American Educator Article

7/27/2019 American Educator Article

1/142 AmERIcAN EdUcATOR | WINTER 20122013

By Richard D. Kahlenberg

Sxt s ok w B Cto Bo Do

w tt o t ps M R ws

st ut stutI s ook su-

st tt w sou tv ws to ut mo

stuts oom tt soo vomts. It ws

v o poou Am , t t sm tm,

ov most uxpo pt.

O t o , t o oom tt soos

us p Am sto. I 1837, Ho M, womous u tt pu uto sou t t qu-

z, wot tt o to sv tt o, pu soos

ommo soos, w mt sttutos w

t o sss, poo, sou ptk

qu s poss t pvs o t tps.1 T

o soooom tto v oost mo t 1

s t wt t puto o t 1966 Com Rpot. Co

ms ssxm 600,000 stuts 4,000 soos

ou tt t soooom sttus o ou ssmts mtt

t to ou m pom. T pot ou

tt t so omposto o t stut o s mo

t to vmt, pt o t stuts ow sokou, t s soo to.2

O t ot , 1996, w I s t top

o soooom tto, most o Am soo

tts xpt sout oom tt stut o

R tto ws w oz o, ut s

to ws s most s m o t m o ju

sto s s so o o sot t .

R tto s v mpott m tt I u suppo

ut os o s oost m vmt, t s

om Com ( susqut stus) ou tt wt

From All Walks of LifeNw Hop o Soo Itto

Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, is theauthor or editor of several books, includingRw Stvs: HpLow-Iom Stuts Su Co; ou L: At Sk t Btts Ov Soos, Uos, R, Dmo; andAot Now: Ct M-Css Soos tou Pu SooCo. Tis article is adapted with permission from the introduction toT Futu o Soo Itto: Soooom Dvst s Eu-to Rom Stt, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: Century Foun-dation, 2012).ILL

USTRATIONSBYPAULZWOLAK


2/14AmERIcAN EdUcATOR | WINTER 20122013 3

mtts s oom tto. I, UCLA posso G

O, sto popot o sto, ots tt

uto s susts tt t s m t

st uto oms ot om otto ut

t otto o om poo ms.3 I Lousv,

Ktuk, o xmp, tto p pou o

soo tt ws tt ut ws 99 pt ow

om stu.4

T s s . Low-om stuts m-ss

soos ( w ss t 50 pt o stuts o o u-p u) suou : (1) ps wo,

o v, mo m ss k to t

out t tos -povt soos ( w t st 50 p-

t o stuts o o u-p u*); (2)

ommut o pts wo to mo tv vov

soo s kow ow to o soo os out-

; (3) sto ts wo v xpttos o

stuts.5

I 1996, I ou o t o

soo stt t t ou-

tL Coss, Wsostt

osous sout to pomot

soooom tto o ts

soos. A w I vst t

tow, I ou tt L Cosss po-

, tt mt soos

sou m to v tw 15

45 pt o t stut o -

o u,

otovs. I 1999, t I pu-

s w ts out sooo-

om tto wspps

mzs, I tt s

om pots so, mu stt, Wk Cout

(R), Not Co, w ws suss p to mtt popoto o stuts o o u-p u

to 40 pt t soos. Sow, po ws to t

up to w t s o pot: to t to

k up ottos o soo povt.

I 2001, I pusAll ogether Now: Creating Middle-Class

Schools through Public School Choice, w out t s

ss o soooom tto pov pos o L

Coss Wk Cout. I t s s t, Iv wtt

umous sss pots o t top, u 2007 po

o t ow um o soo stts pusu soooom

tto.6 E ts , t Ctu Fouto, w I

wok, pus voum o sss tt I t: Te Future of

School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an EducationReform Strategy. It ts t s o w to o

sos o t top ts mo t 80 soo stts,

ut 4 mo stuts, tt pusu soooom t-

to. Du t pst 16 s, Iv wtt o ot tops

u ts uos, pvt soo vous, No C Lt

B, qut uto (mtv to

ps), o ozut soooom

soo tto s mpott osstt t

m wok.

Ov t s, Iv smss s pot v,

st o pot to v tt ow-om stuts pom

tt m-ss soos, , wost o , o po-

ssv Dmot msttos, w m ts, sou

t u po sow omous poms o ow-

om stuts. I ts ss, I skt t os ostsIv pomot soooom soo tto

xp wt kps m o.

Strong Resistance

I t pst 16 s, I v out omous sst

om osvtvs, v som s, to t o pov-

poo ks to tt m-ss soos. Som

osvtvs t pt tv-

sts sut t spt o o

us om t 1970s, v

tou tos tto s o

pu soo o, mt

soos, tvs, t

t ompuso. Ots, su s

A Stp T stom,

sust tt wok os w up

to u ous oo o-

oo wt oo soos o ou

s t Am w, v

tou qu uto oppotu-

t o , wt o ot

t pts o to v

oo ooo, s um-

t to t Am C.7

Som s wo tt t ous o soooom t-to w somow sot t ommtmt oBrown v.

Board of Education to tto . ot op

kow tt ss os ot, tt

soooom tto os st vts u

to 2007 US Supm Cout u ut t t o stts

to mpo .8 Som vots o t poo wo tt pos

sk to k up ottos o povt s t sut

s tt poo ks t , v tou ps t oppo-

st s tu: t s us poo ks tt ts mpott to

pov tm wt t t uto vomt. At o

mt, m susso o t v o t tv mpt o

ott povt ws o st.

F, most pomkso ot t t t tsw om soooom soo tto us t tk

ts pot s to t to mk spt ut qu sttutos

o poo wok, v tou o o kows ow to mk

-povt soos wok t s, t m sts

ws to mk soooom tto pot pt.

As sut o t opposto om ot osvtv

quts, soooom soo tto s ot pt o t

to po susso Wsto, DC. Ist, 95 pt

o t uto susso tks oom sto s

mmut t o ouss o t to x -povt

Raial integration is a

very iportant ai, buti ones goal is boostingaaei aieveent,wat really atters iseonoi integration.

*In this article, high-poverty schools are defned as those in which at least 50percent o students are eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch. Some studies set

dierent thresholds. For example, in The Condition o Education 2012, the US

Department o Education defnes high-poverty schools as those in which more than 75

percent o students are eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch.


3/14



mo-fut mt soos ( v mo-fut

ooos) st outpom ow-om m-

t stuts wo tt -povt soos wt stt-o-

t-t uto tvtos. B t o mt

soo, stuts v pu ous wo tt t most-

fut soos ut t t, sz mt vmt p

wt opoo stuts t stt . Fo , t p

ws ut o-t.

Wt s ptu mk out t omptv suss

o stuts pu ous tt Motom Coutsmo-fut soos s t wt st stuts stuk

ous soos ut t stuts soos tt sw mpov-

mt. I, t soo sstms tvtos ts ss-fut

zo soos v

tv w u.

vstmt zo soos

p s t outw

vmt p wt wts

t- om 35

pt pots 2003 to 19

pots 2008 o A Am-

s, om 43 pots to 17

pots o Hsps.17

T suss o ts zo/

zo tvto svs

m. But t ws Motom

Couts o-st u-

so zo ous po

tt s mo po-

ou postv uto

t. U po opt

t 1970s, vops o

suvsos qu to st s tw 12 pt 15

pt o uts o ow-om wok-ss ms. T

ous utot puss up to o-t o t usozo oms to opt s pu ous ptmts tt

stt touout t out. Fms o pu ous-

t ott om ss to pu ous

ptmts.

T stu s to s ot o us t ou

v otu t om oom tto, ut

so us t ps sw qusto out wt t sup-

o pom o ow-om stuts mo-ut

soos tow s smp tt o s-sto.

stu otos o t t tt mo motvt ow-om m-

s m smp sv to t t to oo soos

omp stuts wos ms w assigned by lottery

to zo zo soos. (A, uk s so t soo otts, t ttto t Motom

Cout pu ous s xtm ow.)*

It ou t vmt ts xt to stuts

pu ous tt soos wt up to 30 pt ow-

om stut poputos. Dos ts sust tt 30 pt s

tpp pot, t w ow-om stuts w

s to t om oom tt soo? Not

k. T vst mjot o t soos t smp ow-

om poputos o tw 0 pt 60 pt. Bus

ot s s ou tt t tv ts o ott

povt ompou v -povt soos, t m w

tt ow-om stuts , s, 30 to 50 pt ow-om

soos pom tt t stuts 60 to 100 pt ow-om soos, ut (pt us o t ous po) Mot-

om Cout os ot v ou tu -povt soos

to tst t potss.

O tst qusto s

t stu s to wt xtt stuts

t om v mo-v-

t ooos, omp

wt tt mo-vt

soos. It s tt ou two-

ts o t t oms om t

soo, o-t om t

ooo. s susts t

m os vu po-

ms tt tt t t soo v

o, tou t ts

u om tto t ot t

ooo soo vs.

Eect on Middle-Class Students

T Motom Cout stu ot

ook sp t t t o t

vmt o m-ss stuts

tt soos, ut um o stus v. s

s osstt s tt tto s ot zo-sum

m: ow-om stuts t om oom t-t soos, m-ss vmt os ot

so o s sto o o m-ss s pst.19 T

s o tto ou sm suts: tst sos o

k stuts s wt stuts sos ot

.20

Rs susts21 ow-om stuts t o-

om mx soos, m-ss stuts ot ut,

o two t sos. Fst, t um mjot sts t to

soo: t tv ts o ott povt t to

kk o w mjot o stuts ow om.

So, m-ss ss t soo u-

s (o oo o ) t ow-om . Ts t

sstvt to soo vomt, o o t t s ot 1966 Com Rpot, s u Coms Lw. T

so, Com xp, s sttow: sptos

vmt mo m oot o tos wt sto m

kous; tos wt wk m kous, wo sp

ss tm u ut supvso, mo op to t u

o ps osstt ss.

Research on Costs and Benefts

Oppots o tto t t soo v ot s qus-

tos out t osts o su poms. Bus ou st

*On the surace, this study would seem to contradict results rom a ederal housingincome integration program known as Moving to Opportunity (MTO), which saw ew

academic gains or children. But MTO involved students who moved to schools that

were mostly still high poverty, with an average ree or reduced-price lunch population

o 67.5 percent (compared with a control group attending schools with 73.9 percent

o students receiving subsidized lunches). The Montgomery County experiment

allowed low-income students to attend some very low-poverty schools, similar to the

wildly successul Gautreaux program in Chicago.18



s st, soo tto (s oppos to ous

tto) vovs xpss ssot wt us tspot-

to. Cts o tto ot sk, sout mo spt o

us tspotto mo utu mpo o ssoom

uto ts? It s pot so, ut s t Motom-

Cout s mostts, tto pou

tt vmt s t pou xt us to -

povt soos. A, t tot pu pvt tu o

vstmt soooom tto pps to t

x t osts.W omp wt ot outs, soo sp t

Ut Stts os ot pp ost-tv, t tt ttto s

p to t qusto o wt ou tv ts o

oom soo sto p o ts pom. Rt,

o s ompt wt I v s t o oous ost-

t ss o oom

soo tto.22

Bus most oom

sto ous tw

stts t t wt

tm, t stu stmts t

osts ts o mo

w two-w, tst t,

pu soo o poms

t. A us o

t pot osts to t-

to u o-st om-

puso us ps, t

xms t osts o two

tps o tvs o m-

ss ms to ptpt

vo ut tt o: t

to o mt soos (w

opt sp tms o po

ppos) to ttt m-ss stuts to svts o, tvs to t mo-fut

soos to pt ow-om ts stuts vout.

Rt t xm t ts o ompt soooom

tto (w s po uv), t stu ooks t

t t o u soooom sto o-

to v o tto jo m vu

ommuts . I o to ut oom sto

, ou o-out o ow-om stuts wou

to ts to mo-ut soos w ou o-

out o mo-ut stuts wou to ts to

w t mt soos ot mo-svt

ooos.

T stu stmts t osts o t mt poms wtsp tms po ppos (u tspot-

to osts, sp t t, to qupmt) t

ou 10 pt t t t osts o u pu soo

uto. Lkws, t stmts t ost o t

tvs to mtz ow-om stuts o to mk

tss tttv to m-ss soos t 10 pt pmum

ov. (Ts u pmum s mo ous t sv

xst mtopot tstt tto poms ps

su s Bosto Hto, Cotut.) Av out ov

pups, t p-pup t pst vu o tot osts ov sv s

o tt soo s stmt to $6,340.

I msu t ts, t stu xms t ts o

soo uto ts (s oppos, s, to m

vmt) us t s o ossus mo

ss out t oom ts o ut. T

tm pu t o v stut ut so

s stmt t $209,200 ( ostt os), om t o

o s tx vu u to t s, s w

s t sp, m just sstm os

sp o w.Av out ov stuts, t pu t p stu

s mo t $20,000, t om pu pvt

ts mout to out $33,000 p stut, x t o

o $6,340 p stut. Put t, t pu tu o v

mt soooom tto xs osts to

3.3 t tot tu (pu

pvt) xs osts t

o 5.2. s tus x

most ot vstmts

uto, u pv

soo vous, u

sz, mpovmts t

qut. o uto

tvto kow to v

t tu o vstmt s v

-qut oo

uto.

W ts tus qu

oo, t po uvu t

u ts o soooom t

to o um o sos. T

stu uss osvtv stmt

t mpt o soooom tto o

soo uto ts; vu st

su s St. Lous Hto v s ss utot t 10-pt-pot s t s upo. It mpo

osvtv stmts o t oom ts o so

uto. It stmts o t ts tt mt soos

us o soooom tto, xu pott

ts om pov os t tw stut ts

uuum. It os ot out t v ts to ou mo

o v mo ut tzs, o t ts

t o soo uts t om o mpov

s. A t os ot out t ts to t wokp

v mpos wo kow ow to t o wt woks o

t soooom kous.

I sum, t t pst vso o us to u

o tspotto, sp tt us soooomsoo sto pps to mo t wsst poss

vstmts o uto.

Districts Experiences

I to to t ow s, t ot t Iv ou

t ov t s s t owt soooom t

to t t o v. W soooom soo tto

s m w os o t v, o o t t

vts o ou tz sstm o soo s tt

vu stts stts xpmt wt s-s



s, wt o ot t so wt Wsto movs

sks.

The Growth o Local Socioeconomic Integration Plans

I 1999, I v tk o soooom soo sto, t

t w o o s o ts ts, Washington Post

pot Dv Bo sk m w soooom tto

ws pusu. At tt tm, I ou o pot to L Coss,

stt wt w t 8,000 stuts. o, owv, t

80 stts us soooom sttus s to stutssmt, ut som 4 mo stuts. T stts

(Co) sm (Buto, Vmot); otst

(Amst, Mssustts), sout (Jso Cout, K-

tuk), wst (S Do), mwst (Om, Nsk).

Dstts msu soooom sttus ook t stuts

t o o u-p

u, o xm sus t,

u su tos s pt

uto, s-pt ouso

sttus, om.

Fou os pp to v

t soooom tto mov-

mt. Fst, s mtt o w, t-

t soooom sttus

os sustt vts ov

tt .23 At t

Supm Cout stuk ow

tto ps Stt Lou-

sv, m stts sk to p-

sv vst tu to

soooom ps to v

vst wtout us p s,

v t ovp tw

ss ou sot.

So, stts, u spssu to s t vmt o ow-om mot stu-

ts, to t ow v sust tt

o o t most tv ws to o so s to v ow-om

wok-ss stuts to tt pomt m-

ss soos. Atou t m sow tmous ttto o

-povt pu soos t soos tt v postv

suts, stt s kow tt t s xtm ut to mk -

povt soos wok o sstmw, o-tm ss.

T, o tt uts, som soo stts pp

to ttt to soooom tto s mo ost-

tv ms o s stut vmt t pou

to os to -povt soos. I Not Co,

o xmp, Cott-Mku Soos s sout to svmt tou ovtv p-K pom xt

xptus -povt soos; otst, Wk Cout

s sout to s vmt tou soooom t-

to. Bot msus o suss, ut o to t

stu, Wk Couts tto ppo ws mo

ost-tv.24

Fout, t pom o ott povt s ow,

t stts pp wt t ssu o o just tos

u s. Ao to t US Dptmt o Euto,50

pt o mt soo stuts ow tt soos

w t mjot o stuts ow om; tw 2000

2010, t popoto o mjot ow-om soos w

most 60 pt (om out 29 pt to out 45 pt,

wt t ums stmts us 7 to 15 pt o

soos ot pov t).25A 2010 pot, Te Suburbaniza-

tion of Poverty, ou tt t tos st mtopot

s, mo poo pop v suus t t pm

ts, m poo pokts ow mo pvt t su-

us t t pst.26

Soooom tto s pp v osuu s tt o tt povt v u

s tt ovwm poo. I 2008, I v om

utos Co wo w tst ostut soo-

oom p. How os o o so stt tt s 85 pt

ow om? T sw: t to tt sust o mt

stv omt soos w

t mss o m-ss stu-

ts tst tt. I

wok wt t stt o mo

t to vop p tt

v st sus tts to

ou soooom ts sout

to su tt s soos

oom vst. p ws

opt Novm 2009 s

st xst. W I to o-

u out m wok wt Co,

t t-st soo stt

t out, spo, W

ot L Coss mo, oto.

The Politics o

Socioeconomic Integration

Dspt t owt o sooo-

om soo tto ps tt o v, t ossus Wsto, DC, s tt t-

to s pot tox. Aw Rotm, wt imem-

z Oto 2010, o xmp, kow t uto

vmt ts o soooom soo tto ut

qusto t pot st.27 T oum ptus

t pox o tto: t s ossus o t pt o

uto ss tt ow ow-om stuts to

tt m-ss soos ss m vmt

so uotut Wsto pot ossus tt t s

ot mu w o to ou t pt. But mt tt

u pot outt?

Rotm wot: Pts wo p t popt

txs tt ot omp -pom pu soos zous pottv o ss to tt mt.

O ous, ts umt vots t uto om mov-

mts mt: ts out t ks, ot t uts. Moov,

wv t out ow to tt soos s

ompuso us Bosto 1976. Poms ow ot

o mts ut o tvs to ou vout t-

to: sp mt poms to u m-ss stuts to

soos ow-om s, tvs o soos

suu stts to pt ow-om ts stuts. I

Te only euational

intervention known toave a greater returnon investent tan

soioeonoi integrationis very ig-quality early

iloo euation.

(Continued on page 10)



In isussing soioeonoi integrationbeore auienes, I a requently aske:Wat about ig-poverty sools tat owork? dont tey suggest tat eonoisegregation isnt u o a proble ater

all?

hig-poverty publi sools tat beatte os paint a eartening story tat otenattrats onsierable eia attention. In2000, te onservative heritage Founation

publise a report, title No Excuses, eantto sow tat ig-poverty sools an workwell. Te orwar o te report proulyelare tat te autor oun not one ortwo ... [but] twenty-one ig-peroring,

ig-poverty sools. Unortunately, tese21 sools were ware by te 7,000ig-poverty sools ientie by te USdepartent o Euation as low

peroring.

1

Subsequently, te liberal Euation Trustpurporte to n 3,592 ig-povertysools wit test sores in te top one-tir

o teir states.2 Te stuy was useul to teextent tat it expose as yt te iea tatpoor ilren annot learn, but a ollow-upstuy by an inepenent researer ountat Euation Trust inlue in its total

any fukessools tat perore wellin just one grae, or on just one test (ator reaing), or in just one year.3 Wensools a to peror well in ore tan

one grae, ore tan one subjet, an

ore tan one year, te nuber o igperorers was reue ro 15.6 perento ig-poverty sools to just 1.1 perent.

But wait, wat about new arters like

te Knowlege Is Power Progra (KIPP)?KIPP, a ain o 125 sools euating oretan 35,000 stuents in 20 states an tedistrit o colubia, is oten ite aseviene tat ig-poverty publi sools

ougt to be able to proue very positiveresults. Te sool progra epasizestoug love: a longer sool ay ansool year, ore oework, an teexpliit teaing o ile-lass abits an

nors. In is book on KIPP, te WashingtonPosts Jay matews says tat test sores inKIPP ave risen aster or ore low-inoestuents tan anywere else.4

Soe point to KIPP as a segregationsuess story. Noting te ig rates oaieveent in KIPP sools, wi aveonentrate poverty, soe onlue tat

poverty an eonoi segregation ontatter tat u ater all. At teir ostyperboli, arter entusiasts like davisGuggenei, iretor o Waiting for

Superman, point to KIPP an onlue,

weve rake te oe.5 One artersool avoate pointely aske e inprivate onversation i I oun te suess oKIPP treatening to y arguent tat

eonoi segregation nees to be

aresse.In at, KIPP was initially puzzling to e

beause, on te surae, it appeare toontrait all te resear I rea on te

eets o onentrate poverty. So I beganto ig eeper. Wat I oun ater soe

exploration was tat KIPPs suess arly

eans tat segregation oesnt atter;inee, te KIPP oel (wi relies eavilyon sel-seletion an attrition) reinoreste iea tat te peer environent ayatter a great eal. Wile KIPPs results are

very ipressive, tey arly suggest tatregular publi sools an ignore onentra-tions o poverty.

To begin wit, KIPP oes not euate tetypial low-inoe stuent, but rater a

subset ortunate enoug to ave strivingparents. KIPP parents not only ust knowabout KIPP sools an take te initiative toapply, tey also are require to sign aontrat tat is unlike tose oun in ost

publi sools. Aoring to matews, KIPPparents an guarians sign a oitentto ek our ils oework every nigt... an try to rea wit i/er every

nigt. It is unlear weter KIPP anenore tis ontrat, but its ere preseneay serve to sreen out ailies unwillingor unable to ake te oitent.6 Soeeviene also suggests tat KIPP euates aisproportionate sare o girls.7

more iportantly, KIPP sools ave very

ig rates o attrition an rarely replaetose wo leave ile sool wit newsevent- an eigt-graers. In a rigorous2008 stuy o ve KIPP sools in te SanFraniso Bay Area, researers oun tat

an astouning 60 perent o KIPP stuents

let over te ourse o ile sool.moreover, te researers oun evienetat te 60 perent o stuents wo i nopersist troug te toug KIPP regien (alonger sool ay an week, an eavy

oses o oework) tene to be teweaker stuents.8

KIPP supporters respon tat a 2010

stuy o 22 KIPP sools oun tat teattrition rates were oparable to nearbyig-poverty publi sools tat also ave

lots o kis leave.9 Poor people ten toove requently, so ig attrition rates arto be expete at KIPP sools, it is argueBut researers ave oun tat 40 pereno Arian Aerian ale stuents leave

KIPP sools between graes 6 an 8.10

moreover, a key ierene betweenKIPP an traitional ig-poverty publisools is tat in KIPP sools, wenstuents leave, ew new stuents enter in

te sevent an eigt graes. An analysioun tat wile KIPP oes aept anynew stuents in sixt grae (a natural tio transition to ile sool, an a tiewen KIPP is looking to ll seats ro

t-graers wo are el bak in largernubers), te spigot is severely onstriteor new entrants in sevent an eigtgraes. Wile in oparison istrit soo

lasses grew in sevent an eigt graes,

at KIPP tey srunk. coparison soolssaw newoers outnuber leavers, soreplaeent was 145 perent in seventgrae an 146 perent in eigt grae. By

ontrast, in KIPP sools, only 78 perent oleaving stuents were replae in seventgrae, an just 60 perent in eigt grae

Te stuy o San Franisoarea KIPPsools illustrates ow te obination oattrition an low replaeent ratesobine to ake KIPP oorts o stuentssaller an saller over tie. It oun a n

High-Flying High-Poverty Schools

Te KIPP oel, wi relies eavily onsel-seletion an attrition, reinores te

iea tat te peer environent ay attera great eal.



enrollent o 312 stuents in t grae,ten an uptik o stuents wo enteruring te sixt grae (te ustoary tie

to enter ile sool), bringing netenrollent to 319. But ten te totalnuber o KIPP stuents in sevent aneigt graes ell preipitously: 238 insevent grae an 173 in eigt grae. Te

KIPP Bay Area sools annot be isisseas outliers on te KIPP attrition question: a2008 review o several stuies oun igattrition rates at a nuber o oter KIPP

sools.12

having ew new entering stuents is anenorous avantage, not only beauselow-soring transer stuents are kept out,

but also beause in te later graes, KIPPstuents are surroune by oter sel-selete peers wo ave suessullysurvive wat is universally aknowlegeto be a very rigorous an eaning

progra. In ters o peer values annors, ten, KIPP sools ore loselyreseble eonoially ixe sools tantraitional ig-poverty sools.

how iportant to KIPPs suess are te

positive peer infuenes tat oe ro

sel-seletion, ig attrition, an low levelso replaeent? Wile we annot know orertain, it is telling tat on te one oasionwen KIPP took over a regular ig-poverty

publi soolan ae lose to aving toserve a regular, rater tan sel-selete,stuent population, wit new stuentsentering wen tey ove into te areaKIPP aile an got out o te business.

Jay matews, a strong supporter o KIPP,wrote in 2009: KIPPs one attept toturnaroun an existing publi sool, in

denver, was a ailure. KIPP sai at te tietey oul not n a sool leaer up tote allenge, wi is anoter way oaitting su a job ay be beyon ereortals.13

Anoter iportant ierene betweenKIPP an regular ig-poverty publi

sools is te teaers. Te eiation oKIPP teaers is legenarytey work atsool ro 7:15 a.. to 5:00 p.. an tengo oe to plan or te next ay, as teytake pone alls to elp stuents wit

oeworkbut a KIPP-style existene isar to sustain.14 Inee, te stuy o veSan Franisoarea KIPP sools oun tatnearly al (49 perent) o teaers wo

taugt in te 20062007 sool year alet beore te beginning o te 20072008sool year. Tis opares wit a 20perent turnover rate in ig-povertysools generally.15 moreover, as KIPPsreputation grew, it oul selet aongprospetive teaers wo wise to be parto an exiting progra an be surrouneby ig-peroring olleagues, an

appliant pool not typial o ig-povertypubli sools.

KIPP sools are not une at levelstypial o ig-poverty publi soolseiter. KIPP as won te baking o soe o

te riest iniviuals in te ountry; teyave elpe un te progra at levelsore likely to be oun in ile-lasssools tan ig-poverty publi sools.16

Wit at least $50$60 illion in uningro te ouners o Gap In., KIPP says itspens $1,100$1,500 ore per pupil tano regular publi sools.17 In 2011,

researers wo exaine IRS ouents

onlue tat KIPP sools a revenue o$18,491 per pupil, about $6,500 ore tan

wat loal sool istrits reeive inrevenues.18

In ters o KIPPs long-ter suess, tejury is still out. KIPPs preoinantlylow-inoe stuents o very well o-

pare wit oter low-inoe stuentsnationally, wi is an iportant ao-plisent, but te eets o poverty

reain, as two-tirs o te KIPP stuentswo grauate ro eigt grae 10 or

ore years ago avent earne a baelorsegreea level o ailure one o KIPPsouners, mike Feinberg, alle unaept-able given te groups goal o 75 perentollege opletion.19

Finally, wile any euators stan inawe o te ipressive eorts o KIPP toake ig-poverty sools work, te at is

tat te vast ajority o ig-povertyarters ail. Wile, in teory, artersools, as sools o oie, oul be oresoioeonoially integrate tan

traitional publi sools, in at, tey areore segregate. In te 20072008 soolyear, 54 perent o arter sool stuentswere in ig-poverty sools, oparewit 39 perent o publi sool stuents.meanwile, 28 perent o arter sool

stuents were in extreely ig-povertysools (ore tan 75 perent low inoe),opare wit 16 perent o regular publisool stuents.20 Te ig-poverty oel

as not been et wit suess at a nationallevel. Te ost opreensive stuy oarter sools oplete to ate ountat only 17 perent o arter sools

outperore oparable traitionalpubli sools in at, wile 46 perentperore te sae, an 37 perentperore worse.21

R.d.K.

Endnotes

1. Samuel Casey Carter, No Excuses: Lessons rom 21High-Perorming, High-Poverty Schools (Washington, DC:Heritage Foundation, 2000), 2; and Kenneth Cooper,School Defes Its Demographics, Washington Post, June7, 2000, A3 (on 7,000 low-perorming, high-povertyschools).

2. Craig Jerald, Dispelling the Myth Revisited: PreliminaryFindings rom a Nationwide Analysis o High-FlyingSchools (Washington, DC: Education Trust, 2001). See also

Douglas N. Harris, Ending the Blame Game on EducationalInequity: A Study o High Flying Schools and NCLB(Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona StateUniversity, March 2006), 5.

3. Harris, Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity,20.

4. Jay Mathews, Work Hard. Be Nice.: How Two InspiredTeachers Created the Most Promising Schools in America(Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2009), 2.

5. Dom Giordano, Educations Inconvenient Truth?Philadelphia Inquirer, September 21, 2010.

6. Mathews, Work Hard, 89. Some research also fnds thatKIPP students begin school at more advanced levels than istypical o neighborhood peers; Martin Carnoy, Rebecca




Cm, Mssustts, o xmp, soos v

st mt soos, wt somt sttv to

o. Pts k t ps mo soos, t s-

tt oos os w tt sus soos wt

pus o mus 10 pt pots o t sstms v -

t o o u-p u.

T most sopstt ps po pts o tm, sk

tm wt sot o tms o po ppos wou ttt

tm to tt soo t w. I Hto, o xmp, Ivst wou Motsso soo, ot tou o-

oo wt o-up ouss , tt s o wt st

o wt, m-ss suu ms us t soo t t

o t us s tttv to

tm.

I to, t o-

oo soo os ot v t

sm so t t

s o. Atou Am-

s v o pvt soo

vous, t ovwm

suppot v t o

optos to stuts wt t

pu soo sstm.28 T s

o ms oos o--

ooo pu soo s

45 pt tw 1993

2007.29 Co most ws

qus tspotto, ut t

o o t wo wks o

ks to soo s ptt mu t o t pst w, s o

13 pt o so to, omp wt 1969.30

F, ow s o Ams ow oz tt

vst s oo t o stuts. M ms ow

vs o vtu os uvststt, t, om vst s t ssoom s-

usso tt stuts ot ow to v mutu-

tu sot st wt soo.

Nvtss, t pots o tto tou.

Iv tv to Wk Cout o umous osos ov t

st . Its s pot o t soooom tto

movmt, mostt ot t pot s ow

t ovom.31 T Wk Cout stt, w om-

psss t t o R t suou suu s,

s v t o m ttto t s o t

pot otovs suou ts soooom tto

p. T 18t-st soo stt to, Wk s t -

st stt Not Co, wt mo t 140,000 stuts.T 800-squ-m stt ws t 1976 t m o

t R suu Wk soo stts. T stts

stut poputo s 49 pt wt, 25 pt A Am-

, 15 pt Lto, 6 pt As, wt 33 pt o

stuts o o u-p u.32

I t 1980s, Wk Cout opt vout t-

to p wt t o tt soos sou tw 15

45 pt k. I o to v tto tou

o, most o t R soos w tu to mts.

I 2000, v os out t us o , ss

mo soo ss tt povt ottos w o

uto o, Wk Cout st to soooom

vst p, wt o tt o soo sou v stu

poputo tt s mo t 40 pt ow om.

Fo m s, m vmt os, t pom

w suppot, po-tto ts otu to

t to t soo o. But ov tm, Wk Cout m

ss, t vtm o ts ow suss. I pt us t soo

w , Wk Couts usss mt tv,

ms mov to t , ums o stuts w . I o to ommot skokt ow

s ums o stuts w ss to w soo

t mo pts. Moov, s um

o ms ot om ot

s o t out, t w

oms ot u ust

t outs sto o tto

ts mpot s u

to stt.

At t sm tm, t oom

oom ttt u

o Lto ms, m o t

ow om. A tv sm

ps 2000, Ltos m

up o sx stuts

2010, t w

mt t 40 pt ow

om p v soo

Pt t t soo

tt pk w xpo

owt som ms to v t mto

ss to soos wt st -ou (t

t tto su wt summs o) o to mk

tt us o u pt.

I Oto 2009, wt ux o u om osvttsts, u t t pt t Ko ots, opp

ts o t soooom tto p 54 mjo

o t soo o vow to sts sstm o o

oo soos.33 T mjot su o mt

t 40 pt ow-om p o soos, ut t to mj

ommut sst ots to sts sstm o

st ooo soos.

Rsst to sto m om tst oto

o v ts oups ts o t o , w

mt soo pts usss s o t ot. Fu

tmo, t tst vots m suso wt t

osvtv soo o mjot oow ss o v

w I vw.Lts wt t sto o suptt D Bu

p pp m Iv om to kow w. Bus s t

ou ot, oo os, p pt st

Wk Cout soos. T, w t soo o mov

mmt ss sm um o ow-om mo

stuts, t NAACP ompt wt t US Dptm

o Eutos O o Cv Rts. A tto

vw Wk Couts sttus.

Cv ts oups, u t NAACP, oz potsts

o mts, w w to ttto, u o

many ailies now believeaso virtually all leaing olleges

an universitiestat raial,etni, an inoe iversityenries te lassroo.

(Continued from page 7)



p Washington Poststo t t tumo. vso

om Stp Cot u Wk Couts o, su-

st, Wts t us o v t ommut m ks

o to soo t poo ov tm? B 2011, suv o o

sts ou tt 51 pt vw t soo o uvo-

, omp wt just 29 pt wo vw t vo.

T Cm o Comm, w suppot tto s

w o stt soos pp mpos to wok

wt vs st o ous, ommsso p, s

Fu 2011, to us pu soo o to ommotowt so pou vst. T p twk t

soooom o to mpo vst msu m

vmt, v os ous o

soooom sttus. It ws

tt usss s ot

ppt to put

sust tt wo-ss

ommut ws p to

osous st ts

soos.

I t 2011 soo o

tos, Dmots swpt to

o, oust t Rpu

soo o wo t

ot o ooo soos.

As o t s w t , t Wk

Cout stuto s st ux,

ut t pps tt t soo

stt s k to m t

w. Esw ot otu-

to o tto mto

ssmt poposs to s-

t tou ooo

soos, pomks pp to pusu t : t-

to soooom sttus wt som mt o soo o.Jso Cout (Lousv) povs tst otst

wt Wk Cout. A oto o v ts oups, ts,

t usss ommut oz to suppot tto

, tus , vo osvtv soo o tkov.

Lk Wk Cout soos, t Jso Cout soos

(w ut 100,000 stuts, 36 pt o wom k,

51 pt wt, 60 pt ow om) w t

m o t suu soos t m-1970s. At

po o out-o mto us o s-

to, Jso Cout soos opt p, t m-1990s,

us mt soos to t tto, wt t o

tt soos sou tw 15 50 pt k. I

2002, wt pts su, tt t us o stutssmt vot t Foutt Ammts Equ Pot-

to Cus, 2007, t US Supm Cout .

Jso Cout s ot v up o tto, ow-

v, 2008, t out opt w p tt mpszs

SES, o wt , stut ssmt. Ist o ook t

stuts o SES, t outs p ooks t t o-

p s w stuts v s tm s t A

A (v ow-v om uto vs,

ov-v mot poputo) o A B (t ovs). I

t p, stuts oos t soos t wt to tt,

out os oo os wt to v A A stu-

ts osttut tw 15 50 pt o t stut o.

I t 2010 soo o tos, suppots o vst

t mt t sm upv tt Wk Cout t

ts 2009 tos, ut t, po-tto soo o

mjot m pow. How ws Jso Cout to

vo most o t pot tumo ssot wt t Wk

Cout p? It pps tt ts t usss ommu-

t, ozt o wt pp Wk Cout, s-

sv suppot po-vst ts wt sto otutos. B mpsz t o msm, Jso

Cout so vo t -s stt tt so

m Wk Cout pts. Ao

to t stt suv, 80 pt

o pts Jso Cout vo

t vst ompot

t stut ssmt p.

Look o t t xp-

s Wk Cout J-

so Cout, t ssos m

out ow to mk soooom

tto pot sust.

Fst, pu soo o s

mo popu w to pomot t-

to t ompuso ss-

mt. Co vs pts

o owsp, mt soo

os pov stuts wt

sp tms o po

ppos to mt t ptu-

tsts. As ustt Wk

Cout, o so pov

mu tt w to ommot p

owt stut poputos us soos

tou to t t ssmt.Co tvs so mk tstt tto

mo pot pt. Sto tvs ou

ou m-ss soos to pt mo ow-om

tss. Just s t t k o mt tms o po

ppos v sussu w ut stuts to

soos tou ooos, poms tt mtz

ow-om stuts ovom opposto to tstt

o.

So, ostt ommuto o t pt o soo o-

s ommut oups t to o t-

to pos s t, ptu ommuts su s Wk

Cout, w v s ss w ms. o

tv, v ts oups sou u sto s wtot oups tt suppot tto, u t usss

ommut, ts, mt soo pts. s, wo

kow st tt t o tt jo oom t-

t soos t tos wt ovwm ottos

o povt, v t t oot o tts to tt soos

oom sttus su ommuts s L Coss, Lousv,

Wk Cout.

T, to sp mtts. Suppot om US St

o Euto A Du, v t om Stp Co-

t, m v p mk tu t Wk



Cout pu st soo o sk to st t

pu soos.

Logistical Obstacles

I to to s ovow pot wos, Wsto

puts ot s ost os out ot ow-

om stuts wt m-ss soos. I s imemz

p, o xmp, Rotm m tt t s too mu

st tw ow-om stuts m-ss soos

to mk soo tto s, t 2008 stu susttt, t most, 20 pt o stuts ou ts om stu

u soos to tt-pom suu os wt

20-mut v st.34 But o-st xp su-

sts tt ow-om stuts ts su s Bosto, Hto,

Mwuk, Mpos w

to u o us s wts

t t o t s supo

uto. I, som o ts

poms v t wt sts

o stuts, wos ms s up

w t o.35

A w s o u s

tt ss sto s ot

mmut t, s som su-

st. Wt pps to t st

to stmt o t vt o

soooom soo tto

s tt mt utos

t um o -povt soos

oss t Ut Stts wt

.36 (I ts stu, -povt

soos s tos

w t st 50 pt o t stu-

ts o o u-

p u.)T stu ws upo t Nto Ct o Euto St-

tsts Commo Co o Dt om 20072008 46 stts, t

ouss o stuts pu mt soos us sus-

z u t t t tt v tout to mo

t m soos, w stuts m

vo t pom us t stmtz w v

o u-p ms. It ous tt t pott o

u t um o ow-om soos tou tstt

soutos s tv most* most sttsut t pott

o tstt poms s st.

o xm t pott mpt o tstt tto

ps, t utos xm sx smp stts: Cooo, Fo,

Mssustts, Mssou, Nsk, V. I mo tts, t ssum, t osvtv, tt tss wou

o m to otuous soo stts. (I t, m xst-

tstt tto ps, su s t Bosto MECO

pom, vov stuts tv t sts to oo-

tuous suu stts.)

T ou tt t ts o tstt poms

w, om u t um o -povt soos 7

pt Fo to 52 pt Nsk. V ou s

36 pt uto, Cooo Mssustts ou

s 34 pt uto, Mssou 17 pt uto

k t- tstt stts tot ou sut

sustt utos o -povt soos v o ts s

stts. W Fo wou s tv most 13 p

uto, two stts wou s uto o mo t o

t (37 pt Mssou Mssustts), t

stts wou s uto o mo t o- (52 pt

Cooo, 58 pt Nsk, 60 pt V).I sum, t utos ou, t ou o

u t popoto o -povt pu mt soo

t Ut Stts, sp w pusu tstt so

oom tto stts.

Tracking Issues and

Student Success

F, Wsto ts

qustos out wt tk

wt soos w uut t

tos postv ts. Rot

m, o xmp, us tt v

tou ow-om stuts

o tt mo u

soos, ts soos ot o

sstt tv t ut ow

om stuts. Pot to

vmt tw

mop oups wt f

t soos, ots, stuts

st wt soos s w

s om tm. s s v

mt o, stps to

tk to su tt tt so

us ot st ssoom. But ts mpott ot tt t stu o Motom Cout ou tt ow-om

stuts ss to ow-povt soos w tk

to ow mt oups stillpom sust

t mt t ow-om stuts ss

-povt soos wt ots o xt uto poms

I, pt o wt kps stts k Wk, Cm,

L Coss o s t sussu suts o stuts. O po

so kow o o -pt stus o u soos wot t

Wk Cout u t p tw poo, k

wt, mo t ot u uto sstm

Am.37 I, s sows tt ov t s, Wk

Couts ow-om, mot, wt stuts v

outpom omp stuts ot NoCo stts tt o ot k up ottos o povt

L Coss s so vo suts. A Cm, t

uto ts o ow-om mot stuts x

tos o omp stuts Bosto sttw M

sustts, s t u o p 13 ts.

Fighting the Battles in Washington, DC

Atou soooom tto s pusu

s um o stts, t s to mk os

po, so Iv t to ot t opt to k *Overall, states could reduce the number o high-poverty schools by 15 percent withintradistrict strategies, benefting 1.5 million students.



tt pomot t Om mstto, su s

soo tuous t soos.

Magnets as School Turnarounds

O o t stu ttvs o Euto St A Du-

s t mtous ot to tu ou Ams owst-p-

om soos. Du ot tt o s stts ow

soos to s s , st, o -

oms tt umt t utu t outs

wost 5,000 soos.38 Io, Dus ppo, wous most t o t ut soo ov-

, ws ts too tm.

Du s wtt tt Co, w mov t uts out

o t u, kpt t t, out w

uts.39 But t xusv ous o

t pp ts

s qusto, v tt ts

msttos mpov-

s soos k -

qut suppot sous. It so

msss two-ts o t

s o o o m m u t w

us stuts pts s

w . s p t tu ou

ppo Co ws mt wt

mx suts.40 Cv Com-

mtt o t Comm Cu o

Co ot 2009 pot tt

most stuts t Co Pu-

Soos otu to .41

At ottom, t t w wt

Dus mov-t-uts stt

s tt t uss tts soooom sto s

pt, t om to v ut -

vomts. I -povt soos, s suou ssmts wo ss k to v ms , o-

, ss m mo k to t out

ut ss. Cssmts -povt soos mo k

to mov u t soo , t supto t ss-

oom, ss k to v vous, w tu

mts t t o ps o t pou t ssoom

to w wos.

Pts so mpott pt o

soo ommut. Stuts t w

pts u vout t ss-

oom kow ow to o soo o-

s out w ts o wo.

Low-om pts, wo m woksv jos, m ot ow , m

v xps tmsvs s

stuts, ou tms ss k to

mms o PA o s k

to vout.42

stut pt mkup o

soo, tu, poou ts t tp

o ts wo ut. Pos

osstt tt ts mo

out wok vomt t t o

out s. T out soo st, wt t w v

to sp potos o t tm o ssoom mmt,

wt pts w mk su ks o t omwok. Tt

s w t s so ut to ttt kp t ts -

povt soos, v w ouss o.

I 2009, I wot pot u tt t most poms tu-

ou mo s o tt ozs ts ts sks to tu

-povt soos to mt soos tt ot o t

ut ( ) ut so t stut pt mx t soo.43

F soos sutt op wt w tms po ppos tt ttt w ts mx o

m-ss ow-om stuts. Mw, som ow-

om stuts om t o soo v t oppotut

to t spots vt -om wo

tt mo-fut soos.

T Om mstto s

v os ts , stk to

t v op tt ts

ouo ts

w sov ou poms. Howv,

t t t ttto o

st o St Ht, Euto,

Lo Psos (HELP) Com-

mtt m om Hk, wo

sk m to tm o t po-

. I Oto 2011, t pts

HELP Commtts popos o

utozto o t Emt

So Euto At

u mt soos s tu-

ou soo opto.44

Integrated Charter Schools

Lkws, m ous I t t Ctu Fouto v t

to tjt t pp o soooom tto to t -t soo t. As soos o o, ts v t pott

to mo oom tt t u pu soos, ut

t t mo st, s us pomks v

potz -povt o xuss t soos k KIPP. (S

H-F H-Povt Soos o p 8.)

St, Im t tt m sust o t soos

Cambridge Compares Favorably with Massachusettsand Boston on Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates

In ig-poverty sools,a il is surroune by

lassates wo are orelikely to at out, ore likelyto ove uring te soolyear, an less likely to ave

large voabularies.

SOURcE: mASSAchUSETTS dEPARTmENT OF ELEmENTARY ANd SEcONdARY EdUcATION, cOhORT 2011 FOUR-YEAR GRAdUATION RATEREPORT, hTTP://PROFILES.dOE.mASS.EdU/STATE_REPORT/GRAdRATES.ASPX. 2012 dATA WERE NOT AVAILABLE AS OF PRESS TImE.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

79.6 76.6

89.185.4

57.461.9

80.0

62.370.7

81.6

63.069.8

Low-income students Black students Hispanic students White students

Cambridge Massachusetts Boston
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state%20_report%20/gradrates%20.aspxhttp://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state%20_report%20/gradrates%20.aspx



osous sk soooom mx ot o-

om tt ooos, w stuts om

mutp soo stts, o mpo wt stut

otts.45

pusut o soooom tto pos ms

ssw o m. As I ws wt ts p, UC Bk

posso Dv Kp wot v sto t

t New York imes Su Rvw sto, t

mpssv v out t postv ts o t-t soos. H ot tt v t o tos wo

sp st soos pom tt, ut t, stuk

t o -s pm, ou, t ost mjot o

t Supm Cout t s

o vo po-tto osttu-

mk ttos vv

mposst.46 Omtt ws

to t v

soooom tto mov-

mt o t ts, usss -

s, v ts oups tt v

p t ts pos oss

t out.

At t sm tm, t ss

o poss. At M 2012 o-

o v ts tvsts, soo

os, pomks om-

mmot t 58t vs o

Brown v. Board of Education, p-

tpts otu t Wk

Couts ouous tv soooom tto

p. A v o w, uk ms. At

Kps p , I ptpt New York imes Room o

Dt oum, u soooom tto, I ws

stt to s M R, too, os soooom t-to, t ps L Coss Cm. S wot:

Rs sows soooom tto ts ow-

om ks. It ts wt stuts s w; pop u-

t vs soos s s uts t wok tt wt pop

wo mop t om tm.47

Iv t o Rs ttk o ts uos

vus k Slate t Washington Post.48 I ot xpt to

v up xto o uos, ut I o op to p ov

ots o umt ut too-ot-o tut: t mjo

pom wt Am soos s ot ts o t uos,

ut povt oom sto. Tts wt t s

susts. Its wt 80 soo stts v om to z. A,

ut os t up, ts wt I w otu to pustm to kow.

Endnotes1. Horace Mann, First Annual Report (1837), in The Republic and the School: HoraceMann on the Education o Free Men, ed. Lawrence Cremin (New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1957), 2324, 3132.

2. James S. Coleman et al., Equality o Educational Opportunity(Washington, DC: USDepartment o Health, Education, and Welare, Ofce o Education, 1966), 22.

3. Gary Orfeld, Must We Bus? Segregated Schools and National Policy(Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press, 1978), 69. See also Gary Orfeld and Chungmei Lee, WhySegregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality(Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Projectat Harvard University, January 2005), 89.

4. Holly Holland, Schools Worried by Clusters o Poverty, Louisville Courier Journal,

December 11, 1993.

5. Richard D. Kahlenberg, Turnaround Schools and Charter Schools That Work: MovingBeyond Separate but Equal, in The Future o School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity an Education Reorm Strategy, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: Century Foundation2012), 283308.

6. Richard D. Kahlenberg, Rescuing Brown v. Board o Education: Profles o Twelve SchoolDistricts Pursuing Socioeconomic School Integration (New York: Century Foundation, 2007

7. Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom,America in Black and White: One Nation,Indivisible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 231.

8. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007

9. Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Martha Bottia, Integrated Education and MathematicsOutcomes: A Synthesis o Social Science Research, North Carolina Law Review88, no. 3(2010): 9931089, 1043.

10. Russell W. Rumberger and Gregory J. Palardy, Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impo Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School, Teachers College Rec107, no. 9 (2005): 19992045.

11. Laura B. Perry and Andrew McConney, Does the SES o the School Matter? AnExamination o Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement Using PISA 2003, Teach

College Record112, no. 4 (2010): 11371162.

12. J. Douglas Willms, School Composition andContextual Eects on Student Outcomes, TeachCollege Record112, no. 4 (2010): 10081038.

13. Douglas N. Harris, Lost Learning, ForgottenPromises: A National Analysis o School RacialSegregation, Student Achievement, andControllChoice Plans (Washington, DC: Center orAmerican Progress, November 24, 2006), 14, 18, 2

14. Georey Borman and Maritza Dowling,Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel Analysis oColemans Equality o Educational OpportunityData, Teachers College Record112, no. 5 (2010

12011246.15. Ann Mantil, Anne G. Perkins, and StephanieAberger, The Challenge o High-Poverty SchoolsHow Feasible Is Socioeconomic School Integra-tion? in The Future o School Integration, ed.Kahlenberg, 155222.

16. Heather Schwartz, Housing Policy Is SchoolPolicy: Economically Integrative Housing Promote

Academic Success in Montgomery County,Maryland(New York: Century Foundation, 2010)

17. Stacey M. Childress, Denis P. Doyle, and David Thomas, Leading or Equity: The Pursuit o Excellen

in Montgomery County Public Schools (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009), 3.

18. See Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Jerey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn,Neighborhoods and Academic Achievement: Results rom the Moving to OpportunityExperiment, NBER Working Paper 11909 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau o EconomicResearch, January 2006), 18, and 45, Table 2; and Alexander Poliko, Waiting or Gautrea

A Story o Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto (Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniverPress, 2006).

19. Richard D. Kahlenberg,All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through PublSchool Choice (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001), 3742.

20. Robert Crain and Rita Mahard, Desegregation and Black Achievement(Santa Monica,CA: Rand Corporation, 1977), 2. See also David Armor, Forced Justice: School Desegregatiand the Law(New York: Oxord University Press, 1995).

21. Kahlenberg,All Together Now, 3742.

22. Marco Basile, The Cost-Eectiveness o Socioeconomic School Integration, in TheFuture o School Integration, ed. Kahlenberg, 127151.

23. Parents Involved in Community Schools, 551 U.S. 701.

24. See Ulrich Boser, Return on Educational Investment: A District-by-District Evaluation oU.S. Educational Productivity(Washington, DC: Center or American Progress, January 201

25. Susan Aud, William Hussar, Frank Johnson, Grace Kena, Erin Roth, Eileen Manning,Xiaolei Wang, and Jijun Zhang, The Condition o Education 2012 (Washington, DC: USDepartment o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, 2012), Tables A-12-1 aA-13-1, 170172.

26. Elizabeth Kneebone and Emily Garr, The Suburbanization o Poverty: Trends in

Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, Januar2010).

27. Andrew Rotherham, Does Income-Based School Integration Work? Time, October 22010.

28. See, or example, Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, The 39th Annual Phi Delta KapGallup Poll o the Publics Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappan 89, no. (September 2007): 42; and Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, The 38th Annual Phi DeltKappa/Gallup Poll o the Publics Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappan 8no. 1 (September 2006): 43.

29. Michael Planty, William Hussar, Thomas Snyder, Grace Kena, Angelina KewalRamani,Jana Kemp, Kevin Bianco, and Rachel Dinkes, The Condition o Education 2009 (WashingtDC: US Department o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, 2009), 78,Indicator 32.

30. Jennier Ludden, Whats Lost When Kids Dont Ride Bikes to School, National PublicRadio, May 2, 2012.

Te ajor proble witAerian sools is not

teaers or teir unions,but poverty an eonoisegregation.



14/14

High-Flying Schools


31. For a more detailed look at Wake and Jeerson counties,see Sheneka M. Williams, The Politics o MaintainingBalanced Schools: An Examination o Three Districts, in TheFuture o School Integration, ed. Kahlenberg, 257279.

32. Maja Vouk, School Statistics and Maps, 20112012 (Cary,NC: Wake County Public School System, April 6, 2012), 1.

33. Andy Kroll, How the Koch Brothers Backed Public-School Segregation, Mother Jones, August 15, 2011.

34. Erin Dillon, Plotting School Choice: The Challenges o

Crossing District Lines (Washington, DC: Education Sector,August 25, 2008).

35. Jennier Jellison Holme and Amy Stuart Wells, SchoolChoice beyond District Borders: Lessons or the Reauthoriza-tion o NCLB rom Interdistrict Desegregation and OpenEnrollment Plans, in Improving on No Child Let Behind, ed.Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: Century Foundation,2008), 208215.

36. Mantil, Perkins, and Aberger, The Challenge oHigh-Poverty Schools, 156.

37. Gerald Grant, Hope and Despair in the American City:Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 2009), 92.

38. Arne Duncan, Education Reorms Moon Shot,Washington Post, July 24, 2009, A21.

39. Arne Duncan, Start Over: Turnarounds Should Be theFirst Option or Low-Perorming Schools, Education Week,June 17, 2009.

40. Sam Dillon, U.S. Eort to Reshape Schools FacesChallenges, New York Times, June 2, 2009.

41. Civic Committee o the Commercial Club o Chicago,Still Let Behind: Student Learning in Chicagos PublicSchools (Chicago: Civic Committee o the Commercial Clubo Chicago, June 2009), 1.

42. Kahlenberg,All Together Now, 62; and KathleenHerrold and Kevin ODonnell, Parent and Family Involvementin Education, 200607 School Year, rom the NationalHousehold Education Surveys Program o 2007(Washing-ton, DC: National Center or Education Statistics, August2008), 9, Table 3.

43. Richard D. Kahlenberg, Turnaround Schools That Work:Moving Beyond Separate but Equal(New York: Century

Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel, and Richard Rothstein, TheCharter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence onEnrollment and Achievement(Washington, DC: EconomicPolicy Institute, 2005), 5165; and Paul Tough,Whatever ItTakes: Georey Canadas Quest to Change Harlem and

America (Boston: Houghton Mifin Company, 2008), 161.

But Jerey Henigs review o seven studies disputes thecreaming charge. See Jerey R. Henig, What Do WeKnow about the Outcomes o KIPP Schools? (East Lansing,MI: Great Lakes Center or Education Research and Practice,November 2008), 1.

7. Carnoy et al., Charter School Dust-Up, 61, Table 5.

8. Katrina R. Woodworth, Jane L. David, Roneeta Guha,Haiwen Wang, and Alejandra Lopez-Torkos, San FranciscoBay Area KIPP Schools: A Study o Early Implementation and

Achievement, Final Report(Menlo Park, CA: SRI Interna-tional, 2008), ix, 1314.

9. Christina Clark Tuttle, Bing-ru Teh, Ira Nichols-Barrer, BrianP. Gill, and Philip Gleason, Student Characteristics and

Achievement in 22 KIPP Middle Schools: Final Report

Economic Integration


Foundation, 2009).

44. Magnet Schools o America, MSA Supports SenateReauthorization Bill, October 14, 2011.

45. Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, Diverse CharterSchools: Can Racial and Socioeconomic Integration PromoteBetter Outcomes or Students? (Washington, DC: Poverty &Race Research Action Council; Century Foundation, May 2012).

46. David L. Kirp, Making Schools Work, New York Times,May 20, 2012.

47. Is Segregation Back in U.S. Public Schools? Room orDebate (blog), New York Times, May 20, 2012 (seeespecially, Richard D. Kahlenberg, Integrating Rich and PoorMatters Most; and Michelle Rhee, Zip Code Shouldnt

Aect School Quality).48. See Richard D. Kahlenberg, Still Waiting orSuperwoman: What Michelle Rhees Fans Dont Get aboutEducation Reorm, Slate, February 21, 2011; and Richard D.Kahlenberg, Gov. Scott Walker Can Thank Michelle Rheeor Making Teachers Unions the Enemy, Washington Post,February 27, 2011.

(Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, June 201

10. Gary Miron, Jessica L. Urschel, and Nicholas Saxton,What Makes KIPP Work? A Study o Student Characteristic

Attrition, and School Finance (New York: National Center the Study o Privatization in Education, Teachers College,Columbia University, March 2011), ii.

11. Ira Nichols-Barrer, Christina Clark Tuttle, Brian P. Gill, aPhilip Gleason, Student Selection, Attrition, andReplacement in KIPP Middle Schools (working paperpresented at the 2011 annual meeting o the AmericanEducational Research Association, April 8, 2011). See alsoRichard D. Kahlenberg, Myths and Rea lities about KIPP,The Answer Sheet(blog), Washington Post, January 4, 20and Richard D. Kahlenberg, Do Sel-Selection and Attritio

Matter in KIPP Schools? The Answer Sheet(blog),Washington Post, June 14, 2011.

12. Henig, What Do We Know about the Outcomes o KIPSchools?

13. Jay Mathews, Dont Save Bad SchoolsTerminateThem, Washington Post, November 17, 2009.

14. Mathews, Work Hard, 74.

15. Woodworth et al., San Francisco Bay Area KIPP Schoo32. See also Erik W. Robelen, KIPP Study Finds High StudAchievement Amid Big Learning Gains, Education WeekSeptember, 24, 2008, 10; and Nanette Asimov, StudentsKIPP Perorm Better, Study Finds, San Francisco ChronicleSeptember 18, 2008.

16. Mathews, Work Hard, 263, 285, 308.

17. Mathews, Work Hard, 263, 285 (per pupil expenditure308 (more than $50 million); and Chester Finn, A GreatPhilanthropist, Education Gadfy, October 1, 2009 (morethan $60 million).

18. Miron, Urschel, and Saxton, What Makes KIPP Work?,

19. Jennier Radclie, KIPP College Grad Rates Draw BotPraise and Concern, Houston Chronicle, April 28, 2011.

20. Erica Frankenberg, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and JiaWang, Choice without Equity: Charter School Segregationand the Need or Civil Rights Standards (Los Angeles: CivilRights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, January2010), 72, Table 30. Data are rom the 200708 NCESCommon Core o Data.

21. Center or Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDOMultiple Choice: Charter School Perormance in 16 States(Stanord, CA: CREDO, Stanord University, June 2009), 44Table 9.

INTENTIONAlly lEfT blANk

Documents

American Educator Article