I
found the contrast between Lack’s and Buras’s articles interesting, to say the
least. Buras highlights the shock and awe side of the Recovery School District
charter school movement in New Orleans, while Lack focused on the KIPP schools,
a less commonly critiqued branch of the charter school movement. In each of these
widely disparate instances, the proponents of the schools would have you
believe that the charter schools are able to embody the spirit of innovation,
thus paving the way for the success of each of its students. Whether this
occurs through the concept of parent ‘choice’ and competition (the good ol’ neoliberal
way, which the New Orleans residents were literally crying out for) or through
the enforcement of military-grade discipline (which just drips with the essence
of efficiency,) parents- or ‘consumers’ - are led to believe that their school
are progressive, responsive to ‘what really works’, cutting edge- in short,
they would serve their children better than any run-of-the-mill public school
could. As a result, charter schools are viewed as the way out, the only way for
individual success.
In demanding ‘innovation’ and choice, several key factors are missed. If parents could see past
the novelty and the ‘innovative’ label that has been stuck on these schools,
they would find that what they perceive as innovation is, quite often, really just the maintenance of the status quo, a restriction of creativity, a departure
from the development of critical thinking. Innovation in and of itself
can be a frightening thing. Innovation needs a goal- in education, this ought
to involve the development of students as both individuals and members of
society, able to think critically with concern for society, rather than
conforming to society because someone- someone ‘innovative’- told you it is
more efficient that way. Also, innovation may, very likely, translate into
experimentation, especially when the less powerful members of low SES are concerned. We find, in these instances, that the concern of the innovators seems to lie beyond the students with whom they are working.
With all of the outcry for change and the warm reception of charter schools, a tension seems to exist between
what is demanded of public schools with respect to innovation, and the leash they are given to accomplish
it. Parents, students, teachers, and other citizens acknowledge the need for
change, yet public schools are denied the flexibility which is granted to charter
schools, and instead are tied down by standardized tests and the like. It seems that the public is disgruntled with the
state, lacks faith in the collective and its ability to innovate and progress, doubts the strength of its teachers, and is willing to take a chance on the
innovators behind the charter schools- those clever and ambitious entrepreneurs
who are so attractive by our neoliberal standards. When frustrated with the state
(the scapegoat), who wouldn't choose to try something new? Especially when it promises
you the world, and its 'innovative' novelty is so shiny.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Hannah discusses, charter schools are commonly viewed as “the way out” or the answer to “what really works” in our failing education system. Parents are led to believe that they now have a choice in their child’s education. Charter schools will provide their children with a substantial education that in turn leads to upward social mobility. However, as Hannah states, charter schools in reality work to “maintain the status quo”. In Lack’s article, he discusses how KIPP does little to alter the status quo. He points out the fact that KIPP serves a student population that is 95% African-American and Hispanic (130). In this program, these students are encouraged that if they work hard, they will escape poverty and achieve success. These students must agree to embrace the five pillars of success that are laid out. If they do so, they will reach post-secondary institutions of education, which is the mission of the program. What I found particularly striking about this program is the militaristic discipline that’s in place. The schools have very structured curriculums, incredibly long school days and rigorous disciplinary standards. Because these schools serve mostly poor, minority students, this militaristic system is arguably another form of institutional racism, as Lack says (142). These students’ education is under the control of the two highly educated white males who hold the power over the program. It is assumed that these students need to be under this strict system in order to become good consumers in our market-based society. This discussion relates to Buras’ article where he argues that educational markets are raced and have differential racial effects (165). The push toward charter schools and programs like KIPP only perpetuates inequality among people of different races. As Hannah says, the public recognizes the need for change. However, programs like KIPP seem to only create greater differences among people of various races and social classes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ally that KIPP schools and many other charter schools who use the “whatever works” mentality focus on academic achieved while undermining democratic ideals. Ally referred to the required extra hours per day within KIPP schools. Our society uses the phrase “practice makes perfect” however, this might seem like a great idea but it also brings up many problems. Who will be willing to teach these children? When they aren’t receiving any benefits in return. I was also shocked with the disciplinary standards and action required at these types of schools. The ways in which KIPP schools discipline the students may reflect the problems with race and education. Brown in Lack argues, “that while a culture of privileged and freedom takes pervades the schools of the wealthy in the U.S., a culture of discipline and militarism pervades the schools of color and the poor” (141).
ReplyDeleteBoth Buras and The New York Times article speak of race as a huge underling issue with the development to increase charter schools. Buras writes, the increase interest of developing Charter schools in New Orleans is not based on issues of benefitting poor, black, minorities students because these issues have been around for decades, but to stop issue infringing on white students. The development of charter schools in New Orleans is viewed as an economic opportunity for rich white dominated corporations. Buras explains under the current reforms in New Orleans “the public schools attended by African American schools children have been rapaciously commodified by White entrepreneurs (and their Black allies), who care much less about improving the life chances of Black youth and much more about capitalizing schools, obtaining contracts, and lining their pockets with public and private monies” (168). The “white entrepreneurs” Buras speaks of are the Hedge fund executives written about in the New York Times article. The new Charter School supporters do not reflect the agenda of most teachers and administrators who wish to creating a democratic space that nurture critical thinking within with respect to the collective good of society. When creating reform programs it is critical to think who decides whose interests would be served?
Hannah describes innovation as something that is highly attractive in school reform. This idea of social entrepreneurship that is imploding discourses, even at Colgate University, is one that loves innovation. Business meets social equality and social entrepreneurs swear that the two can join hands. Of course, many of us accept this because it’s easy to believe that consumption can fix inequality when all it requires is a card swipe from us. However, what we are failing to talk about is that the two are inherently contradictory. Free market sustains inequality. Both of the authors are arguing that market ideology is inherently flawed and will always create inequity. Even though the two are not compatible to create equal education, we literally buy into the idea because we can feel good about ourselves without having to address major issues, kind of like buying fair trade coffee or something. The large disconnect fails to be discussed in public discourse, as Lack mentioned most of the writing on KIPP resembled praise and applause. I think one thing to hold onto from the Lack article is the hope that this discourse will move beyond the ‘ivory tower’ and into media. It is a complicated thing, especially for people of privilege to think about of to criticize.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to Ally’s discussion of “what works”- she explains how KIPP embraces this harsh means-to-an-end philosophy, which eclipses very important social factors in education. What I find so interesting about this approach is the ambiguity of whether “what works” actually WORKS. Put another way, there is no strong evidence that KIPP is actually teaching students better than traditional public schools, according to Lacks. He cites three studies in particular (pp 131-133) that favor the movement, yet are flawed in various ways: lack of control groups, testing students during times that will produce certain results, and other experimental inconsistencies. It seems ironic that a charter school movement so based on results and testing standards would not actually make any improvement in this area, even with the extra 62 percent of time they spend in school.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to testing, I also found it interesting that Lacks brought up the white-washing of students’ opinions about KIPP—he even uses the word “disturbing” to describe this silencing (p 138). This made me realize that throughout all of our reading about charter schools, I have not once noticed a student voice. Do charter school students enjoy their experiences? Does the militaristic ethos make them feel empowered or trapped? I realize that qualitative studies like this are probably hard to execute, given the strict security and privacy that we saw in HCZ. However, I think it would add to this field to understand the student perspective—especially since the students (not the researchers, not the donors, not the politicians) are the ones forced to sit through 750 additional hours of school.
Hannah rightly points to the desire for innovation in schools as an essential but also problematic driving force in the charter school movement. The desire of parents and students for innovation is an understandable one. They want a school that will provide children with an education that will best serve them in life. Pedagogies and schools should evolve to make sure that they are providing the best opportunities for students and using the best methods of teaching.
ReplyDeleteThe Lack article in particular shows how innovation has gone awry in the charter schools that have aggressively pursued forms of innovation that either don’t serve their students. Lack pointed out how KIPP schools require students to spend far more time in class even while students report “a difficult adjustment” (138). He notes that KIPP employs “harsh disciplinary features” (140) that developmental psychologists have refuted. He points to a 2005 ethnographic study that showed that KIPP schools rarely observe “systematic individualized instruction… performance assessment or student self-assessment.” (134) This makes it seem like charter schools actually fly in the face of the scientific approach to innovation that they claim to espouse.
The goals of charter schools in their innovation also fit only with very limited definitions of success. Lack reports how the use of KIPP dollars gives students the idea that “working hard to purchase more is a sure-fire route to goodness and happiness” (142). KIPP’s emphasis on obedience and conformity is “clearly a means of preparing students for participation in social, bureaucratic, and industrial organizations” (141). In other words, KIPP students are being taught to perpetuate the economic systems that placed them in unequal circumstances in the first place. The Winerip article also showed how the Harlem Success Academies had a very limited idea of what a successful student is. The Buras article further showed how the goals of White reformers were not only limited in scope to White ideals of success but even further exploitative practice towards Blacks. This is certainly innovation that has lost track of its true purposes.