Interesting discussion. I have my own opinion on the malleable, eager-to-sit-at-the-cool-kids’-table David Brooks, but his column and perspective are less important than the key point identified above: the disconnect between “no excuses” schools and truly great schools with rich curriculum, effective instruction and genuine concern for individual students’ progress.

Like Tim, I hate the “no excuses” label. What’s the opposite of a no-excuses school? A school where teachers do excuse students’ deficiencies because of their terrible life situations, but persist in teaching them, anyway? (I know plenty of those.) A school where teachers use the realities of students’ life situations to excuse their own negligence or incompetence? Who, precisely, is making excuses at the “excuses-OK” school?

Perhaps the opposite of a no-excuses school is one where students are treated as individuals whose thoughts and goals (even excuses) are considered in the learning process. And who gets to have schools like that? Not other people’s children.

The next step in this line of thinking is “paternalism”–a chilling and arrogant word that has recently been promoted as a positive quality in school reform. We get what we want for our own children, and we know best for children in poverty. Work hard, be nice. And no second chances or excuses.

I don’t think most folks working in those schools believe they’re setting the finish line at reading at grade level!

We vie to push the bar higher, higher….both more kids to functionality, as you aptly put it, and more kids past functionality to excellence.

For example, whenever we discuss schools like KIPP and Achievement First, the first thing we do is say “look at the test scores!” I do it too. It’s a proxy for functionality. But when those of us who live in communities with great schools talk about what makes those schools great, the subject of test scores never comes up. It’s a given. Are we guilty of setting the finish line (reading on grade level) for other people’s children where we place the starting line for our own?

If she could get admitted into Boston Latin, go for it! That would mean she’s reached the top 3% of all Boston children in math and English. That’d be neat.

A number of KIPP like charters actually FEED Boston Latin up here. Kids arrive with low skills Grade 5, decent by Grade 9, test into exam schools. That frees charter up to do more turnaround work.

What does the other people’s children thing mean/imply?

Personally, we’re probably going to send our 1-year-old to the nondescript nearby elementary. If that little drooling bug could go instead to KIPP Shine, or Elm City in New Haven, or Edward Brooke here in Boston, we’d do it.

I think the leader at one nearby high performing charter tried to get his own kid into the school. But there is no family preference for staff, just for siblings. When they ran the lottery in March, he was way down on their waiting list.

When I say I have no dog in this fight, I mean it. By temperament, I’m more a no excuses guy, but to suggest that schools alone can close the achievement gap strikes me as wishful thinking. My hypothetical KIPP kid is still going to have a less that ideal outcome if she’s growing up sick, hungry and in a chaotic home. No excuses doesn’t fill your cavities or your belly. The thing that keeps me from being a broader, bolder guy on the other hand is what the military calls “mission creep.” I’d prefer to see urban schools be a little better at Job One before tackling Jobs Two through Twelve.

At the end of the day, I believe kids need a warm, nurturing environment and a clear sense that school is a means to many positive ends. They need experienced, talented teachers and rich curriculum that exposes them to the world they live in, not just catering to their narrow self-interest. They need adults in school, at home and in their community who look after them, care for them and who are not afraid to discipline, set limits and act like grownups.

I don’t have to choose for my daughter as if from a Chinese menu — you can have a good school or good health care, pick one–and I wouldn’t expect her to do very well if she did.

You’ve asked me a challenging rhetorical question, and I’ve given you my best, honest answer. Now it’s my turn: Given the choice where would you want to send our hypothetical two-year-old: KIPP or Boston Latin? Is KIPP the best we can do? Or merely the best we can do for other people’s children?

You get to choose one of the following for the 2-year old little sister of one of your former students.

a. KIPP School, Grade pre-K on.

b. A “Bigger Bolder” mega package. Trips to NYC’s best doctors if sick. Dental complete with $50 tooth fairy for each lost tooth. Unlimited access to Barnes and Noble. Housing upgrade. Head Start. Summer camp. Violin lessons.

Plus the closest regular district elementary, middle, and urban high school.

Which do you pick for her?

OK boys and girls, on your toes. Orwell’s back in town. This time Big Brother appears in the guise of David Brooks who sets out a dichotomy between the educational establishment which says schools alone “can’t produce big changes” (I don’t know of anyone who says this), and those who say that schools alone can produce big changes or, as codified in NCLB, can do it all.

As evidence, Brooks presents a new study from Will Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Harvard economists which is not yet peer reviewed and which the researchers themselves refer to as “Preliminary and Incomplete.” The title is “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap?” It’s a report of their study of some schools in Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone program.

The key to the answer to this question is, of course, “What do you mean by ‘high quality schools?’” Typically the answer from the “reformers” is in terms of having high expectations, high standards, and high quality teachers (however defined), an ace principal and lots of testing.

In part, in this instance, the answer means schools where kids who are below grade level (tests, of course) are in school twice as long as the typical student and those who are at or above grade level are in school 50% longer than the typical student.

“Both schools emphasize the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers and used a test score value-added measure to incentivize and evaluate current teachers.” Teacher turnover rate is high which, I imagine makes the argument circular–teachers who don’t raise test scores don’t get to hang around no matter what other fine qualities they might possess, so, q.e.d., test scores go up which, in the Dobbie Fryer study, they do.

But now comes the kicker in the description of the schools: “The schools provide free medical, dental and mental-health services (students are screened upon entry and receive regular check-ups) student incentives (money, trips to France, e. g.), high-quality, nutritious, cafeteria meals, support for parents in the form of food baskets, meals, bus fare, and so forth, and less tangible benefits such as the support of a committed staff. The schools also make a concerted effort to change the culture of achievement, surrounding students with the importance of hard work in achieving success. THESE TYPES OF SCHOOL POLICIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE THAT ARGUE HIGH-QUALITY SCHOOLS ARE ENOUGH TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. (CAPS MINE; I USED CAPS BECAUSE SOME OF THE LISTS RECEIVING THIS REMOVE OTHER FORMATTING DEVICES SUCH AS ITALICS).

Now, I haven’t been tracking all the efforts of the Bolder Broader compact, but it seems to me that many of these items are services that they want to include because kids who can’t see can’t read, kids who can’t hear the teacher don’t pay attention, and kids whose teeth hurt can’t concentrate. If this is going to be the new definition of a high quality school, then, aside from issues of how much time the kids are in school and how the project defines “high quality teachers,” there might be some convergence. Hell, just keeping the kids in school twice as long each day keeps them off some very mean streets and might be an incidental benefit in itself (although I suppose some cynics might argue it gets them accustomed to incarceration at an earlier age).

But so far, it’s only Dobbie and Fryer and Brooks who consider these as descriptors of a high quality “school.” The New York Times Paul Tough, who wrote “Whatever It Takes” about Canada’s project claims [Canada] has created in the Harlem Children’s Zone, an integrated set of PROGRAMS (MY CAPS AGAIN) that support the neighborhood’s children from cradle to college, in school and out of school.” Even Dobbie and Fryer write that “we conclude by presenting three pieces of evidence that high-quality schools or high-quality schools coupled with community investments generate the achievement gains.”

The Dobbie/Fryer mss. is at http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/hcz%204.15.2009.pdf.

Can’t resist pointing to one reason among many that, unlike those whom Jim Horn called the Three Stooges–Bloomberg, Sharpton, and Klein–I will likely not be visiting the White House anytime soon: http://www.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle.

Jerry

What do other people think?

If you want to prove that schools alone can close the achievement gap, you need to find a school that has done so without the wraparound services. Promise Academy is clearly doing something very right and having a positive effect. But it doesn’t make the “schools alone” case.