This from the Washington Post:
Middle school students in the Knowledge Is Power Program, a charter school network with a major footprint in the District and other cities, significantly outperform their public school peers on reading and math tests, according to a new study.
But the report, from Mathematica Policy Research, to be made public Tuesday, is unlikely to resolve debate over what is behind the network's success. Skeptics say that the program benefits from highly motivated parents seeking alternatives to ineffective public schools and that KIPP often winnows out students who don't fit its program.
The study, which KIPP commissioned, comes as the Obama administration is promoting the spread of strong charter schools as a strategy to improve urban education.
Founded in Houston in 1994 by two young alumni of Teach for America, KIPP has grown into a national network of 82 schools -- including seven in the District -- that serve children from low-income backgrounds. KIPP students put in a longer day than most of their public school counterparts, attending class from 7:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on weekdays. Many are also in class every other Saturday and for three weeks over the summer. A rigorous incentive system penalizes students for poor behavior and missed assignments. "Work hard, be nice" is the credo.
KIPP schools routinely outscore many that serve middle-class students. Its three middle schools in the District -- KEY, WILL and AIM academies, with a combined enrollment of 960 -- are among the city's highest-performing on the DC-CAS tandardized tests.
Mathematica studied 22 KIPP middle schools, including AIM and KEY, comparing test scores of charter students to scores of selected students in regular public schools who matched their academic and demographic backgrounds.Researchers examined test data starting in third grade. KIPP middle schools begin in fifth. By seventh grade, half of the KIPP schools studied showed growth in math scores equal to an additional 1.2 years of school. Reading gains for KIPP were not as dramatic but still significant, the researchers reported, reflecting an additional three-quarters of a year of growth.
Mathematica said it found no evidence that KIPP schools were systematically drawing students with more economic advantages from surrounding school systems.
But attrition rates at the KIPP schools, measuring the portion of students who failed to complete four years at the schools, varied widely. In a third of the schools studied, attrition was significantly higher than in other local public schools. In another third of the KIPP schools, the rate was lower.
Skeptics say that students who can't function in the rigorous school culture are often pushed out -- a claim that KIPP rejects...
2 comments:
RE: Richard’s Question:
“Why is it that everybody is going out and buying themselves reports that say whatever they want them to say? Has scholarship been overtaken by the expedient politics of the news cycle?”
Sadly, there are very good answers to this.
To be blunt, there isn’t much good “scholarship” to overtake.
The vast majority of research on education from the academy and elsewhere is generally of such poor quality that it absolutely invites these sorts of turf-protection efforts. In fact, the academy itself is one of the major problems.
Read comments from Arthur Levine, the past president of Columbia Teachers College in New York City. As the former head of one of the nation’s most energetic and well-known teacher preparation institutions, Levine is in an excellent position to make such comments. He pulls no punches in the “Educating School Teachers” and “Educating Researchers” reports (Google these reports by using the key phrase “Arthur Levine Educating School Teachers,” etc). Both reports should be mandatory reading in every school of education and in every office of every college president that has a school of education on campus.
In his introductions to these reports, Levine chillingly writes:
“It quickly became apparent that in today’s heavily charged environment, there was less interest in 'truth telling' by those interviewed than in defending their positions. Repeatedly, members of the education school community asked for a compelling defense of their schools; people outside the academy requested a stirring condemnation.”
Very simply, Levine finds no more “scholarship” within the education school community than among its critics. Defending turf is deemed more important than seeking the truth. And, the problem for education school “scholarship” is that many outside of the education establishment know it.
But, don’t blame this on something external like the newspapers. Turf-protecting, politically motivated education schools are largely responsible for this entirely on their own. Just read Levine.
For one who believes there isn't much good scholarship...you sure quote a lot of it at BIPPS.
Why is that?
You defend the lousy studies you agree with and condemn the ones you don't.
Why is that?
You never wait for confirmation before publishing - repeatedly and as though proof - studies that say what you want them to say.
Why is that?
You're free to say whatever you want, but wouldn't it be more compelling if such criticism of poor scholarship came from those who don't contribute to the existing problem?
If everyone who was less interested in truth-telling than defending their turf were to suddenly burst into flame we'd need a big fire hose in Bowling Green.
Post a Comment