KIPP

[Kimberly Reeves <klreeves@swbell.net>]

Sorry for lurking and posting, but I can rarely let a KIPP reference  
pass without making some kind of comment. I am a former public school  
teacher and journalist who volunteered at the original KIPP Academy,  
warmed by the personality and charm of Mike Feinberg and his  
publicity. It's been a while since I've made my passionate arguments  
against KIPP -- and I hardly have the educational background of an  
advanced degree-- but I would make some broad statements about Early  
KIPP:

KIPP's original success was personality driven, no different than the  
success of Thaddeus Lott and his "miraculous" elementary schools in  
Houston ISD. There was no tremendously superior curriculum, no  
amazing secret axiom, no incredible structure. (These were guys who  
sometimes forgot to order the school buses!)  If you walked past the  
classrooms, the textbooks and discussion were the same as they were  
in any other HISD schools. I was not in every classroom, but the  
skills of the teachers were, from what I could see, the same as they  
were in any other school. The textbooks were the same. The writing  
curriculum was New Jersey Writing Project. Some teachers were hired  
for their skills; others were simply hired because they were Ivy  
League friends of Levin and Feinberg. It was, from all appearances,  
just like any other school, except for the tremendous discipline,  
which I would compare to a rigidly disciplined private school.

The secret of KIPP, of course, was the buy-in from the kids and  
parents. They signed contracts. They agreed to extra hours. They felt  
honored they were picked for the school. And after the media picked  
up on KIPP, families were even grateful to be at the campus. They did  
not question authority. They were Chosen. If only that could be  
transferred to the public school system!

I was on a KIPP campus recently in Austin, and I have to tell you it  
was odd to me. It appears the drill-and-skill fast-paced parrot-the- 
teacher sort of activity is now a high art form on KIPP campuses.  
Margaret Spellings, who was with us, called it inspiring. (One kid  
came up to here and told her he had been accepted at an exclusive  
Eastern seaboard prep school, and I am sure that was inspiring to the  
child and his family.)  Most of it, however, is what I would call  
creepy as hell. You wouldn't call this a place where children were  
encouraged to think. it was classroom after classroom of creepy  
Stepford children.

I'm a high school journalism teacher who values children who know how  
to think. That is not what is valued at KIPP. Conformity is what is  
valued at all cost. I think rigid controlled instruction is fine at  
the 4th grade, but if you're still controlling children that way at  
the 8th grade, you have problems. (I think that is why KIPPsters have  
such a problem going on to high school and why Feinberg has a problem  
pulling the KIPP experience into the high school grades.) This is a  
school that instills the discipline that most children could and  
should learn at 8 or 10. They just like to hammer it home at 10, 12  
and even 14.

My own thought? At some point in the middle school years, kids need  
to move into their own, think on their own, learn how to be creative.  
I'm sure others would argue with me, but that just didn't happen at  
KIPP, in my mind. KIPP and I parted ways after I wanted to take the  
kids to a junior high journalism conference in San Antonio, and  
Feinberg wouldn't agree because the kids hadn't "earned" the trip. It  
occurred to me -- and I probably am not as artful I could be when I  
say this -- that when a rigid discipline code trumps valuable student  
learning, then the ones who lose are the kids. Period.

To me, that was profound. No system of discipline, no method of  
teaching, should ever get in the way of learning.

You'll hear a lot about the Myth of KIPP. The fact is that KIPP is a  
fine charter school, but it is no better or worse than many other  
charter schools. It will work for some kids and not for others. (I  
would have been miserable at KIPP!) I don't care how selfless it may  
be -- the great noble story of two Teach for America grads pioneering  
a new way for education -- but the whole "Harriet Ball was our  
inspiration" (blah blah blah) is, I suspect, some part truth and then  
just a whole lot of spin. I imagine KIPP has evolved -- they have  
learned to order the buses, take the grant money, hire better  
teachers, whatever -- but I never saw any incredible magic at KIPP  
that couldn't be replicated at a public school with a good principal  
and concerned parents.

And all these interviews about how selfless these guys are... I mean,  
what Kool Aid did Jay Mathews drink? When I was there, everything at  
KIPP was about Feinberg and his ego. His approval meant everything to  
the kids. I won't go into his particular temper tantrums, but they  
would never be acceptable at a public school. His point system for  
rewarding the kids was above everything else. And don't think every  
teacher agreed with his methods. I think Feinberg likes to paint  
teachers who disagreed with him as simply not being "with the  
program" or unwilling to do the work. But there were plenty of  
teachers on the campus who simply got there and just didn't agree  
with the way that Feinberg ran his school. A number of us wondered  
aloud whether this brave experiment could be replicated anywhere at all.

When I actually criticized KIPP at an Education Writers Association  
meeting, Feinberg had a class of eighth-grade students write me  
letters about how wonderful KIPP was. Co-opting kids to do your PR  
campaign? I just was repulsed on so many levels, and it just reminded  
me why I was so opposed to KIPP in the first place.

So... my fair assessment... I don't know what makes me madder...  
Feinberg so self-satisfied with his great KIPP experiment or the  
media that is so willing to make KIPP a great school simply because  
it's a great story to tell.

Happy new year to all!

kimberly