Tough S Article Is Useful in That It Discusses Many of the Same Issues That Gladwell Does

Tough’s “What It Takes to Make a Student” is useful in that it discusses many of the same issues, people and programs that Gladwell does in chapter 9, but provides a much more complicated account, and provides many other factors to consider.

Gladwell says that KIPP schools have succeeded “by taking the idea of cultural legacies seriously.” Yet the Tough article suggests that this isn’t the only or even the main reason KIPP schools succeed. . Tough quotes Levin, co-founder of KIPP schools and the superintendent of the four New York City schools. Levin states that more important than the behavioral conditioning (SLANTT) is the “less visible practices: clear and coherent goals for each class; teachers who work 15 to 16 hours a day; careful lesson planning; and a decade’s worth of techniques, tricks, games and chants designed to help vast amounts of information penetrate poorly educated brains very quickly.” (p 9) . Tough cites a key critic of KIPP, “Richard Rothstein, a former education columnist for The New York Times who is now a lecturer at Teachers College.” (Note the way journalist Tough introduces Rothstein using a kind of rhetorical précis.) Rothstein is skeptical KIPP schools provide a model that can be widely adopted, arguing 1) The “model cannot be replicated on a wide scale” [remember, it requires teachers work 15 to 16 hour days – other material I’ve read on this and Teach for America suggests that the burnout rate is high – many teachers only last 2 or 3 years.] 2) The “elevated incoming scores at the Bronx school make it mostly irrelevant to the national debate over the achievement gap….Although Rothstein acknowledges that KIPP’s students are chosen by lottery, he contends in his book “Class and Schools” that they are “not typical lower- class students.” The very fact that their parents would bother to enroll them in the lottery sets them apart from other inner-city children, he says, adding that there is “no evidence” that KIPP’s strategy “would be as successful for students whose parents are not motivated to choose such a school.”

Tough suggests a host of other reasons why poor and minority students fare badly in school. For example, he states that 1) the best teachers are given no incentives to teach at the most needy schools, and a large % of the worst teachers teach at the poorest schools, 2) government spending on schools often makes this situation worse. 1) “Nationwide, the best and most experienced teachers are allowed to choose where they teach. And since most state contracts offer teachers no bonus or incentive for teaching in a school with a high population of needy children, the best teachers tend to go where they are needed the least. A study that the Education Trust issued in June used data from Illinois to demonstrate the point. Illinois measures the quality of its teachers and divides their scores into four quartiles, and those numbers show glaring racial inequities. In majority-white schools, bad teachers are rare: just 11 percent of the teachers are in the lowest quartile. But in schools with practically no white students, 88 percent of the teachers are in the worst quartile. The same disturbing pattern holds true in terms of poverty. At schools where more than 90 percent of the students are poor — where excellent teachers are needed the most — just 1 percent of teachers are in the highest quartile. 2) “Government spending on education does not tend to compensate for these inequities; in fact, it often makes them worse. Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has compiled persuasive evidence for what he calls the country’s “education apartheid.” In states with more poor children, spending per pupil is lower. In Mississippi, for instance, it is $5,391 a year; in Connecticut, it is $9,588. Most education financing comes from state and local governments, but the federal supplement for poor children, Title 1, is “regressive,” Liu points out, because it is tied to the amount each state spends. So the federal government gives Arkansas $964 to help educate each poor child in the state, and it gives Massachusetts $2,048 for each poor child there.” MAKING THE CONNECTION: BODY PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE, Project 2: Some assistance, draft ideas, models, samples, suggestions, theories.

1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to do in this paragraph. Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can come later. 2. State central text (Gladwell) claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid example/quote/phrase of this claim in the central text. 3. Transition into secondary source. What is the common ground between the two texts? Or, put another way, how does the secondary text relate to the claim in the central text? 4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and the project and argument. 5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis 6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of your “quotation sandwich” 7. The HOW/WHY. Return to central text (Gladwell). How does this information connect to the central text? a. Use this sentence (see the sample, I know the template’s a bit confusing): b. [The outside source] c. clarifies/illustrates/extends/complicates d. Gladwell’s + [central text’s claim under investigation OR argument] e. because …

8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both central and secondary sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer the questions: So what? Who cares? Use templates from Chapter 7 of They Say/I Say (91-95).

Read it over and make sure it hangs together, and each sentence leads nicely to the next.

Sample. The bolds are templates taken from They Say/I Say

MAKING THE CONNECTION: BODY PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE, Project 2: Some assistance, draft ideas, models, samples, suggestions, theories.

1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to do in this paragraph. Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can come later.

In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that Asians are good at math.

2. State central text (Gladwell) claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid example/quote/phrase of this claim in the central text.

Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between languages. This, Gladwell claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like addition easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture of many Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor intensive than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that the combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math.

3. Transition into secondary source. What is the common ground between the two texts? Or, put another way, how does the secondary text relate to the claim in the central text? Gladwell is not the only one who’s examined the Asian proclivity towards math.

4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and the project and argument.

New York Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For Immigrant Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown newspaper to find a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members were Asian. Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math club 94.4 percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians gravitate to math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip).

5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis

Most interestingly, many of the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of the few subjects where their grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses and school club helped to build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants with whom they could connect (Winerip).

6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of your “quotation sandwich”

In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted in the desire to adapt and succeed in America.

7. The HOW/WHY. Return to central text (Gladwell). How does this information connect to the central text? a. Use this sentence (see the sample, I know the template’s a bit confusing): b. [The outside source] c. clarifies/illustrates/extends/complicates d. Gladwell’s + [central text’s claim under investigation OR argument] e. because …

Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim because he offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would point to their home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much more motivated by their immediate social surroundings.

8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both central and secondary sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer the questions: So what? Who cares? Use templates from Chapter 7 of They Say/I Say (91-95).

On one hand, readers might say that the students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another stereotype—that teenagers are more concerned with their social status and thus they could be overlooking their innate cultural legacy. But on the other hand, these students make readers question how much cultural legacy functions on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather than the desire to work hard, is primary. In fact, the article implied that the white students interested in the math club don’t stay long in the club because it has become the “de facto Asian social club” and feel as if they don’t belong (Winerip).

Read it over and make sure it hangs together, and each sentence leads nicely to the next. Sample, in paragraph form: In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that Asians are good at math. Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between languages. This, he claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like addition easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture of many Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor intensive than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that the combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math. Gladwell is not the only one who’s examined the Asian proclivity towards math. New York Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For Immigrant Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown newspaper to find a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members were Asian. Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math club 94.4 percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians gravitate to math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip). Most interestingly, many of the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of the few subjects where their grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses and school club helped to build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants with whom they could connect (Winerip). In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted in the desire to adapt and succeed in America. Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim because he offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would point to their home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much more motivated by their immediate social surroundings. On one hand, readers might say that the students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another stereotype—that teenagers are more concerned with their social status and thus they could be overlooking their innate cultural legacy. But on the other hand, these students make readers question how much cultural legacy functions on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather than the desire to work hard, is primary. In fact, the article implied that the white students interested in the math club don’t stay long in the club because it has become the “de facto Asian social club” and feel as if they don’t belong (Winerip). CHARTING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CHUA & OTHER AUTHORS

SAMPLE # 1: connecting Chua/Norberg-Hodge + showing how this COMPLICATES Chua In Amy Chua’s article “A World on Fire,” the author argues that the volatile brew of democracy, free markets and ethnic hatred conspire to create global instability and violence. She claims that deep-seated ethnic tension would exist even in the absence of free markets and democracy, but when the latter two elements are added to the mix, ethnic tension can quickly turn into violence. Chua points out the fallacy of the idea that ethnic identity is strictly a political or social phenomenon when she states, “Try telling black and white Zimbabweans that they are only imagining their ethnic differences – that ethnicity is just a social construct – and they will at least agree on one thing: you’re not being helpful.” (113). In an article entitled “Globalization and Terror” published in the journal Ecologist in 2002, Helena Norberg-Hodge, founder and director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, and author of many books on globalization and sustainable development, recounts her experiences among the Ladakh people of the Western Himalayas. In doing so she complicates Chua’s argument that globalization is primarily a catalyst in an already simmering brew of ethnic tensions. Norberg-Hodge asserts that “globalization [does] not simply exacerbate existing tensions but in many cases actually create[s] them” (5). To support this argument, she uses the example of Ladakh, where the Buddhist majority and Muslim minority had gotten along with no conflict for 600 years before entering the global economy made them first into competitors, and then into enemies. She states, “within a decade of the imposition of Western-style ‘development,’ Buddhists and Muslims were engaged in pitched battles – including the bombing of each other’s homes” (3). Although both of these authors agree that globalization contributes to ethnic tensions, they differ on exactly what role globalization plays and to what extent it can be considered the cause of ethnic violence.

SAMPLE # 2: connecting Chua & Bowden + showing how this CHALLENGES Chua While Chua sees conflicts between ethnicities in developing countries as driven in large part by globalization and democratization, others believe that poor government is the main culprit in interethnic conflict. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John R. Bowden, professor of anthropology at Washington University St. Louis, notes that many countries composed of diverse ethnic groups such as Malaysia, have avoided conflict because their governments have created “multiethnic coalitions” which encourage different groups to “seek the large electoral middle ground.” The countries he uses as examples are all democracies. Thus Bowden challenges Chua’s argument as he believes that democracy, properly run, can prevent ethnic violence. In particular, he argues that federalist systems that “disperse” dominance and encourage coalitions are more likely to be successful. This contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where there is a “market dominant minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and one of three types of “backlash” are very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic conflict exists only when certain ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when destructive “political choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present challenges to peace, and that certain other factors make conflict more likely. For example, he notes that certain kinds of colonial rule, in which one group was pitted against another, may make reconciliation difficult. Furthermore, Bowden agrees with Chua that demagogues and elites can create “fear from the top” that pushes people toward horrific acts of violence (p. 8. Bowden cites the crises in Rwanda and the Balkans of this). Bowden also agrees with Chua that economic differences are often at the bottom of ethnic conflict (p. 5) However, Bowden insists that democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the kind of problems Chua outlines, and that we must focus on the many underlying factors he believes are the real drivers of violence. Most importantly, we must try to encourage the kind of political arrangements that will reduce violence, which means a renewed commitment to democracy rather than a retreat from it.