David L. Kirp

It’s all bad news out of American public schools these days. Tests scores are declining, we hear, students don’t want to go to school, and the curriculum is more and more watered down.

But what about those schools that should be failing but are not? What are those teachers and administrators doing differently?

Kirp takes a close look at one such school district. It’s in Union City, New Jersey and the students are predominantly poor and predominantly not native English speakers. Yet show more students are doing well on nationally normed tests. Why?

Kirp reveals the commitments that have helped Union City students do well despite the obstacles students in the city face. Instead of revising curriculum and bringing in new teachers and new methods, Union City staff has worked on strengthening the parts of their system that have always worked well. Kirp cites four key components: strong early childhood education, a word-rich environment, help for teachers, and a program known as abrazos which emphasizes connections in the school.

Great read. show less

A detailed examination of Union City, New Jersey’s school system, which serves many poor and immigrant children and gets them to results that compare well with New Jersey overall—and New Jersey is a high-performing state. Kirp identifies several key factors: (1) a shared curriculum, vital for children who often move schools in the middle of the year; (2) heavy investment in quality preschool; (3) strong political support for a long-term plan and a superintendent who will stay the course; show more and (4) a culture of respect and we-can-do-it rather than Michelle Rhee’s “no excuses”/“punish the teachers if they don’t improve results” approach. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind’s focus on testing reading and math above all else mostly works against Union City’s successful endeavors, and at the very least leaves the effective teachers there burdened under paperwork and distracted from the things they’re doing right. But Kirp suggests that these lessons, rather than firing teachers and turning to charter schools, could help school systems around the country. show less

In this book, Kirp focused on the politics of the pre-K education and early childcare movements in the US. Since the book was mostly about the current state of these efforts as of 2006, it was not particularly relevant in 2012. Most of the second half of the book would need an update -- and I would not be surprised if many parts were no longer at all true (since one of the big sticking points in these movements was funding, and between 2006 and now, we've had a recession.)

The most show more interesting parts of the book were the chapters on the economics of pre-K education (very effective if well done), a brief overview how brain development supports early education (rapid early brain development is something to take advantage of, but it's not a now or never opportunity), and all too brief overviews of what makes for good pre-K education (hint: it's encouraging them to learn rather than drilling them to learn certain things).

Overall, an interesting read, but there are probably better resources show less

Addresses a critical issue, but rather dry.