Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > November > 27 > Entry
Education’s future: Will we do what works?
(Students at the Dayton Early College Academy, an experimental school that borrowed some of its core concepts from the KIPP model)
Poverty is a powerful roadblock to student success, but it can be overcome. To breach the achievement gap, schools need more than typical resources so they can provided extended programs with more hours of instruction.
But it can be done, as demonstrated most notably by the KIPP charter schools around the country. The question is how effectively a KIPP-style model can be replicated on a wide scale in America’s urban areas, and if as a nation we have the will and the willingness to pony up the extra cash it would likely take.
That’s the message of a lengthy but very useful primer on the state of education in America written by Paul Tough in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine called “What it takes to make a student.” (Since the magazine was in print by Saturday, I’ll forgive the Times for ripping off my blog headline from that day: “How to make a teacher.”)
The story already has been dinged by some critics for covering old ground on some of the hot education issues. That may be true for the real policy wonks, but my hunch is the step-by-step explanation of some of the research that Tough highlights on the effects of poverty and parenting styles is news to more general followers of education issues.
And these are important trends. Fairly recent discoveries such as the “word gap” are driving lots of changes in education policy, especially the push for more and better early childhood education. Plus, there’s lots of good practical information for parents, such as how to talk to your kids in a way that makes them smarter.
Tough also makes the argument that charter schools have served their purpose by providing a “laboratory” of sorts through which KIPP and other innovators honed more effective programs. As he states in the story, critics rightfully point to poor academic performance of charters compared to traditional public schools. And I’d add that most charter schools are not especially innovative, using off-the-shelf curriculum and school designs rather than experimenting. But if the KIPP-type models work, perhaps that alone will prove the charter movement was worth the effort?
Perhaps. That may depend on whether those programs are practical for use on a wide scale in public schools. The best charter school I know is the SEED school in Washington, D.C., which removes kids from their troubled neighborhoods and boards them at the school while they learn. It works great — so far every graduate, no matter how low income, has gone on to college — but it’s three times as expensive as a typical public middle/high school education costs. Just because it works doesn’t mean we should pluck all our urban kids out of their homes and place them in public boarding schools.
Or look locally at Dayton’s ISUS Trade and Tech Prep high school, which teachers practical workforce skills to dropouts while helping them reclaim some level of academic success. They also get kids who might otherwise be lost to graduate, but at a cost that requires vigilant private fund-raising. ISUS could never do what it does on the state subsidy alone.
On the other hand, KIPP and like models use some strategies that we’ve already seen copied in other public schools — an emphasis on character, rewards and consequences for good and bad behavior, a heavy focus on math and reading, frequent testing, 24-hour access to teachers by phone.
Still, probably the biggest advantage of KIPP is the longer school day, longer school week and longer school year many of the schools employ. Tough says they provide up to 60 percent more instruction hours than typical schools. KIPP may be right when it argues that much extra time is needed to catch up kids who have fallen behind. On the other hand, many charter schools that employ their model rely on very young, idealistic teachers and the schools have high teacher burnout rate.
Sustainability is a big concern with the KIPP-style approach. Keeping it going on a broader scale is almost certainly going to depend on spending more in high poverty areas, as Tough argues. That’s where the future of this reform gets tough. If we know what it takes to erase the achievement gap but we find it will be very costly, with Americans have the will to go forward with it?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, My Favorite Posts, Teaching and Learning, Young Children
Comments
By Rick
December 4, 2006 6:21 PM | Link to this
Scott, there is an article in the NY Times about a Dr. Cashin who is one of several superintendent of New York City and how how her elementary and middle schools are doing well in spite of being in some of the worst parts of NYC. While it is a much shorter article than the one I mentioned earlier, some interesting things can be gleaned. It does not appear that additional funds are being used, nor additional personnel. Dr. Cashin is from the Old School and believes there can be value added by the heirarchy. She believes in clear instructional mission, careful organization and a simple strategy of every educator’s being supported by an educator with more experience. I post this to demonstrate that there is no one cookie cutter way to get to success.By Oldprof
November 28, 2006 9:19 PM | Link to this
Waiting, you should probably know that the state barged in to run Cleveland schools a few years ago and things got worse. The local district went from a surplus to a deficit in part because the state BOE keeps changing the rules on funding, and they recently lost a lawsuit about it, so Dayton will get several million back, probably. Now, who do you want running Dayton’s schools really—Susan Zellman, a rudesby who can’t run her own department by the book, or some locals who are struggling against the state’s micromanagement, plus inadequate and unconstitutional funding formulas?By Oldprof
November 28, 2006 8:56 AM | Link to this
And all these years, we’ve heard politicians saying that the way to solve education problems was not to throw money at them. Turns out they’re wrong; it does require throwing money. I sure hope John Husted reads this.By Keith
November 28, 2006 8:45 AM | Link to this
It appears we’re going to be treated to another round of “miracle” schools that are what we need to fund instead of the regular public schools. The DECA school promoted by UD (not the end all of education knowledge they project as their image) had horrible behavior problems as told to me by someone there and in the know their first two years. The ability to perform in school goes back to the responsibility of the parents; if they aren’t made to be responsible and are instead rewarded with OPM (other people’s money) for not being responsible the society will continue to have more and more problems with schools. If kids can’t handle sitting in the classroom and learning for their future, imagine how they’ll not be able to perform sitting in a job working for their future. The idea that extra smart kids are just being overlooked is another decoy/excuse. Fund the public school and require real teaching occur or no one graduates and you’ll get improvement from the parents sending those kids to school. Look how interested parents become when their kids won’t graduate to pass the simple proficiency testing 9th grade and now OGT testing 10th grade. Look at the Trotwood fiasco where kids didn’t do a senior project and were (rightly) not graduated and not walked across the stage to pretend they graduated despite parental pressure and reporters/writers in DDN trying to effect that change.By waiting
November 28, 2006 3:16 AM | Link to this
still waiting on complete explanation on what happens if the state comes into run this district,every time they want to pass a levy they say the state is coming the state is coming,I think it is time 45,000,000.oo to the good to 12,000,000.00 inthe hole in a 4 yr.period ?????By Mary
November 27, 2006 6:49 PM | Link to this
The author of the New York Times article and the educators he interviewed do not seem to understand the issues regarding higher ability learners, including the minority, poor high ability learners that became unintended applicants to KIPP, etc. These students need and deserve an appropriate education, too. In the discussion of IQ, self discipline and GPA, there is an irresponsible lack of understanding that the high IQ students probably lack self discipline for success because they have been underchallenged and have not been exposed to anything new. It appears the gap is being closed by holding some students to much lower standards than their abilities. Also, I think it is a disservice to students and society to teach that college is the only path to success and good jobs for all students.By Rick
November 27, 2006 6:15 PM | Link to this
Scott, I need to read the article a few more times, before I comment in depth. One thing that struck me is the almost certainty that this will bring out more class warfare. On the one hand are those folks nobly trying to fight the low academic achievement of minority students. If the KIPP model is shown to truly work, its advocates will strive for large increases in taxes to pay for it, for it will be very expensive. If you oppose a tax increase you will be called a racist, hard-hearted, ugly, and be accused of having halitosis. On the other hand, you will have the middle class who will say, “Hey! We did what was needed for our kids. We read to them. We had a mother and father in the home, we took them to museums, plays, etc. We talked to them, especially when they were little. We did all the right things but now you want to reward those who did all the wrong things and you want us to pay for it! How about spending a little extra on us?”