Because federal Title I funds are distributed on the basis of the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, it is not unusual to find high-poverty schools and districts with higher levels of per-pupil funding than schools which are not eligible for Title I funds because they serve a more affluent population. On the other hand, more affluent schools benefit from a higher residential property tax base, and therefore enjoy economic advantages. But whatever the source and rationale for funding, the consistent findings of the research cited earlier in this book is that while money is important for schools, money alone is not the variable that determines student success. High-poverty schools benefit not only from Title I funds but also from a plethora of grants and special allocations designed to support one initiative after another. This funding creates the illusion of prosperity because these schools are flooded with people and programs all designed with good intentions. But the reality is the schools are fragmented in so many different directions that administrators cannot monitor effective implementation of the programs, and the teachers do not have time to focus on any single program in order to provide effective implementation. The key to success is not funding; it is in the specific implementation of carefully selected teaching practices.
Argument 7: “Successful Schools Cherry-Pick Students”
An argument frequently levelled against magnet and charter schools is that some, but by no means all, have higher levels of success because they can select, or cherry-pick, their students. Yes, the critics argue, a high percentage of students might be from low-income families (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2018; Pondiscio, 2019). But if the school has a low percentage of special education students or students with significant discipline problems, mental health issues, or learning disabilities, then it cannot be compared to schools with similar student demographics that have significantly greater percentages of students with these same needs. This is a very fair concern, and it is a reason reviewers of successful high-poverty schools case studies should ask questions about the extent of the special education population—Is it similar to or different from the schools it is being compared to? Even if the allocation of students with special needs is identical, however, there is no question that students in magnet and charter schools have parents who made the effort to enter a lottery or otherwise advocate for their children to attend a particular school. As Pondiscio (2019) acknowledges, successful charter schools may not cherry-pick students, but they certainly cherry-pick parents, as the lottery systems on which most of them depend require parents to submit applications, take an interest in their children, and in some cases, make extra efforts to ensure on-time attendance and help students adhere to strict discipline and academic policies that are not always present in traditional public schools. That is almost never the case for children in homeless shelters, living with adults who are not their parents or who otherwise do not take an interest in education. These children are generally left to their own devices for entry into selective schools. The same concern is true for exam schools, where (in Boston and New York, for example) the score on a single exam decides who will be admitted to Boston Latin School or The Bronx High School of Science and who will not (Gay, 2019a; New York Times Editorial Board, 2019). Although the demographics may be similar to non-exam schools, there is no question that if a school starts with the top 1 percent of students in exam-taking ability, that school will show higher degrees of success when the measurement is, most commonly, exam-taking ability.
Of all the criticisms of the research on successful high-poverty schools, the issue of cherry-picking is of the gravest concern, particularly for successful charter schools. While lotteries generally ensure that these schools have comparable percentages of special education students to traditional public school, the challenge of cherry-picked parents is real and legitimate, as even the staunchest defenders of charter schools acknowledge (Pondiscio, 2019). But there are three essential responses to this challenge that teachers and leaders in any school, regardless of label or governance structure, must consider. First, the evidence on successful high-poverty schools is certainly not limited to charter schools or others that are otherwise selective. The more than a dozen sources cited in the introduction (page 1) and chapter 1 (page 9) provide many examples of success far beyond charter schools. Second, and more to the point, so what if successful schools engage parents more directly and benefit from discipline and academic policies that parents wholeheartedly endorse? That is not an argument that these schools are failing or that their policies are inadequate, but rather that all schools—traditional public, charter, and private—can learn from the teaching and leadership practices of their counterparts. Third, and most importantly, the most successful charter schools, such as New York’s Success Academy, can be compared to schools that actually do cherry-pick students—that is, the designated gifted and talented schools. Under this sort of comparison, the students selected by lottery in the Success Academy Charter Schools significantly outperform the highly selected—cherry-picked, if you will—gifted and talented schools (Pondiscio, 2019).
Summary
This chapter considered seven criticisms of research about success in high-poverty schools. To be clear, I do not challenge the motives of critics, as I fundamentally believe that almost everyone who enters into the national and global discussion about how to improve education has the best interests of students at heart. Nevertheless, this book has a clear point of view, and I want to respectfully acknowledge and respond to the most common criticisms of the research on successful high poverty schools. Critics frequently contend that successful high-poverty schools are different—whether due to their funding, students, or exceptional teachers—and therefore, their results cannot be generalized to conditions in unsuccessful schools. Many of the articles, books, and films about successful high-poverty schools are no more than anecdotes consisting of a sample size of one, and not generalizable. Some research, particularly regarding commercial programs, curricula, and technology, may be commercially tainted if the organization sells and administers those programs. Some successful high-poverty schools are based on criteria that are too low; we ought to expect more from all students. The funding for some successful high-poverty schools may be higher than the funding for unsuccessful schools. Finally, successful high-poverty schools, particularly magnet and charter schools, may cherry-pick their students, either by excluding high-needs students or by relying on parents who take an active interest in their children’s education, factors that are not always the case in the unsuccessful high-poverty schools.
The best response to these criticisms is to acknowledge and respect them, be aware of them when conducting research and presenting findings, and do the best job possible to take these potential criticisms into account when conducting future research. Most important, good researchers acknowledge the limitations of their work, as I have sought to do in this chapter. That said, acknowledgment of potential limitations does not invalidate the research findings. This book describes not a single student or case, but rather the preponderance of evidence from a variety of scholars. This is the apex of research quality readers can rely on when making decisions about which teaching practices to implement in their own schools.
Prepared with an excellent understanding of educational research and when it can (or cannot) be trusted, you are ready to delve into the fruits of research on successful high-poverty schools—the teaching practices that high-performing, high-poverty schools use differently. The following section will discuss seven teaching practices of equity and excellence schools you can use and implement in your own schools and classrooms starting right now.
| PART II |
Understanding What Equity and Excellence Schools Do Differently