Mom of KIPPster, I don’t criticize KIPP for accepting the more-motivated students from motivated families, and not the lower-functioning students from lower-functioning families. I just criticize them for not being honest about it, because KIPP and its supporters often deny that that’s what’s happening.

So my question is, if a regular public school also got rid of the lower-functioning, unmotivated, more-messed-up kids, would it improve a lot?

The reason I criticize KIPP is not for what it’s doing for its own students but because of the fact that it hurts other schools and the children in those other schools. That’s why I don’t let it go.

John says: “The Boston Charter School study released recently studied the differences in achievement between kids who applied to charters via random lottery and got in, vs. those who didn’t. It effectively defeats the argument that creaming is a factor.”

No, that doesn’t make sense; you’re missing the point. The sound comparison would be between students who applied to charters vs. students who NEVER APPLIED TO CHARTERS, or otherwise exercised any options; students who simply went to the schools they were assigned by default.

“Creaming” in this context, as in “skimming the cream,” not ooh-ing and ahh-ing, or “kvelling” as they say in these here parts.

All:
I would note that this topic has been joined by people from at least three cities (NYC, SF, and Dallas) , each of which has a different current school board or DOE type structure, and different catchment zone practices (school choice within the traditional public school roster), but ALL of which have similar issues with charters. Interesting.

To Mom of KIPP: You might have complained about me as a teacher for not being able to give your child the attention he needed in this situation. The point is, this group of particular children in a class of 28 was too much. The next year I had a more balanced class with the same numbers and the difference was significant.

The point is that if your son was in a class with many kids who are struggling even at KIPP there may have been the same issues. But KIPP through creaming makes sure that doesn’t happen. Great for you and your son. Not so great for the rest who remain in public school.

So the concept of a school like KIPP is not bad. But if the DOE set up a separate school with less problems they might have the same impact on your son.

My point is that no serious attempt has been made in the public schools to address these kinds of problems by creating small classes.

I agee that the arguments on the bigger issues mean nothing to a parent. But if all schools in your city were KIPP then you would see the same problems, one reason KIPP shuns the idea of taking over a bloc of schools in a contiguous area. Give them the Detroit school system which might very well happen and watch the results.

Do Middle class parents get to send their children whereever they wish to send them?

The overwhelming majority of middle class people in this country have 2 choices. The local public school or private school. In Long Island or Westchester. Or upstate NY. Are all suburban districts equal? No. It seems the richer districts spend more and their schools are considered “better.” Just check the class sizes.

In the city the middle class areas don’t have a lot of other choices either. Yet see what is happening when charters are trying to get a wedge. It is middle class parents who are protesting.

As for the rich, they really throw cash at their schools, mainly for the lower class sizes.

I fail to see how it’s “stupid social engineering” when a parent or a DOE comes up with an idea — but not when a charter-operator or corporation does.

I fail to see how it’s a “fad of education reform” if a non-charter operator comes up with an idea — but not when a charter-operator, or an enrolling parent does.

And with that, I have better things to do this sunny afternoon. I’ll parse the rest of later. Or not. Toodles.

The Boston Charter School study released recently studied the differences in achievement between kids who applied to charters via random lottery and got in, vs. those who didn’t. It effectively defeats the argument that creaming is a factor.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/blog/news_features_releases/2009/01/new-study-of-boston-charter-and-pilot-schools-finds-charter-schools-have-positive-effects-on-student.html
John

What disadvantaged families of color complain about, though, is that schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods are, almost without exception, the schools that don’t fill up by request and thus get those default assignments. So if a family in a disadvantaged neighborhood wants a school that has no students assigned by default, they must apply to a popular school elsewhere in the city (though there’s likely to a popular school not geographically that far away — just not quite in the same neighborhood), and enter a lottery in the hopes of winning a seat. That process deters some families. My concept would somehow GUARANTEE every student the request-only school he/she had applied for.

Charter folks are divided between those who openly agree that creaming is desirable and the others — misinformed or dishonest — who claim that no creaming goes on. My view is that if creaming is benefiting some low-income, at-risk students (those motivated enough to participate in the creaming process), perhaps we should institutionalize it.

An alternative un-creamer:
Everyone who lives in a given geographic area is put through a lottery assigning numbers from 1 to whatever. In numerical order, parents get to choose which school they want they child to attend. (Applications would be filed simultaneously; many ways to automate the assigning process.)

This would eliminate the “creamer” of waiting for — or encouraging (through targeted mailings, etc.) — “motivated parents” to of their own volition approach the school first.

Sure, the more popular schools would fill up first. And heck, in the example under discussion, it may very well BE the KIPP school.

But at least it would fill up with a RANDOM cross-section of the community.

Let’s call it “Opt For” rather than “Opt In.” Otherwise, we’re back to… the strongest swimmers reach the lifeboats first.

Now then, if charter supporters object, I would be open to an alternative fair way to ration a finite, in-demand resource. And no, I don’t mean a lottery amongst walk-ups, the current method.

Or let’s just admit, as some commenters proudly do, that creaming is desirable. I dare say not everyone on the Titanic would be unanimous.

So here are my issues with that situation as it pertains to KIPP:

– KIPP and its supporters — including Jay Mathews, whose book was the subject of this post — often insist that KIPP does not cream; they say it accepts those most-messed-up kids to whom we are referring. But KIPP DOES cream and DOES NOT accept those most messed-up kids. Claiming otherwise is a misconception or a lie, depending on the degree of knowledge of the person perpetuating the misinformation. For a number of reasons, it’s really wrong to lie like that, and KIPP and its supporters need to cut that **** out.

– If the traditional public school down the street could ALSO exclude and/or get rid of those most-messed-up kids, could it do as well as the KIPP school? We don’t know, because there is not open acknowledgment that KIPP creams, so the impact of that creaming is not clear.

– It would be useful to all of public education if the different aspects of the KIPP program could be studied so it was clear what has the most impact. But it’s not possible to do that when there isn’t honest acknowledgment of the creaming factor.

– Teachers in traditional public schools unfairly get attacked, blamed and bashed (as we saw the KIPP mom do), while KIPP teachers unfairly get praised to the heavens, when the real difference is that the KIPP students have been through the creaming process. That’s wrong.

I’m really interesting in the creaming factor. Here’s a scenario I would suggest, perhaps as a pilot project, for low-income urban schools:

Figure out how to create a setup so that every student has a choice of two schools. School A is accessible only if the student/family specifically requests it. School B other is the default school — students who make no request and do nothing get that school. Perhaps School A might have some other admission requirements — students and family must sign commitments to good behavior, etc. Otherwise, continue to teach as before in both School A and School B. Then let’s see if School A suddenly becomes much more successful, and its students become higher achievers, with the more-troubled, lower-functioning kids having been removed and clustered together in School B. God help everyone involved with School B, but at least the kids in School A have benefited.

“Charters are benefitting at the expense of non-charters.”

And I agree with him here:

“I do not want to see education, the bedrock of the rise of the middle class in this country, taken over by corporate interests to the exclusion of parent input.”

Some responses to Mom of KIPPster:

“Do any of you critics have children?” Yes, two urban public school students.

***
I disagree with and object to the bashing of non-KIPP teachers that KIPP encourages. It’s wrong, unethical, harmful and ultimately suicidal (as it harms support for ALL schools) for KIPP to encourage the hostility and attacks that Mom of KIPPster engages in.

“the teachers were not doing their jobs … They have teachers who actually care about the kids not just the pay checks. Thats what public schools lack.”

That’s a mean, unfair and inaccurate generalization, and it’s really nasty of KIPP to encourage that kind of thinking. KIPP requires its teachers to work extra-long hours, be available by cellphone etc., placing superhuman demands on them that no one can live up to for more than a short time — which is why KIPP has extremely high teacher turnover.

Here’s what the organization Rethinking Schools has said about that concept:

“Reforms are bound to fail if they rely on the voluntarism of idealistic, overworked teachers who burn out and leave the school once they decide to have a family or want any semblance of a meaningful personal life.”

No one is saying that KIPP never takes troubled children. But KIPP does not take the MOST problematic students, the lowest-functioning and least-motivated. It only accepts students who have parents/guardians who care enough to seek out the school, apply, sign commitments, etc. etc. etc.

Mom of KIPPster understands that KIPP seeks out students with “motivated parents that want better for their children…”

Yes, those are the students who are likely to be ultimately more motivated and more successful; that’s how KIPP creams.

I read your comments as you intended. And I respect you and your comments in full. I’m not trying to twist them or spin them — but I see them in a broader context.

“Lash out?” On what basis?

Again, as just one example of how charter and non-charters are in competition, I WISH we could provide class caps of 22 per class for ALL students. Don’t you?

Last, neither you nor I made race the topic. An OTHER commenter did. And that was indeed unfortunate.

Again, if faced with the school options you had to choose from — regardless of income, neighborhood, demographics, or anything — I’d make the same choice as you. But that’s NOT, in my opinion, the basis for sound public policy, or letting Klein off the hook for the state of the non-charters.

Society’s best interest may be defined as the sum of all individual interests, but not the celebration of SOME at the expense of OTHERS. The lifeboats are fine. But what of the ship?