school are those who don't have jobs at all. Unlike your conclusion that KIPP is full of parents who can afford to take the day off, I have data to support my claim - something like 85% of KIPP students qualify for free or reduced meals.
So, basically none of your objections are true, and those that are true you are drawing incorrect assumptions from.
Hi, anonymous. OK, I get your point, and it's a fair argument.
So do this for me: show me current data for actual class sizes for KIPP schools and I'll shut up about this one. I'll concede that KIPP classes are no smaller than their regular school counter-parts.
But as it stands now, you're simply saying "KIPP classes have 30 students in them." You provide no data, no evidence, no nuthin'.
I tried to get a variety of sources; in house, media, and independent school comparison websites. I'm not sure why I could find all this in abut 15 minutes, but you couldn't, but who knows. If you don't believe this data, I'll simply repeat my earlier advice, go visit a school and see for yourself.
US News and World Report
By Lynn Rosellini
March 22, 2004
"Though classes average more than 30 students, they are so silent you could hear an eraser drop."
Information from insideschools.org
KIPP Academy NY
At a Glance
Grade levels: 5 to 8
Class size: 32
Enrollment: 245
http://www.insideschools.org/fs/school_profile.php?id=834
Baltimore Sun
June 11, 2006
KIPP, which opened its doors four years ago near Sinai Hospital, is a third the size of Calverton, which has about 750 sixth- through eighth-graders in its three-story brick building in West Baltimore. The KIPP school, which has 275 pupils in fifth through eighth grades, is one of 46 such schools across the nation started by two idealistic teachers a decade ago in Houston. KIPP stands for Knowledge is Power Program.
The two schools confront the same challenges. Their pupil populations have equivalent percentages of poor and minority pupils. Their average class size is about the same
Report from New York Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability:
Meanwhile, some top-performing New York City schools are successful despite having large classes. Consider the acclaimed KIPP Academy Charter School, the highest-performing Bronx middle school for nearly a decade. It isn’t unusual to see 30 or morestudents in a KIPP classroom
http://www.nyfera.org/originals/12.03.07/2007-12-03_NYPOST_Op-Ed.pdf
KIPP Los Angeles College Prep
Average Class Size for a Number of Core Academic Courses : 28
http://www.city-data.com/school/kipp-los-angeles-college-preparatory-ca.html
KIPP: Summit Academy
Q: How many students will there be in each classroom?
A: Students are placed in 3 mixed-ability homeroom groups of 26 to 30 students each.
http://www.kippsummit.org/students/questions.htm
KIPP: AMP (NYC)
At a Glance
Grade levels: 5 to 8
Class size: 35
http://www.insideschools.org/fs/school_profile.php?id=1488
I'm not sure that kind of data is collected, but you can witness it by walking into any KIPP school. Or by looking at some of the videos you can find online when you type in "KIPP". (maybe Youtube?) You might be able to tell just by counting the kids in the classes.
Hmmm . . . so "that kind of data is not collected," eh? Then how can you possibly substantiate your claim? You want me to visit each of the 57 KIPP schools across the country and do a head count?
I suppose the KIPP videos on YouTube are authoritative representations of every KIPP school. I think it might be simpler for KIPP just to provide the data on class size, don't you think? Or would that be too much to ask?
Thanks for cherry-picking the data to find schools that meet your argument. Once you show me conclusive proof that all KIPP schools, not just the ones you cherry-picked, have average class sizes of 30, I'll gladly eat my hat. Until such time, I remain thoroughly unconvinced.
On transferring students: KIPP does not "solve" transience, but neither does it exacerbate it. Most KIPP schools have lower rates of mobility than their surrounding districts - by far. As I believe that same article pointed out, many KIPP schools have single-digit mobility rates while their surrounding districts average 25-30% per year.
You need to do more than just make exaggerated claims, educator. Show me the data. Show me the evidence. You even use inconclusive, wishy-washy rhetoric in your own defense of KIPP. Your post is littered with expressions like "most KIPP schools" without actually providing any proof of your claim. You also say "many KIPP schools have single-digit mobility rates." OK, I'll bite: how many? Which ones?
Even if it's true that KIPP schools recruit heavily in the poorest neighborhoods, parents still have to find out about them and be willing (and able) to act on this information. Moreover, there's evidence from an SRI Report that Bay Area KIPP schools in California are attracting already high-performing students from local schools. Some KIPP principals expressed concern about “creaming” these already high-performing students from other schools when there remains a large number who are low-performing and underserved. One principal expressed dismay with the school’s struggle to enroll Title I students, whom she considered to be her target population. (see p. 18 of the report)
This is actually just untrue. At the very least it only applies to a few KIPP schools. I have seen no evidence that this is widespread.
Here you go, equivocating again. At first you say it's untrue. Then, in the very next sentence, you qualify it, and then you conclude that you have seen no evidence of it. Umm, no offense, but who are you, anyway? And why should anyone listen to you or take your word for it? There's no evidence that it's widespread? OK, what evidence are you looking at? Like most things you write, you just make large claims and provide no proof.
My favorite example of this is when you write: "Most KIPP schools are in the neighborhood, and in those that aren't, many or possibly all provide busing."
Many or possibly all??? Most KIPP schools??? Huh???
So, basically none of your objections are true, and those that are true you are drawing incorrect assumptions from.
Please - give me some evidence, data, proof to work from. Stop just making things up.
Clarification on the KIPP school in Atlanta that KIPP HQ decided to shut down . . .
The point I want to make here is to show that KIPP is a McCharter franchise model. KIPP deliberately identifies areas where it wants to grow. Check out this info from the KIPP web site:
"KIPP unveiled its first national New Site Selection process in the summer of 2006, with the goal of identifying one or two new communities a year in which we would expand our network of schools. Six community coalitions from across the country submitted proposals to bring KIPP to their community. Two new sites were selected as priorities for KIPP’s expansion in 2008: Columbus, OH and the Twin Cities, MN.. To view the application questions from the summer 2006 New Site Selection process, please click here."
So KIPP controls where it goes and where it doesn't go. Sounds like a centrally-controlled franchise model to me.
Forgot one more clarification on McKIPP:
When the Atlanta KIPP hit stormy waters, KIPP cut the strings and removed its name from the school. It did this to protect its brand.
When KIPP Chicago Youth Village Academy hit stormy waters, KIPP cut the strings and removed its name from the school. It did this to protect its brand.
Sounds like the work of a franchise to me.
This is the equivalent of a McDonald's restaurant having the name "McDonald's" removed by corporate HQ because the cheeseburgers were moldy.
Ok, but what's your objection to McDonald's removing the brand from the moldy-cheeseburger-selling franchise?
It seems to me that the objection to a "McCharter" would be central control of an endeavor that should be run locally. I completely agree with this objection. KIPP schools don't do that. The strongest sanction they have for their schools is withdrawing the name. Everything other than that is controlled locally, by the educators on the local level, governed locally by a board, much like every other charter school, including the ones you say you like.
As for the veracity of my data, I can only tell you that I've visited many KIPP schools. You have visited none. So I guess I have a bigger sampling than you do, if not an adequate one.
I can also surmise from the 16:1 ratio, which indicates less teachers-per-student than NYC's 12.5:1 ratio, that class size at a KIPP school is likely bigger than in NYC. It certainly will not be smaller, if there are less teachers/student. And NYC's huge class-size is well-documented.
On the one hand you argue that anonymous's sample-size is too small to prove large class sizes are the rule, and on the other you cite a study that looked at Bay Area schools ONLY (less than 1/10 of KIPP's schools) to prove that KIPP schools get the best kids.
I find it interesting that you've left out my explanation of charter school funding levels. I'm curious if there is a reason for their omission?
- Educator
Peter,
I have no problem with you being a critic of KIPP or any other aspect of the education system that you see fit, any program or school that gets recognition needs to be able to prove that it is successful. That being said, your stance here is starting to get a little silly and boils down to, "I think KIPP stinks and it is the responsibility of KIPP or KIPP supporters to prove me wrong." Then when people try to give you some facts, either through freely and easily obtained public information (not even cherry-picked) you dismiss it. When people give their own opinions and observations on KIPP schools you dismiss them. When people suggest watching videos of KIPP students in action, you argue bias. Yet I don't see you doing much digging either by using Google, visiting a school, or contacting KIPP yourself to get some of your questions answered. It seems that someone so concerned with KIPP would take the time to do a little research of your own. By all means, put yourself out there as a crusader battling the millions of Broad and Gates, but at least be honest that you're not interested in learning about KIPP, you're interested in using it as ammunition to support your personal beliefs about education.
Ok, but what's your objection to McDonald's removing the brand from the moldy-cheeseburger-selling franchise?
The analogy here is to point out that KIPP -- McKIPP -- is run like a franchise.
The strongest sanction they have for their schools is withdrawing the name. Everything other than that is controlled locally, by the educators on the local level, governed locally by a board, much like every other charter school, including the ones you say you like.
KIPP HQ determines where KIPP goes, how it's run, who staffs it, and whether or not it's doing well enough to be called "KIPP." If they decide it's not doing well, they terminate it. Without the name behind them, the schools are dead. Look what happened to the Atlanta KIPP, the Buffalo KIPP, and the Chicago KIPP. Ergo, KIPP runs the show. The daily operations are left to local KIPP staff and board, true. But as I wrote here, you can fully expect KIPP HQ to become more involved in the daily operations of each school. They have to if they want to maintain "quality." In other words, as the number of KIPP schools grows, you increase the likelihood of small variations in design leading to failure. Thus the need to minimize those variations. I predict this will ultimately lead to KIPP's demise, much in the way that Edison Schools, Inc. discovered.
As for the veracity of my data, I can only tell you that I've visited many KIPP schools. You have visited none. So I guess I have a bigger sampling than you do, if not an adequate one.
So you're saying that your claims are legitimate by virtue of the fact that you have visited more KIPP schools than I have? I find this rather puzzling. While I certainly have a negative bias towards KIPP, you seem to have a rather positive bias. So your multiple visits would only serve to buttress that which you already think about KIPP. This is called a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Let's just call you what you are: a KIPP cheerleader. That's fine with me. But I don't listen to cheerleaders when trying to determine who the best team is. Cheerleaders are kind of pre-disposed to liking the team for whom they are cheering.
I can also surmise from the 16:1 ratio, which indicates less teachers-per-student than NYC's 12.5:1 ratio, that class size at a KIPP school is likely bigger than in NYC. It certainly will not be smaller, if there are less teachers/student. And NYC's huge class-size is well-documented.
Here we go again with the convoluted rhetoric. So you can surmise that class size is bigger at KIPP schools, huh? How about showing me the actual numbers instead?
On the one hand you argue that anonymous's sample-size is too small to prove large class sizes are the rule, and on the other you cite a study that looked at Bay Area schools ONLY (less than 1/10 of KIPP's schools) to prove that KIPP schools get the best kids.
The SRI report on the Bay Area KIPP schools is one of the very few studies that has actually been conducted on KIPP schools by an entity other than KIPP. If other studies existed, I'd look at those, too. It would be interesting to see if they found similar trends at other KIPP schools. But as it stands, we simply don't know. I raise the SRI study not only to underscore the incredible scarcity of analysis of KIPP schools, but also to point out that these data in the report directly contradict the claims that KIPP makes and the claims that you make. No, the SRI study does not represent all KIPP schools. So let's make a deal: let's both pressure the powers that be to commission an independent study of all KIPP schools. Again, if I'm wrong about these things, not only will I eat my hat, but I'll be the drum major for the "KIPP Rocks!" parade. Honest.
I find it interesting that you've left out my explanation of charter school funding levels. I'm curious if there is a reason for their omission?
You make so many wild claims, educator, that I don't feel like repeating every one of them verbatim here. KIPP has enough channels doing its promo work for it. My blog isn't one of them.
your stance here is starting to get a little silly and boils down to, "I think KIPP stinks and it is the responsibility of KIPP or KIPP supporters to prove me wrong." Then when people try to give you some facts, either through freely and easily obtained public information (not even cherry-picked) you dismiss it.
I'm sorry, but I must have missed something here. All I have been consistently doing is pointing to what few facts there are. You have offered nothing other than speculation, anecdotal musings, and a few "I'd surmise"s here and a couple "most if not all"s there. Yes, you're right: I am asking KIPP to prove its claims. This is called "being critical." If the evidence is there, and the case can be documented, then great. But what little evidence there is does not support these large claims. This means that KIPP's claims are just this -- claims. They are misleading because they do not present how the success of KIPP schools is actually accomplished.
When people give their own opinions and observations on KIPP schools you dismiss them.
That's because I'm not interested in people's opinions about KIPP. I read things called newspapers. I read other things called scholarly journals. I know what's people's opinions of KIPP are. There is almost universal praise. What I am interested in is analysis. How does KIPP produce its results? What are the actual results? Who funds KIPP? Is KIPP a reproducible model? These questions necessitate analysis. In offering analysis, you have to look at facts, not opinion.
When people suggest watching videos of KIPP students in action, you argue bias.
Not at all. Just look at this video of a KIPP student in action. It features a Latino boy named Ray, a 16-year-old 8th grader enrolled in KIPP 3D Academy in Houston.
At 3 minutes, 14 seconds into this video segment, there is a glimpse into how KIPP achieves its results.
Here's the transcript:
Hedrick Smith (voiceover) - At the start of school, Ray had his first confrontation with 3D Academy's principal, Dan Caesar.
Ray: We were going over our chants, and -- just being myself, still trying to figure out how this school works and everything . . .
Dan Caesar - We say, "Is 3D in the house?!?!" and all the kids raise up their hands and say, "YES!" and Reynaldo raised up his hands and said "NO!"
Ray: I waved my hand. I said, "No." And then he looked at me and he said it a second time. And I said "No" again.
Dan Caesar - I knew right then, "Here's the first test, the first person testing our culture." So I let him know in front of everybody in the room that that's not going to be tolerated. We all want to be here. We chose to be here. If you don't want to be here, find the door.
Some people might watch this segment and think, "Wow. KIPP is really tough. It expects a lot of students." I look at this segment and am disturbed. If kids don't want to be there, they are shown the door. This resonates with what I've read about KIPP and with what people who have visited KIPP schools have told me. It resonates with the SRI report on the Bay Area KIPP schools. It resonates with any organization that can achieve impressive results by kicking out the malcontents. Remember: KIPP says it brings high quality public education to all kids. But what if Ray had chosen to take the door that Dan Caesar offered him? That would have been one less than all children.
It's reasonable to be concerned about the kids that did choose the door. It's reasonable to wonder why they chose the door. It's reasonable to wonder how many chose the door. It's reasonable to wonder about the extent to which KIPP's rigorous model actually caused them to choose the door. It's reasonable to wonder about what happened to them after they chose the door. But this is not KIPP's concern. They don't track these kids. Instead, they crow about those that do make it. Fair enough. I'd crow, too. But don't tell me that KIPP is high quality public education for all children. This is just a bald-faced lie.
Yet I don't see you doing much digging either by using Google, visiting a school, or contacting KIPP yourself to get some of your questions answered. It seems that someone so concerned with KIPP would take the time to do a little research of your own.
I have had several e-mail exchanges with KIPP officials. Five of the seven questions that appear on the KIPP FAQ are, in fact, questions that I asked KIPP myself. They were not sufficiently answered. I have consulted virtually everything written on KIPP. I have not yet visited a KIPP school. I have never lived anywhere near a KIPP school, so visiting one has never been possible. I will visit as many KIPP schools as I can when I am able to do so.
But let's get something straight: visiting a KIPP school -- or any school, for that matter -- is not going to produce much in the way of meaningful data. I've been on dozens of school tours. You'll see lots of engaged students, happy teachers, smiling administrative assistants, etc. But to really get a sense of what's going on, you have to pretty much do what Linda Perlstein did in her book Tested, i.e., you have to become a de facto member of the community and write an ethnography of what you observe. Perlstein spent a year at the school she wrote about (not a KIPP school). So someone really needs to do the same thing for a KIPP school.
In the meantime, I will keep researching KIPP, talking to people about KIPP, and writing about KIPP.
By all means, put yourself out there as a crusader battling the millions of Broad and Gates, but at least be honest that you're not interested in learning about KIPP, you're interested in using it as ammunition to support your personal beliefs about education.
At last, I have been revealed for what I am! Thank you for helping me achieve this valuable insight.
"You make so many wild claims, educator, that I don't feel like repeating every one of them verbatim here."
Amazing that the one thing you can actually just go online and verify is the one thing you refuse to discuss any further. These numbers are reported on the internet by the New Jersey Department of Education. I suspect that when/if I find data on class size or any of the other things you made up, you'll refuse to discuss that, too.
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc07/dataselect.php?datasection%5B4%5D=financial&c=80&d=7325&s=965<=T&st=T
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc07/dataselect.php?datasection%5B4%5D=financial&c=13&d=3570&s=200<=A&st=E
Charter funding varies widely from state to state. In Oregon, where I live,
* charters get 80 percent of the amount of the school district’s General Purpose Grant per weighted average daily membership (ADMw)for students in grades K-8; and
* 95 percent of the amount of the school district’s General Purpose Grant per ADMw for students in grades 9-12.
Source is here.
But, according to the Fordham Foundation -- widely recognized as a pro-charter, pro-voucher organization -- "Across 16 states and the District of Columbia—which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter school students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them."
Worth noting: But in releasing the report yesterday, the institute's researchers acknowledged that it was based on data from 2002-03 and that the funding of D.C. charter schools -- particularly their facilities allowance -- has increased significantly since then. In fact, the charter school movement here in some respects is a model for the nation, officials at the think tank said.
"D.C. has one of the most equitable funding mechanisms across the land," said Mike Petrilli, vice president for national programs and policy at the Fordham Institute. "Local and federal officials should be congratulated for that."
Nevertheless, the report sparked renewed debate on whether the distribution of public dollars between D.C. charter and regular schools is fair, with some saying that the regular schools are getting shortchanged.
D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said he has not seen the study, but he disputed the notion that charter schools in the District receive significantly less per-pupil funding than traditional public schools.
By coincidence, Williams and a U.S. Department of Education official appeared yesterday morning at the Elsie Whitlow Stokes public charter school in Northwest Washington to announce that the city will receive an annual federal grant of $5 million for the next three years to help fund salaries and programs at new charter schools. The District has received similar awards over the past decade.
"Across 16 states and the District of Columbia—which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter school students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them."
So you're right, educator. Charters don't get 80% of the funding that regular public schools get. They only get 78%. Thanks for helping me get this right.
Yes, but my claim was that KIPP schools don't have better funding than districts schools do, and that was correct, even with the addition of private funding. It MIGHT equalize at some KIPP schools, but it doesn't go over. As an example of your incorrectness, I cited New Jersey, which has 2 KIPP schools, and I mentioned that they get way lower funding than their district does. You said my claim was wild. Then I gave you stats that show that my claim was correct. I never said that NJ was the norm. I'm not surprised to see that 80% is the norm - but that refutes yet another one of your six nonsensical assertions about KIPP.
I'm not sure how what you're saying "refutes yet another one of (my) six nonsensical assertions about KIPP." Which one of the six does it refute?
KIPP schools are small? No.
KIPP teachers are highly motivated? No.
KIPP students are highly motivated? No.
KIPP parents are highly motivated? No.
KIPP enjoys lots of private financial support? No.
KIPP is widely, uncritically celebrated in the media? No.
You said that KIPP schools don't have better funding than districts schools do. But you can't prove that. While it's true that KIPP, as a charter organization, receives on average about 78% of what regular schools receive, you have no way of knowing how much they make in private donations. This amount may or may not exceed the amount that regular schools get. Keep in mind that the KIPP Foundation exists primarily to raise money for KIPP schools. How many schools get millions of dollars from Gates, Broad, and the Waltons?
You use NJ as an example and somehow want to make one state representative of the whole country. NJ is not representative, as the Fordham data clearly show. Even so, you don't know how much money NJ KIPP schools receive in local, state, federal, and private donations, do you? That's OK. I don't either. No one does.
That's the problem.
One interesting fact in Washington, DC the KIPP charter schools all have age requirements on their enrollment applications. Therefore, if a student has been retained they cannot apply. Also based on diagnostic testing students are told to go back a grade and then of course cannot attend because they are overage.
Post a Comment