Urban schools can succeed: Check the options before you flee to the suburbs

Nikole Hannah-Jones put her daughter's education where her values were: Instead of finding a high-performing school for daughter, like other advantaged parents, she chose a New York City public school with lots of low-income, black students and low test scores. Her belief that an educated, politically connected New York Times reporter could overcome low expectations, absentee teachers and disorder proved false. It took a lot of private tutoring -- not available to most students -- to get her daughter caught up in high school.

More than 90 percent of Success Academy students are proficient in reading and math.

There's been lots of gotcha and gloating in response, writes Coleman Hughes in The Free Press. Many assume that the only safe, responsible choice is a mostly white suburban or private school. He writes: Don't conclude that nothing works for "those kids."

We haven't "tried everything," he argues. Have we tried "schools that actually assign homework, where teachers show up to class every day, where disruptive kids are removed, where lunch is actually served, where principals who don’t respond to emails get fired and replaced?"

Roland Fryer "imported commonsense policies from the most successful charter schools, and produced real, measurable test score gains" in low-performing Houston public schools, Hughes writes. Let's do more of that.

Matt Yglesias and his wife, who live in D.C., decided to send their son to a mostly low-income, mostly minority school that worked out just fine, he writes. "From a purely selfish viewpoint, I’d say the difficulties and downsides were minor compared with the price of private school tuition or the annoyance of moving to the suburbs."

While there are some discipline problems, "the school was still a well-run, happy place for our child, who learned to navigate a much broader range of social interactions than if we’d sent him to school only with other affluent children," Yglesias writes. "The presence of a critical mass of affluent, educated, engaged parents I think made a real difference in the lives of the teachers and the students."

"My 3 children attended a mostly low income, majority minority school through 5th grade and it was great," tweets Erika Sanzi. Why? Because it was a public charter (not unionized), had strong leaders & good teachers who believed in high expectations for students and staff. This was pre-2020.

In her story on educational opportunities for black children in New York City, Hannah-Jones never mentioned charter schools, which enroll about 19 percent of the city's students, writes Jed Wallace of Charter Folk. Charters produce "dramatically stronger results" for black and lower-income students, who disproportionately choose charters. He's got graphs. "Better is possible," writes Wallace.

Naomi Schaefer Riley gets a bit snarky about the failure to mention charters: "Imagine how pissed off Nikole Hannah-Jones's daughter will be when she learns that there are majority black public schools in New York City where they assign homework, don't tolerate chaos, and where the kids all pass the state exams!"

Natalie Wexler explains how to narrow the achievement gap without reducing academic standards:

• School-wide behavior policies and teaching methods that create the calm and orderly environment that enables students to pay attention.

• The explicit instruction, including in writing, that helps all students succeed but helps those from disadvantaged backgrounds the most.

• A content-rich, logically sequenced curriculum that both engages students and equips them with the knowledge they need to succeed at higher grade levels.

• Ongoing support for teachers, delivered by those with some understanding of cognitive science, in adapting the curriculum to their particular students’ needs.

I don't think any of these things is especially expensive.