Education films/documentaries have come fast and furious in recent years, but none of them have recieved as much attention and publicity as Waiting for Superman. I don’t know about you, but I was disappointed with the film. What I liked about Waiting for Superman was the opening conversation about the structural inequality and poverty in the US. However, about halfway through the film, it turned to cheerleading of charters, KIPP, and Teach For America as the silverbullet solutions. My disappointment with the vast majority of “education reform” films is probably not surprising being that the Gates Foundation and other corporate style reformers have deep pockets to fund projects that focus on trickle-down reform.
Are there critical indie films out there that aren’t funded by deep pockets? I received email from Shannon Puckett, a filmmaker and former teacher, who is seeking to fund a film via crowdsourcing about a topic that I have written extensively— high-stakes testing. Her bio reads:
In 2004, after attending New York Film Academy in Manhattan, Shannon began making a documentary film about high-stakes testing. She never finished it. Over the years, the stakes have become higher for educators, students and public schools and the timing is now right for Shannon to continue production. How appropriate that “Defies Measurement” will be completed a decade after it began…the year that “all children will be proficient in reading and math”
Shannon asked to profile her film for the public to see if folks might be interested in supporting the production. Several prominent ed policy experts have already participated in her film project. What did they have to say in their interviews for the film?
The schools that are most at risk are the schools with the poorest kids. The schools that are being targeted are the ones where the kids have the highest needs and those are the schools most likely to be closed. Diane Ravitch
Instead of blaming teachers and administrators and curriculum, why don’t we look poverty in the eye and say that’s the major problem for America. David Berliner
We have guided most of the reform movement based on the results of these very low quality tests that measure a tiny fraction of what really matters and drive instruction away from the most important kinds of learning. Linda Darling-Hammond
Our current educational system was created in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It was designed to meet the needs of the industrial economy. Public schools were modeled after the factories of the industrial revolution and their product was a workforce of skilled laborers who then went to work in those same factories (with the exception of those who could afford and get into college). That was the goal then. Despite all we know now, the model for our schools hasn’t changed much. Actually, the goals touted by one side of the educational reform debate, appear to be similar to those of a factory: to churn out a standardized product for its customers.
This sentiment is clear in the goals of corporate reformers who believe that the only way a teacher, school or student should be evaluated is by the result of a standardized test. Our society has been trained for so long to believe that the only way to measure success, quality or effectiveness is by quantifying it – by comparing it to others in order to see how it “matches up”. This is a business model that should not and cannot be applied to education. By doing this in schools, the most important teaching and learning that occurs in the classroom is overlooked. The vast diversity of learners and variables that exist in public school is completely ignored.
A school is not a business. A principal is not a CEO. Students are not a product.
It should not be surprising to learn that the corporate reformers are not made up of educators. They are businessmen and women, politicians, Wall Street hedge fund managers and the founders of multi-billion dollar foundations. To these minds, the bottom line can always be counted and measured.
Non-educators may not realize this, but teachers are not opposed to assessment. They do it all day long, every day, and it is an essential component of teaching. What educators know is that in order for assessment to be helpful and meaningful, it needs to allow for immediate and ongoing feedback. It needs to be relevant to what the student is learning in class, and it needs to be created and interpreted by the teacher. This is assessment FOR learning and it helps a teacher understand how she can help each student to be successful. This is how students learn. This is how they improve. This is how a teacher is effective. Standardized tests are assessments OF learning. The scores from these tests are only useful for external purposes: comparing schools, firing teachers, holding students back and closing down schools.
When curriculum and testing is standardized throughout the country, a teacher becomes nothing more than a worker on an assembly line: churning out a standardized product for the customer. The ability to create meaningful curriculum and use formative assessments to monitor student learning is integral to the job of educators. To strip them of this responsibility because it no longer holds any value, or because teachers are no longer trusted with this task, is gutting the teaching profession of its purpose – to teach.
The responsibility of a public school is to offer an equal opportunity for everyone to learn and to grow and to be supported during that process. To strip a school of this ability because the bottom line is more important than the process of getting there is ignoring the purpose of education – to inspire life long learners.
The most valuable information and skills that children learn in school cannot be acquired from a search on the Internet. They cannot be tested and they cannot be measured. But, they are the qualities and life skills needed to form a solid foundation for a lifetime of social, emotional and intellectual growth. They are developed, over time, when schools prioritize the student over the test score.
To be a public school teacher, in this climate, who STILL creates thoughtful curriculum and assessments, STILL fosters a love of learning in students, and STILL addresses the social, emotional and intellectual needs of students…
Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.
Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.
I had a coffee conversation with Mike Feinberg yesterday. About two weeks ago Mike Feinberg contacted me via email about one of my posts on Cloaking Inequity. He related that he wanted to clarify the conversation about KIPP’s funding. I agreed to meet with him at the Blanton Museum Café at UT-Austin for a coffee conversation.
Sidenote: I am not the traditional media, I am a tenured Associate Professor moonlighting as a blogger. This means that I semi-daily provide my subjective reflections of current education and public policy issues. For some reason, when I am out and about at conferences, community meetings, the Texas Legislature— people now identify me as “the blogger.”
So who is Mike Feinberg? Wikipedia:
Mike Feinberg is the Co-Founder of the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) Foundation and the Superintendent of KIPP Houston, which includes 125 public charter schools in twenty states: seventy middle schools, thirty seven primary schools, and eighteen high schools. More than 87% of the KIPP students come from low-income families. To date, more than 90% of the KIPPsters graduated high school and more than 80% have gone to college. Feinberg graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and later joined Teach For America where he taught fifth grade for three years.
In 1994, he co-founded KIPP with Dave Levin and established KIPP Academy Houston a year later. In 2000, Mike Feinberg, Dave Levin, and Doris and Don Fisher co-founded the KIPP Foundation to help train school leaders to expand KIPP by opening more KIPP schools. Today, KIPP is a network of 125 high-performing public schools around the nation serving more than 41,000 students.
Some have been disappointed with recent interviews of Michelle Rhee in the news media. I didn’t want to toss out softball questions to Feinberg. I sought to ask informed and probing questions based on research, data, and the common critical discourse surrounding KIPP. I also asked my Twitter followers (@ProfessorJVH) to tweet questions to me for Feinberg. I will give Mike credit— he was a good sport and took on every question I asked. He rarely avoided a direct answer.
To be fair, I have done my best to render his answers accurately without excluding context. Noone wants to be “misquoted” as often happens often in the media (I will soon post a misquote from a media source that I support tracking). To make the conversation more interesting, I have provided a subjective reflection to most answers. I have also concluded the interview with a BS poll. The poll is a measure to represent reader beliefs about the level of BS in Feinburg’s answers— he said he has “thick skin”. 🙂
Without further ado, my coffee conversation with Mike Feinburg:
Do you prefer Downton Abbey or Shades of Gray?
I love both!
Reflection: Okay, I didn’t really ask this question.
How do you keep what I call the efficiency reformers happy (those that are mainly focused on spending less and getting more) relative to social justice reformers (those who care less about spending and more about equity)?
The worst place to be in a fight is in the middle. In all these debates people go to the poles. It has to be about balance. Are we spending enough today in public education? I would argue no. Is money by itself going to fix this? Should we just throw money at the problem? It is not all an efficiency thing. You can’t keep squeezing schools to get great results. Everything needs to be in balance.
Reflection: See my thoughts on “reformers” here. I can imagine the challenge that KIPP has rustling efficiency reformers. They have to make the argument to them that they are getting more “results” for less. More on KIPP’s funding stream later in the interview.
What question do people ask you most about the film Waiting for Superman?
What happened to Daisy? Please don’t let her be the one that doesn’t get in to make everyone cry. [She was one of the students who did not get into KIPP via the lottery in the film] Can we engage the family to figure out what we can do to help? She got into another highly regard charter school for middle. KIPP follows up with Daisy on a semi-annual basis.
Reflection: Did the fact that Daisy didn’t get into KIPP besmirch them? To the contrary, Waiting for Superman was trying to use tears to make the case that we need hundreds more KIPPs/charters because she didn’t get in.
So a UT-Austin faculty colleague and buddy of mine was a TFA teacher in Houston in the 1990s. He tells a tale of you carrying a TV out of a house. Is that a true story?
Yes. Abbey, one of the original KIPPsters, lived on the 3rd floor of an apartment in Guflton [South Houston]. I went to do a home visit. Mom said she agreed TV was a problem. Abbey was addicted to TV, like Mike from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. She would even watch snow on the screen. How about we create a system where we take away TV for a week. A trade system of doing homework in exchange for work. Abbey came to school the next day without homework. I went to her house and Abbey was watching TV.
I know what you are going to do, you are going to give me the TV. If you can’t prevent her from watching it, let’s get rid of the TV. Its either that or she won’t be in KIPP. Abbey let out a loud wail and stumbled down the stairs. Was it mean or brilliant? I put the TV in the classroom for the next three weeks and she put her homework on top of the TV at KIPP. Three weeks later all homework done, and I took the TV back. Abbey went on to a boarding school and then Texas A&M.
Reflection: Um, Feinberg don’t play. You want to go to my school, I am walking out the door with your tube TV. I bet it was heavy.
Can the state figure out who the KIPP kids are in the data from the new hallways approach in Spring Branch Texas?
No. Intentionally the state can’t tell in their data who the KIPP students are. There is a wing of the building that is KIPP. In an overly simplistic way, we are just another strategy to improve achievement in the building. We are more than just Read 180, it is a larger choice program in the building. If you walk left you are at Landrum, if you walk right you are in KIPP. [What makes the wing different?] KIPP student come 7:30 to 5. Come in the summer. They can do all the extra-curricular. KIPP is a vendor, and there is a $6,000 per pupil cost charged to the district. In the KIPP wing, they run the school day, and hire the teachers. KIPP does not pay for facilities, transportation, or food. We also don’t pay for Special Education diagnostic work or extra-curricular.
Reflection: Could KIPP get a sweeter “vendor” deal from Spring Branch? You pay us $6,000 to hire teachers, extended the school day, and the district does everything else? Wow.
Diane Ravitch once asked KIPP to take over an entire district. Do you want that to happen anytime soon?
We’re not crazy enough. We’re too smart. We differentiate between what we do for schools. We don’t turn around schools. We make good schools.
Reflection: ***This only applies under the KIPP name, he has a spinoff 501c3 called Philo that will handle this for KIPP. More later in the interview.
What about the critics that say KIPP does not serve Special Education students? Do you turn Special Education students away from KIPP?
[From the early days of KIPP] we now have a different situation with Special Education. Since starting with Pre-K, we had a whole bunch more Special Education kids. Two months later, we know why you child is running into walls, they are blind. At the middle school level we now have full spectrum autisms. Parents are looking for a specialized schools later in life so we didn’t used to see as many Special Education students.
When we had two middle schools, one parent whose child was blind who looked into whether KIPP would be a good spot. We were honest and said and certainly try to sign up and come. We don’t have any staff or any other blind students. The parent looked at Houston ISD and chose to go there. [After a pause, he said this last happened in 2001].
What about non-corporate community-based charters and Special Education students?
It is very hard for a mom and pop charter with 300 kids to do that. It is fair to ask KIPP Houston to do all this. We don’t have a choice. Its open enrollment.
Reflection: Amy Williams, one of my doctoral students, has nearly completed her dissertation. It focuses on Special Education spending in charters of different types (Corporate, Community-Based and Intergovernmental). We will post a series on the findings about Special Education students and funding from this dissertation once she graduates.
Can you tell me about your proposed KIPP, IDEA and Harmony partnership in North Forest ISD?
KIPP is not going to do turnaround. Its not the same thing that we are really good at. Not clear we would be good at it.
We set up a c3 called Philo. It is a firewall between the charter and the private sector. Philo will try education innovations that go well beyond KIPP.
Philo will do turnaround work— using the principles and pillars of KIPP and training in change management. These are skills and training that KIPP does not do today.
We can turnaround all schools in North Forest with Philo. However, I am not going to overpromise because I want to deliver.
Reflection: The idea of a charter consortium taking over North Forest, an entire district, has been very prominent in Texas media and Legislature. Mike Feinberg’s smartly setup a 501c3 to do school turnaround and firewall the KIPP name. Philo would be an umbrella management organization that would partner with KIPP and Yes and other charters. Why is this approach necessary to protect the KIPP name? School turnaround is difficult work in Texas (and elsewhere). In fact, how many turnaround schools have you seen on TV? Exactly my point. We have a peer-reviewed study of the failed school turnaround efforts in Texas that will be released soon by the Urban Education journal. See CI’s posts on turnaround here.
Are the higher attrition rates from charters that you see in the Texas data and just a representation of market approach of charters— that is that students vote with their feet? For example, the recent article in the Washington Post about the Basis charters in DC? Is attrition that is a standard deviation or two more than local traditional districts ok?
It is not okay for charters to have high attrition. No one can be a worse critic than ourselves. Colleen [his wife] is the #2 critic of KIPP.
Promises to kids are sacred. I don’t give a flying fat rat if 100% of students are going to college if a huge chunk of kids leave. Otherwise we are fake phony and fraud. However, attrition can’t be answered just by the numbers.
Do you see KIPP raising more or less than the $400 million that they raised from private sources over the past ten years in the next ten years?
We fundraise an addition ten percent. Houston ISD principals get $3400 and KIPP get $6,000. I worry allot of philanthropy for charters. I don’t think that philanthropy is sustainable. We have been able to fund that 10% gap above and beyond.
HISD vs KIPP funding – we were talking about the allocations given to the schools to budget but they way its written here makes it look like that’s the revenue, not the expense side. We allocate more to schools even thoguh we start with less overall govt funding and slightly less even when we add in philanthropy for operating costs. Big chunk of the dollars we’ve raised goes to facilities, which is fine for apples to apples as long as you compare to the ISD bonds
How do you see the government funding of KIPP increasing?
I don’t see federal funding increasing. For all public education is going south. It was great to get $50 million from I3.
What if a parent says they won’t sign the KIPP contract? Who typically says no?
Noone says no. You have to sign the enrollment form to be that in a KIPP school.
Reflection: You play by our rules, or you don’t play.
What are your thoughts about the state data that shows that on average KIPP intakes students with higher test scores? Backfills with higher test scores? Is it just by chance?
We don’t do that. There is very little attrition. Take a look at the Mathematica study.
Reflection: We discussed the Mathematica findings in our peer-reviewed publication in the Berkeley Review of Education here.
Has Mathematica ever given you a study you didn’t like?
It was insanely expensive. Funders paid for it. There were parts of the studies I didn’t like.
Reflection: I guess not.
Is there anything about Relay Graduate School of Education that you think they could do better?
Not plugged in to Relay. I am excited they are coming to Houston to set up shop.
Reflection: He is clearly a fan of Relay. He did mention a variety of aspects of the program he liked. I honestly don’t know much about Relay. This was a reader submitted question.
What’s the Kids in Prison Program moniker all about?
In the Bronx in the 1990s, KIPP was on the third floor. They then would move a block away. The neighborhood kids would make fun of the students in KIPP schools because they were there for so many hours.
Reflection: This question was tweeted to me from New York. If there was a question that I felt he was annoyed by, this was probably it.
What do you think about the infamous CREDO national charter study that showed that only 15% of charters are better than traditional school in their neighborhood?
Charter schools are all different. You can’t paint charters with a brush stroke. Some are going a great job and should reach more kids. Some should be shut down.
Should a CEO of a charter management organization make $400,000? The same as the president of the US?
No, but we have people that are doing a great job, we want to make sure they are getting paid well. We look at data across the state to make that decision.
Reflection: Take note IDEA charter management board.
Should charters be able to buy unused schools building for $1 and be able to sell them later for a profit?
Selling them is ridiculous. However, the fact is that the buildings don’t belong to the district. It’s the public money.
Reflection: So KIPP won’t sell the buildings, but they really want them.
Would KIPP come in from a parent trigger?
KIPP does not do turnaround. We would go in and start a brand new school. Because we want people to choose the school.
Reflection: So KIPP will come if the students and parents signup for the KIPP model. Philo is the management organization who it appears Feinberg would wants you to turn to in a parent trigger situation. BTW. His wife Colleen is a proponent of Texas HB300, which is a parent trigger bill.
Who would you hire first: A University of Texas at Austin UTeach teacher or a TFA corp member from the University of Texas at Austin?
In February, they are both at the bottom of the pile [because they are new teachers]. Now its May, both would get interview, we would determine who to hire based on their classroom teaching session. Lower quality education schools, such as TSU, are harder to employ.
Reflection: He didn’t want to say who he would hire. He hedged this answer in my opinion.
What about TFAers who only teach two years, go off to grad school, and then want to be educational policy advocates?
We make fun of you when you leave the room. You only did two years then went to Harvard for two years.
Reflection: Ouch. You rock on this one Feinberg.
Should TFA teachers stay in the classroom beyond two years?
To go from rookie suck will serve you well regardless of your future profession.
In his concluding comments. He stated that SB 2 should pass the Texas Legislature because “charters are a mess.”
Edit 4.25.13 Feinberg commented via email
SB 2 – charters are a mess didn’t remember saying that – as we discussed one can’t paint one brush stroke across the whole group of charters
He also relayed that, “There is nothing inherent by a charter that makes it great.”
So you have made it this far. Rate Mike Feinberg’s answers in our frank conversation below on the BS meter.
Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below to share this discussion with others.
Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.
WTF: Why the Finnish? It is ironic that reformers and the popular discourse (such as films like Waiting for Superman) often cite Finland, the “West’s reigning education superpower,” but actually completely ignore their approach to reform. They often use Finland as an example of success and then overlay their own ideas for reforms that are the anti-thesis of Finnish system. An oldie but a goodie article in The Atlantic entitled What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland’s School success expertly described the ironies. What are the questions that American “reformers” often ask the Finnish?
How can you keep track of students’ performance if you don’t test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice?
What is the Finnish model that has led to a miracle in education over the past few decades? (Of course there is more, but this is just what was in the article)
Private Schools
“There are no private schools in Finland.”
This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it’s true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.
Testing and Accountability
Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is what’s called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school.
Instead, the public school system’s teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher. Periodically, the Ministry of Education tracks national progress by testing a few sample groups across a range of different schools.
As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. “There’s no word for accountability in Finnish,” he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. “Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.”
Teacher Quality
In Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master’s degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal’s responsibility to notice and deal with it.
Competition versus Cooperation
And while Americans love to talk about competition, Sahlberg points out that nothing makes Finns more uncomfortable. In his book Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Paronen: “Real winners do not compete.” It’s hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finland’s success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation.
Equity versus Choice
Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.
Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.
In fact, since academic excellence wasn’t a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland’s students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland — unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway — was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.
That this point is almost always ignored or brushed aside in the U.S. seems especially poignant at the moment, after the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street movement have brought the problems of inequality in America into such sharp focus. The chasm between those who can afford $35,000 in tuition per child per year — or even just the price of a house in a good public school district — and the other “99 percent” is painfully plain to see.
Clearly, many were wrong. It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important — as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform — Finland’s experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity.
The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad.
The answers Finland provides seem to run counter to just about everything America’s school reformers are trying to do.
Considering the Finnish’s tried and true approach to school reform, is it really a mystery why NCLB hasn’t delivered after a decade? Or why localities (i.e. Chicago, Milwaukee, D.C., NOLA etc) that are controlled by “reformers” and implementing educational policy reforms that are exactly the opposite of Finland haven’t delivered on their grandiose promises for education reform?
To share the information in this post, please Facebook Like, Tweet etc below.
My (brief) thought on charter school success aired in a story today on KUHF Houston public radio. See Cloaking Inequity’s full thread on charters here.
Cloaking Inequity 
You must be logged in to post a comment.