A school, or in this case a set of schools, that does a good job with low-income students? That can’t be! A letter in today’s Washington Post about the recent Jay Mathews profile of KIPP starts the debunking.
…The fact that KIPP parents choose this school and agree to help enforce its rules sets them apart from the parents of most poor and minority students.
KIPP counters that its students had the same parents when they were performing poorly in regular schools, but they are the same in name only. Once the parents decide to enroll their children in KIPP academies, they no longer play the same role in their children’s lives. In that sense, they are different parents.
The key to KIPP’s success is parents who care. Unfortunately, too many inner-city students lack this fundamental right.
Righto! When low-income parents were given a chance to become more empowered with regard to their children’s education it made them “different”, and presumably more positive, parents. Is such empowerment either (a) impossible on any scale or (b) undesirable? On the contrary, aren’t both pretty good liberal goals?