Julia Fisher taught English at the Achievement First Amistad High School in New Haven, Connecticut. She is now earning a Ph.D. at the University of Virginia. In this article, which appeared in the Washington Post, she describes life in a “no excuses” charter school.
She begins:
When I taught at a charter school, I once gave out 37 demerits in a 50-minute period. This was the sort of achievement that earned a new teacher praise in faculty-wide emails at Achievement First Amistad High School, in New Haven, Conn.
Amistad is a No Excuses school, in the mold of high-profile charter networks such as KIPP and Success Academy. The programs are founded on the notion that there can be “no excuses” for the achievement gap between poor minorities and their more affluent, white counterparts. To bridge that gap, they set high expectations and strict behavioral codes. School days are long. Not a moment is to be wasted. Classes even rehearse passing out papers quickly so they can save every second for drilling academic content. Instruction is streamlined with methods that data says lead to strong performances on standardized tests, which lead to college acceptances.
Students at Amsted rebelled last May, protesting the lack of teachers of color.
Amistad’s students were mostly protesting the fact that their school doesn’t have more minority teachers: Achievement First says 17 percent of its faculty members at its five New Haven schools are black or Latino, which is roughly what I saw at Amistad. But the problem goes far beyond the racial composition of the faculty. More important, the students would benefit from teachers who treated them as equals in dignity and the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.
The Achievement First network, like many No Excuses schools, hammers its students from their first days with the notion that each of them will graduate from college. To do so, they must work hard. At school, students encounter careful uniform checks and communal chanting of motivational slogans. And because students will face professional standards in college and the workplace, No Excuses schools insist that they start young. Posture and eye contact are important, even for 16-year-olds. Class is not to proceed without total compliance.
She describes how she broke protocols by asking students to arrange their chairs in a circle for a class discussion. She encouraged students to think and to ask questions. When administrators got wind of what she had done, they were furious at her and began monitoring her classes closely to be sure that she didn’t allow questions.
Classes were designed to follow No Excuses dogma, in a way that precluded real engagement. Discussion was considered a waste of time because it didn’t produce measurable results. Teachers were forbidden from speaking for more than 5 percent of a class period. That meant most of the time was devoted to worksheets.
Classrooms at Amistad were often unruly. My students’ favorite disruption strategy was to make bird noises — a clever move, because it’s impossible to tell who is making the noises, so no one ends up punished. One of my student advisees said to me, “I’ve been in charter schools for 10 years, and the only way to have fun is to get in trouble.” Amistad officials knew they had a morale problem. Still, an administrator once stopped me in the hall to say (on her own initiative, not following policy) that she had seen me laughing in front of my students, which was wholly inappropriate behavior….
When I left Amistad, I went to teach at a progressive prep school in D.C., where the arts thrived and students shaped the spirit of their school. Once, I looked around the room at my students and noticed that, at that moment, every one of them — engrossed in discussion, looking through their books to develop ideas, taking notes, sitting comfortably — was doing something that would have earned a demerit at Amistad. Sure, the two schools’ populations differed significantly in racial composition and affluence, but the way a school treats its students shouldn’t be based on race or class.
That’s the basic premise of No Excuses: Race and class shouldn’t determine educational success. But because administrators so misunderstand what matters about education, their students are punished for the same behavior that, at a school with a hefty price tag, merits celebration. Amistad, like its No Excuses brethren, holds that no academic work can be done until and unless the classroom reaches perfect behavioral compliance. Yet no one demands such compliance of more-privileged kids. And so No Excuses schools re-create the racial gap they aim to eliminate.
Why are “no excuses” charter schools almost exclusively for children of color? Why do privileged white kids get joyful lessons, instead of joyless repression? Would you want your own child to attend a school like Amistad? I would not.

The truth is finally being made public.
LikeLike
How do we know that all “no excuses” schools are like this?
That said, I once dropped off some papers at a “no excuses” school and during the casual conversation with the assistant principal, I wondered aloud about whether children enjoyed coming to school. She immediately stopped a 7-year old in the hall and asked him what he liked about school. He robotically starting reciting some obviously adult-prepared speech about the value of knowledge, which made me suspect that all the children had been trained to answer that exact question in the exact same way. Gave me the creeps a bit.
LikeLike
I was shocked by this. My husband attended Catholic schools in the 1960’s when classes were still taught by religious and he was constantly in trouble for breaking rules, and HE was shocked by it.
They were allowed to ask questions.
LikeLike
Ohio has a longer history with ed reformers dominating government than most states, and I think what people will find is there’s two parts to the charter argument. There’s the “better schools” argument and then the “choice” argument. Any criticism of charter schools as “better” is immediately met with “choice!”- as in “how dare you question choice!”
We’re finding that out now with the cybercharter situation in my state. They’re not “better schools” but people are choosing them, so they will continue to be promoted and expanded and funded!
It’s really pretty foolproof. If “A” is questioned, they just go to “B”.
LikeLike
This is an example of the “markets” charter argument:
Dave Yost
@Yost4Ohio
Good panel discussion at #chartersummit on e-school accountability. Rapidly evolving sector requires new thinking.
It’s nonsense. The “sector” isn’t “evolving” at all. Market-based ed reform dictates that if parents are “choosing” these schools they are therefore “good” schools. If that isn’t true then it’s a market failure, and that can’t be happening.
They’ve set this up so they can’t fail. If the schools are worse than public schools (true in this case) well, then, it’s just go to Argument B, which is “markets”: choice.
My fear is not charter schools. It’s the ed reformers in government will fashion policy that turns solid Ohio public schools INTO Ohio’s garbage e-school sector, because that’s where they’re going with this. It’s such an echo chamber and they are so head over heels in love with this “sector” that’s where we’re headed.
It’s a shame.
LikeLike
I also notices she uses the same statistic that Arne Duncan uses- “all our graduates go to college”.
All the graduates of my local public high school would go to college too if we lost the bottom 20% between freshman and senior year. That wouldn’t be considered a success for a public school.
Why not just say these charters are really for higher-performing college bound students? There’s nothing wrong with that. They’re like a variety of magnet school but one that focuses on low income children. That’s something to be proud of.
Why insist they’re the same as an ordinary public school?
LikeLike
How pitiful that the school’s name has been appropriated from an episode in history that students may not be taught about, or if so, not amplified by some mindful attention to the murals created by Hale Woodruff, recently restored and for the first time on view in several venues outside of Georgia, including NYU.
Here is an introduction. I studied painting with Woodruff at NYU in the early 1960s.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/07/09/nyu-80wse-galleries-present-rising-up-hale-woodruffs-murals-at-talladega-college-.html
LikeLike
The author would have more credibility in my eyes if she’d also taught at a regular New Haven public school. The chaos there might have made her see Amistad in a different light. Of course the contrast with a chi-chi progressive school is going to make Amistad look like a gulag. I hope the author goes on to found a progressive charter in New Haven that adheres to the progressive values she advocates. Show us how it’s done.
LikeLike
*Some* of what happens in no-excuses charter schools reminds me of the school experiences my father, and many African Americans now age 60+, had in the segregated south. Their teachers often inspected their nails and clothes, stressed the importance of education, and had high expectations for them behaviorally and academically. Some students were struggling middle class, but others were very poor.
The difference back then, however, was that ALL of the children and their teachers lived in the same segregated communities. A financially better-off family would have lived in close proximity to a not-so-well off family. The children would have learned with and learned from each other both in and out of the classroom. The parents would share a sense of collective responsibility for all of the neighborhood’s children. Everyone saw each other all the time… my father’s mother and his teachers over the years often went to the same church, hairdresser, and social events. Through these relationships, the better-off were reminded of how important it was to lift each other up; those who were struggling to climb were inspired, encouraged, and assisted by people who looked just like them and had ‘made it’ or at least improved their stations in life.
Another difference was that teachers did not punish anyone for being poor, or coming from a family situation in which people/parents just didn’t know any better and therefore couldn’t teach the children any better. My father told me that on many occasions, a student would come to school with dirty clothes or fingernails or goof off in class. But that same teacher who would reprimand you would then pull you aside during recess and clip your nails for you (or allow you to do it for yourself), or give you a clean shirt to change into all the while telling you how important it was to take care of yourself so you could feel proud of yourself when you presented yourself to others. And any student who goofed off was reprimanded by the teacher as well as EVERYONE else in the neighborhood. There was never any point in lying to your parents at home about what happened at school. By the time you got home, everyone you would have passed along the way would have told you “I heard about what you did…you know better than that!” If the offense was bad enough, you were ‘lovingly reprimanded’ multiple times before you even got home.
I am reminded of Dr. Lisa Delpit’s description of these kinds of teachers: warm demanders. Indeed, these were communities of warm demanders.
I guess my point is this: WHAT is said to a child is important, but of equal importance are WHO is saying it and WHY, as well as WHERE they are coming from when they say it.
And most children are acutely aware of each of these conditions.
There can be no such thing as a no-excuses school model if it is not balanced with love, warmth, and sincerity and deeply rooted in the community.
LikeLike
Students at UP Academies are also subjected to the inhumane learning environments of “No nonsense nurturing.” One of my freshmen had come from such a school in Lawrence, MA. We were months into the school year when he raised his hand to ask me if he could pick up his pencil. So sad.
Another of my students, one of my favorites, would often ask if he could go to the men’s room at the very beginning of class before everyone arrived. If I denied his request, he was fine with it. Later in the year I discovered that students at UP Academy didn’t move from class to class, but teachers came to them to avoid disruption. Requiring an eighth grader to sit quietly all day in one classroom is torture. Something that must have been particularly difficult for this student because he had earned 45 “referrals” during his eighth grade career.
Students do not attend these schools out of choice. They have no choice.
LikeLike
That said, I once dropped off some papers at a “no excuses” school and during the casual conversation with the assistant principal, I wondered aloud about whether children enjoyed coming to school. She immediately stopped a 7-year old in the hall and asked him what he liked about school. He robotically starting reciting some obviously adult-prepared speech about the value of knowledge, which made me suspect that all the children had been trained to answer that exact question in the exact same way. Gave me the creeps a bit.
LikeLiked by 1 person