Part II: Section 5: Strong support for the students who need it most

Summary:

All of part II is a "thought experiment" looking backwards from an imagined future, describing the impact of the proposed reforms.  This section deals with how the new, higher standards were implemented in a way that was equitable for students whose circumstances set them up at a disadvantage in school.   The fictitious reform measures enacted were:

1. Pupil-weighted financing:  provide more resources to students who cost more to educate (without decreasing the funding for other students).  The savings made elsewhere in the system (by restructuring student progression and graduation time) were redistributed to enable this.
2. Schools serving disadvantaged communities were now open for longer during the day, provided three good meals and safe space for schoolwork to be done after-hours.   These schools also became integrated providers for psychological and physical health services, which resolved many learning impediments.
   
3. In large cities, mayoral control of the schools allowed the integration of schools with accountability and provision of social services for low-income families.
4. Databases for social service, foster-care, juvenile justice, health care, etc. would be consolidated to permit better decision-making and resource allocation.
5. Coherent service plans were developed for low-income families, with the school serving as the hub.
6. A cultural campaign was waged by the private sector in urban communities to raise the aspirations of young people.  

Clarification questions:

1. What accountability links would exist between the academic lives of children and the social services their families depend upon?
2. Where, exactly, do the additional funds come from to boost the financing of the low-income services provided?  It's described elsewhere in the book, but I'm still not sure I understand it.  Even if funds were freed up, where would the political will come from if families with more capital effectively control the democratic agenda?
3. Would the school as "one-stop-shop" for social services also provide fee-based services, such as health care or therapy, for the middle class?

Probing questions:

1. If schools become synonymous with social services for the poor, will we ever have socioeconomically integrated student populations in urban centers?  Would this serve to further stigmatize urban schools?
   
2. What will the illegal immigrant's position be in a system that links all databases for social services with the school?  Will these folks simply not show up?
   
3. Does mayoral control preserve the stability and continuity needed for long-term reform to take place? What happens to all of these services in in cases where a mayor is replaced by a political opponent with strong ideological differences.
   
4. How can mayoral control still respond the immediate needs of local constituencies when their interests may not be relevant to the mayor's agenda or political base?

Connections:

The "one stop shop" model for the school as service provider, with extended-day, reminds me of a talk I heard by one of KIPP's founders about understanding the needs of low-income communities differently from the paradigm upon which public schooling was created in this country.  He emphasized the need to make the school the center of community because many in the community may not actually have any other sanctuary. 

Folding social services into education provision also reminds me of the horrifying conclusion that some of my classmates in educational leadership have told of students whose school attendance was tied to the welfare check.  In NYC, students who miss more than 20 consecutive days of school have their families' welfare benefits terminated...many in my class spoke of students who would show up on day 19 or 20, like clockwork, because their parents had sent them to ensure the continuation of benefits.  Such perversities in the current system (whether overstated or not) would probably be eliminated if there were closer working relationships between the different agencies providing services.