Culture be danged

Education policy post of the day, courtesy of Paul Tough:

[A major question about education policy] is one that [historian Diane] Ravitch raised in her blog post yesterday:

Do poor black and Hispanic kids really need to be in "no excuses" schools that insist on rote learning and rote behavior? That take control of their lives and change their culture? Should this be the model for education for children of color in big cities?

Ravitch is referring to middle schools run by charter organizations like KIPP and Achievement First, which emphasize not only an intensive academic curriculum, but also "character" education, often establishing an elaborate system of rules, rewards, slogans, and punishments intended to better prepare middle-school kids to learn. She's not a big fan of those schools, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with some of her language above—I wouldn't say those schools take "control" of students' lives, and I don't think they insist on "rote behavior." But I know what she means.

And I think it's a big question. I wrote about those schools in the Times Magazine back in 2006, and since that article came out, I've continued to visit KIPP schools and schools modeled after KIPP in cities across the country. Though I try to be skeptical, I'm always impressed by the atmosphere of the schools, by the engagement of their students, and by their results. (Coincidentally, a giant report just came out evaluating the KIPP schools in the Bay Area. I've only read a bit of it, but Eduwonk says it's "overall good news.")

[It's good to] to settle very early on a coherent school culture and then stick to it and reinforce it at every turn. That school culture doesn't need to include KIPP-type chants and slogans, and it definitely doesn't need to involve "rote behavior." But it does need to go beyond the classroom.

I think students from low-income families in blighted neighborhoods who enter middle school way behind grade level need something more than just extended hours and expert teaching (though they need that, too). They also need adults around them who believe in them and care about them and who can guide them toward the behaviors and the mental habits that will help them succeed in school and in life. I'm not sure if I'd call that "changing their culture." But I'd certainly call it changing their minds.

Well, maybe Tough doesn't call it "culture," but I do. Diane Ravitch, the woman who disparaged the "no-excuses" schools, seems to think black and Hispanic kids have a culture that prevents them from studying hard ("rote learning", sneer sneer) the way white and Asian kids supposedly do - and that this culture is worth protecting and preserving, even if it means worse educational outcomes for blacks and Hispanics.

What a bunch of crap! First of all, suppose Ravitch is right - suppose black and Hispanic culture stops kids from studying hard. Why would that culture be worth preserving? Is it worth it to preserve, in the name of variety, a culture that keeps its people poor and disadvantaged?

Fortunately, I think Ravitch is wrong; there is no overarching "black culture" or "Hispanic culture" that stops kids from working hard in school. What there is, I think, are lots of local subcultures in poor areas - white and Asian poor areas too! - that cause negative effects. Those subcultures are reinforced by violence, drugs, lack of opportunity, lack of role models, absent fathers, etc. etc. To call poverty and broken family lives "black and Hispanic culture" is pretty insulting to black and Hispanic people, don't you think? And then to refuse to try to help students change their approach to life, because you're afraid of damaging their "culture," basically condemns those kids to repeat their parents' lives.

In my opinion, changing the personal culture of poor kids is a very worthy goal - and one that, it seems, is achievable.