While I recommend reading the Hechinger Report’s Sarah Garland for the best explanation on the methodological issues around Gary Miron’s new KIPP study, the issue of “sustainability” deserves further discussion. There’s a commonly-voiced, but frequently unexplored concern that schools which utilize funding above and beyond public funding are somehow “unsustainable.” Yet, these discussions generally miss three important points:
1. If we use this definition of sustainability — does the institution only use public funding? — then almost all of our community-based nonprofits, universities, religious organizations, and many traditional district public schools (think local education funds, foundations and PTAs) are unsustainable. Sustainability is a critical issue and it deserves more than this simplistic analysis.
2. When analyzing sustainability, the composition of funds matters. Generally, we want to look at the operating funds only — not long term capital or extraordinary expenditures. And, it’s important to recognize that growth can confound many of these analyses: it generally takes extra money to start new schools, expand operations, etc. Schools — just like all organizations — do get into trouble when they begin to use capital or growth funds to backfill for persistent operating cost overruns. The other factor you’d want to explore is the sustainability of philanthropic funding. Is the charitable funding coming from one big giver or a broad base of individual support? The former is dangerous, while the latter is indicative of ongoing community support.
3. It takes money to extend learning time, provide additional supports, cultivate leadership, etc. So, money does matter. But, it’s a lot like extended learning time. More can be better, but only if used well. Many, many schools that receive additional funding are still unable to improve. It’s still unusual and notable for a school — even if it receives more money — to significantly increase learning outcomes for poor and minority students.
Finally, equity matters — a lot. Public schools in wealthy communities are generally well-supported — both by individual parents and local education funds and foundations. Rather than fret, I’m pretty happy when the most advantaged members of our society direct their giving towards public schools serving our most disadvantaged kids.*
If advocates could get beyond the almost reflective, finger-pointing antagonism between traditional district and charter public schools, there’s an opportunity to forge a powerful alliance for more funding — public and charitable — for schools serving poor students. This is only possible if the lesson we take from the KIPPs of the world is that it is possible to help disadvantaged children succeed. It likely requires significant changes in the ways that many schools operate. And, for students who need more, it may cost more. But it is possible — and worth it.
* BTW, no false dichotomies. I think the most advantaged members of our society should pay more taxes, too.