Such organizations are modeled loosely off the Harlem Children's Zone and attempt to create cradle-to-career pathways for kids in disadvantaged areas. These Midwestern models differ from HCZ in that they are larger than 100 square blocks and promote collaboration among existing agencies. And their funding is different--I mean, not everyone can be hand-in-glove with Wall Street, right?
Here's what else the Other Midwest Plan has going for it: business, community, and school-district buy-in. Focus on STEM subjects: science, technology, math. Accountability measures from top-to-bottom, including managed instruction and continuous improvement plans. Use of great practices from across the country. Assurance of on-the-ground quality, through plenty of support and professional development for teachers, out-of-school time programs for kids, inclusion of volunteer labor. Emphasis on kindergarten readiness. I took the devil's-advocate pose over and over, and got pretty satisfying answers back.
When what started as a 20-minute call ended at an hour, I thought: Wow, this Other Midwest Plan sounds great! ...
... But is it too good to be true?
The rapid dissemination of the cradle-to-career idea (which I've written about before) is encouraging, insofar as I think it's a good way to frame the movement to achieve legitimate outcomes for kids from tough backgrounds. But it's also a new path full of booby-traps.
A few questions that I think must be addressed:
- How does the laudable focus on educational achievement not get narrowed to outcomes in math and English (or, in a better world, math, English, and science)?
- How do you avoid imposing so much quantitatively-based accountability that you create (unfortunate but plausible) incentives to "teach to the test," or worse, manipulate data? How do you create broad, fair evaluations?
- We know that quality of teaching and adult-child interaction are so important in both K-12 classrooms and daycare. How do C2C programs assure that the consensual, progress-oriented message from movement leaders is not diluted at the grassroots level? More to the point, how do they plan to increase the supply of effective front-line practitioners, especially in an era of fiscal retrenchment?
- The C2C approach is warm, fuzzy, and consensus-oriented. It sometimes seems everybody's determinedly on the same page--or at least trying to get there. What if the consensus is wrong?
- How do you make room for (Business-Speak Alert) "process correction" or continuous reflection, when you're keeping a good face up to secure grant money and political will?
- Many of the major social advances in American history grew out of mobilization and politicization of people at the grassroots. People spoke up and got angry, and things changed (see Civil Rights, women's rights, the Voting Rights Act). Can a movement that is so--in some ways--bloodless have long-term impact?
- How do you keep funders and agencies working together? If funding pulled back at some point, or results were uneven between agencies, wouldn't agencies be tempted to steer their own ship again?
- Isn't this an idea from Rich White Men for poor people of color?
No comments:
Post a Comment