EduShyster is upset. She doesn’t understand why our nation’s leaders have embraced the idea that “success=compliance.”
She is concerned that white philanthropists and white teachers are imposing strict discipline on black and brown children.
This phenomenon is known as “no excuses.”
As she mentions, the origin of “No Excuses” may be traced to a book of that name by Samuel Casey Carter, written in 2000 about 21 “high-performing, high-poverty schools” and released by the far-right Heritage Foundation. The idea behind the book was that we didn’t need to spend any more money to fix schools, we just had to make sure that the schools were tough in their discipline and indulged in no pedagogical nonsense.
Some day, an enterprising researcher or journalist will check to see where those “no excuses” schools are today. One of them, P.S. 161 in Brooklyn, was on the Mayor’s list of schools-he-wants-to-close. Another, the famous Bennett-Kew Elementary in the miracle district of Inglewood, California, was collapsing, along with the district, and on the verge of a state takeover (when last I read about its travails). Why? Because so many charter schools had opened in the Inglewood “miracle district” that the district had to lay off teachers, custodians and other staff, had increased class sizes to 40 or more, and was about to fall into bankruptcy.
Then came the Thernstroms’ book of the same title.
And then came David Whitman’s Sweating the Small Stuff, which lavished praise on “no excuses” schools that practice “the new paternalism.” It was published by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Whitman is (or was) Arne Duncan’s speech writer.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Those [schools] we came to admire set social norms that create effective learning environments. Students learn to speak politely to the principal, teachers, and strangers; they learn to dress neatly, to arrive at school on time, to pay attention in class, finish homework, and never waste time. Teachers work hard to instill the desire, discipline, and dedication—the will to succeed—that will enable disadvantaged youth to climb the American ladder of opportunity. These are essential ingredients in the definition of effective education for high-need kids.
Isn’t this what Horace Mann would want?
Mirel’s response to Ravitch (Daedalus, 2002) has caught Justice O’Connor’s eye (Teaching America). It won’t do to pretend to “bridge the differences” between the utopian schools imagined by progressive educators and the common school mandated by state constitutions. Judicial branches have tasked state legislatures to provide the latter. Continued obstruction of state constitutional mandates only legitimizes privatization.
Meanwhile, the public education doomsday clock advances toward midnight…
Straw men do not an argument make. Please research the postings on this blog. You might learn something.
Eric,
I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not recall Jeff Mirel responding in Daedalus as a reproof. He is a very close friend. Your baffle me.
Diane
Hi Diane,
I’ll attempt the better exposition you deserve.
Justice O’Connor observes a shortfall between reality and the common school ideal promoted by Horace Mann. (This is a really big deal since Mann’s work sets the stage for state constitutional ed clauses.) In Teaching America she cites Mirel and Quigley. Those papers (as well as your own, “Education after the culture wars”) implicitly question the fidelity of public education to its constitutional rationale. It indicts politicians and educators for failure to provide adequate supervision of public education.
Your bottom line was: “As scholars, as teachers, as parents, as citizens, we must reclaim our common culture – or risk seeing it disappear.”
Mirel’s bottom line was: “the current situation is difficult indeed, the outcome may not be as grim as she imagines.”
But his worst fears are being realized: “The trends that Ravitch illuminates in her essay all seem to point toward public schools retreating from new approaches to civic education. The historical nature of these trends underscores how compelling her arguments are and makes her vision of the future of public schooling both believable and frightening.”
There is no legal rationale for compelling schoolchildren to attend schools which abdicate their constitutional responsibility to prepare future electors.
Zero tolerance is insanity and does not work. The Heritage Foundation is another Orwellian group of double speakers.
Inglewood was taken over by the State of California several months ago as a result of a $55 million loan to the district by the State of California. Inglewood loses $25 million/year due to 17% of their students not showing up for school everyday. In L.A. County there are 348 charter schools in 2011 according to the 2012 LACOE Directory. 248 were in LAUSD, 8 approved by the Calif. State Board of Ed., 10 approved by LACOE. This leaves 60 for the 87 other school districts in L.A. County. You must wonder why so many in LAUSD when LAUSD only has 1/2 of the students in the county. And if Inglewood has many charter schools why so many in such a small school district? Inglewood can only regain control of their district locally again after they pay back the state. I have given them the spreadsheets, and the superintend of Instruction for the State, Torlakson, and in order to regain control of their district again as rapidly as possible they need to bring back those lost students. The new state monitor seems to be a good person. Let us hope that is really so and he and the community can work together to remake that school district.
These “reformers” all seem to be an easy “six degrees of separation,” don’t they?
No excuses, is not about discipline but more about rejecting the idea or belief that demography and economic status are destiny. That children from lower economic status can achieve what kids from high income communities can.
Jay, Yes, It’s critical that we do not have excuse ourselves when children from low income families achieve educational success at much lower rates than those from middle and high income lives. We indeed have to reject the idea that this is OK. But the “we” cannot be limited to schools. The gaps experienced by poverty are so much greater than schools alone can close. It saddens me deeply that the education reform movement seems to have simply shifted the responsibility from the whole village to simply the village school. And then, to the point on discipline, there is a distinct emphasis in the “no excuses” schools on order and control. It is starkly different from what the most successful students–statistically these are wealthier students–experience in their education. “No excuses” has glossed over the practices that demonstrate a disturbing belief that poor kids need boot camp to shape them up.
Thank you for reminding us what the belief behind “no excuses” should be. The difference between what it should be and what actually happens is what drives me to share my thoughts here.
All:
I’m grateful for your and the education reform movement’s continued interest in the successful practices of No Excuses Schools. Since the book first came out, tens of thousands of educators have come to see and understand that there is no excuse for the failure of most schools to teach poor children well. And yet, no matter how hard so many well-intended teachers work, many many of them have also come to see and understand that the SYSTEM ITSELF as currently funded, controlled, and operated does not reward, encourage, or inspire the study and replication of what works.
Diane knows this. She dedicated the first portion of her brilliant career to the exquisite demonstration of this truth across the broadest range of policies and practices imaginable.
In this spirit, let us all please work to see and understand that the first purpose of No Excuses was to demonstrate what is possible (at the system level) by pointing at the actual (at the local level). Schools that work suggest what is required for a system that works.
Now that 12 years have past and MILLIONS of children have been rescued from the fate of failed schools – through the alternative provided by No Excuses Schools – let’s give the 54 million children in U.S. schools what we all deserve: school systems that work and systems of school systems (public, private, and parochial) that work together to provide the very best education possible for every child in every school.
Stay in touch. SCC.
http://bit.ly/xxIGpo
Diane knows this …
Indeed. Although her current supporters appear to reject the observations she made in earlier decades (courts and taxpayers will not be as forgiving, though).
“Equipped with an unparalleled knowledge of American public education, Diane Ravitch offers telling illustrations of the ways in which American schools are perpetuating cultural fragmentation and a skills gap between rich and poor.”
Are policymakers ensuring fidelity of implementation with available best practices?
Thanks for the PDF of No Excuses on your website:
Click to access NoExcuses-SCC.pdf
A few quick observations:
The list of successful reform models overlaps similar lists from the American Federation for Teachers.
Cost of implementation appears to be $50 to $200 per pupil–within reach of RttT funding, had adopting proven programs been the goal of those dollars.
So the takeaway is:
When the Heritage Foundation agrees with the American Federation of Teachers about successful classroom practices, expect the National Education Association to endorse a candidate for president who uses competitive grant money to divert policymakers from those teacher-endorsed practices and spend big bucks on tried-and-failed practices instead.
America’s (higher) taxes at work!
The no excuses model is alive and well in urban areas. The only thing I disagree with EduShyster about is the reference about white teachers. There are actually a lot of these schools run by African Americans who are using this heavy discipline while making a lot of money. Teachers are forced to follow the model or be fired.