For a number of years, KIPP—the Knowledge Is Power Program—has been catching the nation’s attention as the new and trendy educational model: the charter school that worked. Located in 20 states spread across the United States, KIPP schools promote a program of rigorous academic discipline, extended school hours, and an emphasis on character development. KIPP students are primarily from underprivileged backgrounds—the KIPP website boasts that “over 87 percent of our students are from low-income families and eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program, and 95 percent are African American or Latino.” Their aim is to prepare their students to overcome societal disadvantage to reach and succeed in college. And it seems to be working: KIPP students consistently score better on standardized tests than students from surrounding schools, and over 80 percent of students who completed 8th grade at KIPP have later gone on to college.

Last month, a comprehensive Mathematica study came out analyzing the effectiveness of the KIPP approach to teaching, and found it to be just as, if not more, effective than previously believed. The study analyzed data and practices from 43 schools across the country and found that after three years, KIPP students were an average of 11 months ahead of surrounding schools in math, and an average of eight months ahead in reading. They spent an average of 35-53 more minutes on homework and scored higher on tests measuring “higher-order thinking.” The study also served to silence some critics who remained unconvinced by Mathematica’s 2010 study, or who believed that low-scoring students frequently left and were replaced by high-achieving students. The Mathematica data seems clear: KIPP really is more effective. So how can we use this to help more underprivileged children in America?

Part of what makes KIPP such a difficult model to reproduce is that it combines a number of factors, from longer school hours to parent commitment contracts. Many of the components of the KIPP philosophy are not implementable in public schools—longer school hours, for example, mean more work hours for teachers, which is opposed by certain teachers’ unions. Also, there is the matter of motivation: The KIPP only works with students and families who apply. Students sign contracts to uphold the expectations of the school, and parents sign contracts to provide homework help and generally support their children’s education. Enforcing academic rigor on unwilling students does not seem like a practical plan, and enforcing it without ensuring a supportive home environment seems downright unfair. Even if public schools were to somehow ensure student and parent participation, implementing these kinds of large-scale educational reforms could be a costly proposition, and public schools do not have a foundation like the KIPP Foundation to fund these changes. It seems that mimicking the entire KIPP curriculum is an unrealistic plan.

However, the alternative—isolating and implementing the most important factors—is a near impossible task. So, up until recently, this is as far as the topic could be pursued. But the recent Mathematica study may reopen the debate. Though longer school hours seemed a key part of the KIPP curriculum, “average impacts on student achievement are smaller in KIPP schools with a particularly extended school day.” The study states that the most likely reason for this is focus of time—additional hours are often spent on “non-core academic activities.” Thus, lengthening school days may not be necessary to make academic curricula more effective, and restructuring class time is certainly a more manageable goal.

Perhaps one of the most important ways in which KIPP schools differ from most public schools is in terms of school culture. The KIPP philosophy holds good character to be a vital component of academic success, and accordingly KIPP schools foster a culture in which honesty is valued as highly as grades are. Though difficult to analyze empirically, this could be the key factor boosting student achievement; Education Week’s article analyzing the report states, “No other school climate factors yielded a statistically significant correlation with academic performance.” It is also arguably in line with identity economics—changing school identity affects the way students perceive their own identities, which in turn influences their decisions (and performance) later in life. Increasing student achievement in public schools may be as simple as changing they way they relate to it.

KIPP schools perform a great social service by essentially enabling the American dream: providing students from poor and minority background with the skills to succeed. Yet there are many students who could greatly benefit from the help of programs like KIPP, but to whom this option is not available. Part of KIPP’s vision is that “one day, all public schools will help children develop the knowledge, skills, character, and habits necessary to achieve their dreams while making the world a better place.” It strives to be a model for public schools nationwide, and is succeeding: their example is proof that equalizing racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps is a feasible goal. Given the results of the 2013 study, it is time we started implementing its methods, and hopefully benefiting from its results.

Lauren E. Goff ’16, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Matthews Hall.