what if KIPP "worked"?

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

What are the implications of KIPP "working," i.e., the consequences of KIPP being successful at what it claims to do?

KIPP schools are made up almost entirely of black or Hispanic students. KIPP's success undergirds the recent law passed by the Nebraska legislature, allowing for segregated schools in Omaha. In other words, looking at KIPP as an example, the argument could be made that while segregated schools might seem bad, they actually "work." Of course, what they work at doing is the question.

Why should this matter to us? After all, proponents of KIPP argue, "these children" need the basics in fifth grade because NO ONE TAUGHT THEM WELL ENOUGH BEFORE!  If the school system they were in beforehand hadn't been so screwed up and awful, they could start where they're supposed to, with fifth grade material. And maybe they wouldn't all have to spend 70% more time in school just to catch up.

But let's not forget Brown v. Board, the Supreme Court decision that was supposed to end segregated schools in America:

"Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal."

Think of it. The Court said that segregation denies to low-income minority children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment EVEN THOUGH the facilities of these segregated schools may be equal. So if we look at KIPP from the perspective of the Brown decision, we can see that KIPP denies to low-income minority children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment EVEN IF these segregated schools raise their achievement. So EVEN IF KIPP lived up to all its praise -- which I have argued in many previous posts it does not -- it would still be unconstitutional. As the Court argued in the decision,

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."

The decision, delivered by Chief Justice Warren, took this view on the importance of public education:

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Maybe KIPP is all we can hope for. Maybe we have to throw up our hands and say, "We can't beat racism, so let's join it." Maybe we have to face the facts and say, "Poverty will always be with us, so we just to have to make the best of it." Maybe we have to admit that KIPP is not as great as it claims to be, but -- because it works for some kids -- then that is enough.

Imagine if we said the same thing about world hunger. Maybe we we have to throw up our hands and say, "We can't beat world hunger." Maybe we have to face the facts and say, "Hunger will always be with us, so we just to have to make the best of it." Maybe we have to admit that current solutions are not as great as they claim to be, but -- because not all children end up starving to death -- then that is enough.

Gee. Come to think of it, that IS what we say about world hunger. In fact, it's also what we say about AIDS. It's what we say about homelessness. It's what we say about drug addiction. It's what we say about global poverty. In fact, it's what we say about other people's suffering as a whole. We accept, in full self-fulfilling prophecy mode, that these problems can never be solved. We accept that the best we can do is make something intolerable a little more tolerable. The question is, tolerable for whom?

For all the kids that are not "lucky" enough to get a place at KIPP, it is not tolerable. For all the kids that do make it into KIPP  but are not able to endure the 10-hour days and two hours of homework every night and who eventually drop out or are "counseled out," it is not tolerable. And even for those kids who do make it into KIPP and make it out of KIPP, their "success" is not tolerable because it comes at a price, a price that is too high to pay.

Peter C.