Ed Policy - KIPP schools

On pages 135-137 of Death and Life of the Great American School System, Diane Ravitch criticizes certain aspects of KIPP schools. Based on this and the other assigned readings (particularly Mathews), would say her argument is valid? 

KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) is a network of charter schools, often known as being 'no-excuses' with long hours and strict discipline. According to the KIPP website, they now have 162 schools “dedicated to preparing students in underserved communities for success in college and life”. KIPP focuses on character strengths as well as academics. KIPP says that their students are performing better than they would have otherwise.

Diane Ravitch and other critics wonder if the performance claims are accurate, and sustainable / scalable. Perhaps there's creaming happening, where only most motivated and school ready students choose the charter schools leaving the rest for the regular public schools? Or what about attrition – maybe the low performing students are counseled out of staying at KIPP schools, so then the overall academic performance looks higher? Even if the gains are true, can the intensity of KIPP schools continue, and scale into other regular schools? Do the schools have high teacher attrition, and thus need to rely on newcomers? Are KIPP schools spending more money from foundations, and what happens when the money starts to dry up?

Charter schools, whether run by KIPP, other organizations, or a few teachers, are schools of choice. Families decide to enroll in them, rather than being assigned to them like a regular public school. The active choice does mean that there are probably some factors that are different about charter school students and regular students. Because of this difference, we may not be able to extrapolate results from charter schools to what might happen if their methods were implemented in regular schools, but with lottery studies, we can see whether the academic gains are attributable to the charter schools or to the unknown difference factors. In the New York City Charter Schools article, Hoxby and Murarka show that the students did benefit from being in the charter schools, and that they were not the 'cream' (wealthier), but rather were more likely to be poor. In a Mathematica study of KIPP middle schools (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/education/KIPP_middle_schools_wp.pdf), they found that “KIPP schools generally admit students who are disadvantaged in ways similar to their peers in local public schools”. This study also found that “attrition rates for KIPP students are not systematically different from those of students in local district schools, overall or for at-risk subgroups”. Another Mathematica study (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/education/kipp_fnlrpt.pdf) found that achievement rates were higher for students who had ever attended KIPP, even if they didn't stay in KIPP. Overall, the academic gains do seem to be attributable to being at KIPP, not because of creaming or attrition.

So if KIPP does improve test scores, can we just create many more KIPPS and/or take their strategies into regular public schools? KIPP teachers and staff work much longer hours, and the successful NYC charter schools mentioned in the Hoxby & Murarka reading also had more school hours per year. Given union contracts and the increased finances of longer school day/year, extending hours may not be possible for all schools. Also these teachers who are working more seem more likely to leave - “the study found teacher turnover in KIPP schools to occur at slightly higher rates than traditional public schools (21 percent compared to 15 percent)” (http://www.kipp.org/news/education-week-kipp-schools-boost-academic-performance-study-finds) KIPP schools also receive more money than regular public schools, possibly $6500 more per student according to one study (http://virww.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP195_3.pdf). Also KIPP and often charter schools in general don't enroll as many English Language learners or students with disabilities as the local regular public schools.

While KIPP does seem to produce results for its students, the criticisms about scaling the model are valid. Like everything we've learned in this class, there's no silver bullet. Nothing is going to work for everyone, everywhere. KIPP isn't going to save the world, but it can certainly save its students' worlds.

Ed Policy - School Choice

In his interview with Professor Peterson, John Kirtley talks about the blurring that is starting to occur

between private and public delivery of education as customized choice options continue to grow in the U.S. Do

you approve of this development? What should be the next phase of this type of education reform?

In the video, John Kirtley spoke about how he views the definition of public education is changing, to a system where parents are allowed to direct the dollars to different providers using different delivery methods.  He also talks about how this blurring is already happening between public & private education - some public schools are run by private school management companies, some private schools are using voucher or other public funding.  His main point about choice was less so about getting rid of failing schools, and more so about meeting the needs of each child.  John Kirtley views school choice as a driver for customization, for students to be able to go to a school that works well for them.  An underlying belief in that view is that different students learn differently and that different schools could be better for different students.  This customization theory around choice is different from the the market theory reasoning often given for school choice (where schools compete for students to raise the bar for everyone).  It's also different from the political theory (public education is often burdened with too many rules and regulations and can't focus on the mission of teaching) and the social capital theory (private schools are better able to build community and socialization for students and families).

I share John Kirtley's underlying belief about different learning methods being better for different students.  While I am all about using evidence and research in education, I also know that just because one curriculum method works well for the majority of students doesn't mean that it's going to work well for me or my child.  With choice in educational options, parents and students can (ideally) find the best environment where they can learn well and feel safe and comfortable.  When I helped to start a charter school in San Diego, this was the main tenet underwhich we worked - our goal was to offer a different type of education with less typical classroom learning and more project-based learning, which may work better for some learners, but not all.

Unfortunately too much choice does have its limitations.  As a general psychological limitation, choice can be overwhelming and perhaps anxiety-producing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice).  Also whether families are choosing the 'best' schools overall or the 'best' school for them, there are the same issues of building awareness about how a school is doing.  And with the customization theory, parents also need to know how a school does what it does, and to have enough self-knowledge to be able to make the decision about whether that's a good fit. 

John Kirtley mentioned in the video that in Florida, they found that it was mostly the low-income, low-performing students who used the vouchers to leave an environment which presumably wasn't working for them - but how much investigation did they do about their new environment?  Were they actively trying to choose something better for them educationally, or were they just looking for something different?  Based on some of our previous readings about how many low-income (or any type of income) parents chose schools based on convenience or social characteristics, rather than educational characteristics, I would guess that many families just chose the next school over. The statistics that John cited seem to indicate that the difference did work better for them educationally (regression to the mean?  if you're in a bad place, then most anything else will be better?), but I wonder how much better it could have been if there was very active trying to align student learning differences with a specific school environment.  (If someone knows of research showing how parents are making the decisions in using vouchers, please share!)

One aspect about this customization theory of choice is whether the choice has to happen at the school level.  What if instead more choice & customization could happen at the classroom or even the student level?  Some aspects of learning may be related to the total school environment (safety, overall culture, resources available, etc), but many may be more related to classroom environment (teacher interactions, etc).  What if different classrooms taught in different ways?  We may need to start thinking of them less as 'classrooms' and more like 'learning hubs'.  What if some teachers helped to guide students in technology based learning interactions?  What if some teachers guided students in real-world projects?  And maybe some teachers keep lecturing - because it does work well for some students.  And children could switch between different delivery methods and learning styles based on what they need for the subject/topic they're studying then.  I see a future where teachers are less about 'teaching' and more about guiding students to find the best learning for them.

Future for Ed - Final

In the first week, I noticed some aspects about my own learning that I hadn't really thought about before (learning better when I'm strongly motivated by the subject area, needing alone and quiet in order to focus on the material and process it, 'outputting' aka writing papers or completing projects better under the pressure of a deadline).  In the week about intelligence, I found myself honing my thinking about intelligence and potential.  While IQ might have some biological basis to it, there is still a lot of potential that goes unfulfilled for many learners because there's a mismatch between their environment and their learning.  In the week about teachers, my general image of a good teacher stayed fairly similar, but I gained new perspective on different types of learners may need different types of teaching.  Someone who is a good teacher for one person may not be a good teacher for someone else.

Thinking about the learning approach for this course, some aspects resonated more with me than others.  I'm fairly introverted and find that I often learn better through having time to myself to process my thoughts.  The reflections and padlet walls were interesting to briefly skim, and to get me to briefly engage more with the learning.  But I found the real learning and discovery for me came from my own introspection and research, not through the group work.  Although I liked having the variety of ways to learn, and I think that different learners probably found different aspects more helpful than I did.

My preferred future for education starts young!  Learning begins at (or even before) birth.  Not that we should have a curriculum or standardized tests for young children, but we can realize that their early experiences in play and interaction are building their neurons and laying the foundation for later learning.  By helping parents and early childhood educators to interact with young children, we may be able to close a bit of the school readiness achievement gap.  And then once the children are in school, my vision is for them to have choice and personalized learning.  With the resources we have from technology and other means, children (or any learners) don't need to sit in a classroom learning all exactly the same thing at the same pace.  Children can work on their skills through real projects, and connect with community members to see how their learning is used in the real world.

External Exams - Ed Policy

What is your assessment of the potential for external central exams to improve student motivation to study and do well at school and thus, increase student success? What are some potential pitfalls? How can these be addressed?

External central exams would be outside tests that are given to students, most likely at the high school level.  So rather than students being graded by their teachers, they are given grades or scores based on how they achieve on these external tests.  The tests could be just one overall test for high school graduation, or could be multiple subject tests at different levels - although they should all be tests that a student can prepare and study for.  AP tests are one form of current external central exams, but their level is above what most high school students are achieving.

Some possible benefits of these tests are that students (and teachers) would have more clarity on what they need to learn (although this benefit only comes if the tests are well-constructed).  Another possible benefit is that students would stop seeing their teacher as the 'judge', and start seeing their teacher more as a coach - someone who is in the situation with them and ready to help them.  While this may happen a bit, I think that there would need to be some change in teaching style in addition to the change of testing for most students to change their vision of the teacher to a coach.

Student accountability and external exams are being brought up as an issue for older children, because as "The Adolescent Society" article notes, "adolescents don't like school".  However, I don't know if more tests are going to help teens to like school more.  As the article also talks about, the school culture is in part defined by the structure of rewards.  If the football team is always celebrated after a win, then playing football will be the popular thing to do.  Where as if the science olympiad team is celebrated after a win, then perhaps science will become the popular thing to do.  (Which reminds me that I've been wanting to send an email to the local high school I drive past some days that congrats students for academic achievements on their scrolling electric signage!  It always makes me happy because my high school growing up had a state ranked football team and a nationally ranked science olympiad team - but guess which one got much more publicity?) 

Anyway, we need to consider if the external exams will help to shift schools back to their latent function, or if students still won't care.  Or if there may even be a negative effect.  If the external exams are seen a the 'white' way to achieve, then will African Americans and Hispanics underachieve?  I think this may be the case if there are multiple levels of the external exams, such as an academic test and a general test.   While African-American participation in AP tests has increased recently, the percentage of African-American students taking the test is still very low, and their scores are lower as well (http://www.jbhe.com/features/59_apscoringgap.html).  It would be interesting to see how this external test taking and scoring correlates with Fryer's work on 'Acting White'.  Do more or fewer minority students take AP tests in integrated schools vs more segregated schools?

There's also the basic issue of type of motivation.  Having an external test that the students and teachers can rally together to do well on may be motivating to some.  But do we want to focus on external motivation or internal motivation?  Do we want to students to be studying because they want to ace the test or because they're engaged and interested in the material and see its relevance in their life?  Granted, building internal motivation is often more difficult and a longer process than giving out gold stars, but internal motivation and grit seems to be more important in the long run.  In one study, they looked at West Point cadets and found that those who were internally motivated were more likely to make it through than those who were going for outside reasons (http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/07/one-type-motivation-may-be-key-success)

Overall external tests may help for curriculum clarity and possibly to have teachers work more as coaches.  But unless the overall culture of the school and the local community rewards higher test scores, I don't know if just the tests will motivate students to achieve at higher levels.  And even if the external rewards are in place, what about internal motivation?

One way to possibly increase internal motivation while using external tests is diversity of choice, that Bob Schwartz mentioned briefly in the video.  If different subjects had different external tests, and students could choose a selection of which courses & tests they would take, that may increase some internal motivation because students would likely be taking courses and tests based on what they're interested in or want to do in the future.  The International Baccalaureate or IB Diploma has a system like this, where students choose one subject from five groups to ensure breadth, but also choice.  http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/