One of the main components of the program is extending both the school day and the school year, so that schooling is 10 hours a day and 11 months a year or whatever. Why? The logic is basically that low-income minorities can't be trusted to raise their own children, so the government needs to step in and separate them from their kids.
Paul Tough (the NYT's main KIPP advocate) has an article here explaining it:
The basic idea is summed up in this quote from the article: "Can the culture of child-rearing be changed in poor neighborhoods, and if so, is that a project that government or community organizations have the ability, or the right, to take on?" In other words, kids need to be in school 24/7 in order to "change their culture."
There a variety of problems with this, e.g.
- Not supported by data.
- Not being allowed to do stuff on your own prevents you from developing executive function.
- The program revolves entirely around extrinsic motivation, which will prevent most of these kids from actually maturing into adults and being able to handle anything beyond minimum wage jobs.
- Even if these kids do have improved reading and math scores on standardized tests, which there is not yet data to support, it's nowhere near clear that this would outweigh the other problems with the program.
KIPP makes a lot of sense if your goal is to take kids who would normally join gangs and give them enough skills to work at McDonald's, but as a compulsory government program (where you go to prison and literally become a slave if you don't participate) I think this is highly dubious.
There is data to support this. There's a well known phenomena called summer learning loss. Some of the research suggests that the majority of the gap between rich and poor students can be explained by summer learning loss.
And remember, parents have to enroll their children in KIPP. How is that any different than rich parents sending their children to afterschool and summer programs that are commonplace? In many ways their completely identical. Except that historically poor students haven't even had the option of good afterschool and summer program.
This is a voluntary program. If you think your child will thrive outside the program then don't send them there. Analogies to enslavement don't help. And saying that a parent who sends their child to KIPP is somehow denying their child some culture, yet not calling out middle-class/upper-class children who enjoy these benefits today, seems hypocritical.
I understand summer learning loss, but that doesn't mean that KIPP is actually the best model (or even beneficial) in practice, especially at scale. Also, summer learning loss only measures math and reading performance on standardized tests, not executive function, intrinsic motivation, etc. And even on those measures, the difference isn't especially huge in math, so we're really only talking about reading ability. (Neither high-SES nor low-SES are doing math problems over the summer.) Is year round schooling really the best way to close the literacy gap?
Also, KIPP is voluntary now, but my understanding is that Gates is trying to make it the standard model of schooling. I have less of an issue with parents sending their kids to the program voluntarily, though I still think it's a bad idea.
> Is year round schooling really the best way to close the literacy gap?
What's the alternative in your mind? Personally, it makes complete sense to me to have year-round schooling. Especially considering the effects its been shown to have on math and reading performance.
What's so bad about extra schooling?
Edit: Also, perhaps it was different for you as a child, but most children are not intrinsically motivated to participate in school as it stands. As a kid I was far more interested in playing Age of Empires or playing outside, so the argument that extrinsic motivation doesn't work seems weak to me.
Other things that help are giving books to families and encouraging parents, especially male father-figures, to read to children.
That might need some adult eduction, because adult illiteracy is a bit of a problem.
In the UK we have a charity called BooksTrust. Unfortunately it seems to have wider reach among middle class families (who have enough money to buy books, and who read to their children) than among poor parents. They have quite modest funding (£13m per year)
I don't have a better source, but Freakonomics had a whole chapter dedicated to the fact that having books impacts learning outcomes much less than having money. While giving kids books and encouraging reading at home seemed like a logical solution, it seems like after school programs, summer camps, etc. are a better predictor for success
>The logic is basically that low-income minorities can't be trusted to raise their own children, so the government needs to step in and separate them from their kids
In general this is true. There is a serious culture change that needs to happen and the parents aren't doing it. This is coming from a black man that has seen first hand the toxic culture a lot of these kids grow up in.
>The program revolves entirely around extrinsic motivation, which will prevent most of these kids from actually maturing into adults and being able to handle anything beyond minimum wage jobs.
I see some version of this argument trotted out all the time, and frankly its nonsense. The majority of kids, rich poor black white, do not have the motivation to learn or try hard at school on their own. It is only through extrinsic motivations that these kids are able to succeed: parents, peers, culture. This is precisely exactly what poor inner-city kids lack. Any program that aims to change the trajectory of black achievement must address these issues head-on. There is absolutely no place for political correctness in these discussions; this is entire generations of kids being lost to low achievement and poor future prospects.
"There is a serious culture change that needs to happen and the parents aren't doing it."
During the 1950s, basically the height of segregation, blacks were doing just fine. If it's an exaggeration to say that the black community was on track to be what the Jewish community is in society today, it certainly isn't by much.
Considering that much of the decline in the black community has been caused by the school system (as well as the war on drugs and a few other factors), I think it's rather optimistic to think that radically increasing the amount of schooling is going to fix things.
Maybe it would surprise you to realise that yes, child-rearing culture can be and is a cause of persistent poor educational outcomes and a large part of the poverty cycle. Watch "Precious" for a taste. Some poor parents are actually scared of and distrustful of education. Some feel jealous if they see their children succeeding.
Re: McDonalds, what's wrong with that? It's not glamorous but it's a solid job which teaches good skills. People need to start somewhere, people from poverty may have no experience with the very most basic financial and life-skills you take for granted: managing expenditure, keeping income regular, putting aside spare cash, staying in one job. Those are the basics people need to learn, and the idea is that someone from poverty who succeeds at that stage can pass on the benefits they gain to their children, who will do even better. Then in a generation or two more they can become a university-educated family.
"Maybe it would surprise you to realise that yes, child-rearing culture can be and is a cause of persistent poor educational outcomes and a large part of the poverty cycle."
I realize this. I don't think having kids in school for more hours per day is the right way to change the culture though.
