Most articles about Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter schools report on her political ambitions, her love of combat with unions and critics, her ability to attract the generous support of billionaires.
Rebecca Mead writes here about the pedagogy of Success Academy charter schools. It is a weird combination of strict discipline and progressive instruction. The question is whether these two divergent approaches can co-exist.
These are schools where student behavior is monitored closely, and the smallest infractions are punished swiftly.
Can Deweyism flourish in a repressive environment?
A Success Academy classroom is a highly controlled, even repressive, place. In some classrooms that I observed, there were even expectations for how pencils should be laid down when not in use: at Springfield Gardens, the pencils had all been placed to the right of the desks, aligned with the edge. The atmosphere can be tense, and sometimes tips over into abuse, as was documented by the Times last year. The newspaper obtained a video that had been recorded secretly by an assistant teacher. It showed a teacher berating a first-grade girl who had made an error on her math worksheet, ripping up the sheet, and sending the child to sit in a “Calm Down” chair. Moskowitz has insisted that the event was an outlier, but the teacher in the video was an experienced educator who had been considered an exemplar of the Success Academy approach. Among some Success teachers, “rip and redo” was a term of art…
At some Success Academy schools, as many as twenty per cent of students are suspended at least once during the academic year. Moskowitz calls suspension “one tool in the toolkit,” and says that most occur during the first weeks of school, when students haven’t yet assimilated the school’s expectations. “I think some people have a fairly idealized view of the kind of language that even young children can use,” she told me. “We have young children who threaten to kill other people. And, yes, they are angelic, and, yes, we love them, but I think when you are outside schooling it is hard to imagine.” According to data from the New York State Education Department, three years ago, when Success Academy Springfield Gardens was starting up and had only kindergartners and first graders, eighteen per cent of the students were suspended at least once. It’s entirely believable that lots of children between the ages of four and seven found it impossible to meet the school’s stringent behavioral expectations. But it’s also fair to wonder whether, if one out of five young children cannot comply with the rules, there might not be something wrong with the rules….
But, even as Success seeks to inculcate its students with its strict behavioral codes, Moskowitz has embraced certain teaching methods that would not seem out of place in a much more permissive environment. Surprisingly, she cites John Dewey as an important influence on her thinking, and she champions hands-on science labs, frequent field trips, and long stretches of time for independent reading. Moskowitz has recruited as a consultant Anna Switzer, the former principal of P.S. 234, a highly regarded public school, in Tribeca. Before Switzer retired from P.S. 234, in 2003, she developed a progressive social-studies curriculum in which students undertake months-long projects on, say, the native populations that originally lived on Manhattan Island. At Success Academy, Switzer has been helping to build similar “modules,” such as an intensive six-week study, in the third grade, of the Brooklyn Bridge. For kindergartners, Success offers a six-week interdisciplinary study of bread. After students read about bread and baking—the importance of bread in different global cultures; the grains that go into making various breads—they take a field trip to a bakery, and bake bread as a classroom activity. Success modules remain heavy on reading and writing, Switzer acknowledges: when the kindergartners study bread, “shared texts” play a more prominent role than they would at a very progressive public school. Still, the curriculum for these projects belies the stereotype of Success as a rigid test-prep factory. “Being a progressive pedagogue is hard,” Moskowitz told me. “Your level of preparation has to be much higher, because you have to be responsive to the kids, and you have to allow the kid to have the eureka moment, while still mastering the material.”
Adding to the difficulty of implementing such ideals is the youth and relative inexperience of Success’s staff. On average, a school loses a quarter of its teachers every year; at some schools, more than half leave. Moskowitz told me that teachers typically stay with Success for just three years. This may be consistent with the job-hopping habits of millennials, but according to veteran educators it generally takes at least three years to become a decent teacher. An unseasoned workforce is not Moskowitz’s ideal, but, given the rapid growth of Success and the network’s projected expansion, it may be a structural inevitability. The system compensates for the inexperience of many of its teachers by having a highly centralized organization. Teachers do not develop their own lesson plans; rather, they teach precisely what the network demands. Like the students in their classrooms, Success’s teachers operate within tightly defined boundaries, with high expectations and frequent assessment….
One of the core tenets of John Dewey’s educational philosophy was the belief that, in school, children learn not only the explicit content of lessons but also an implicit message about the ideal organization of society. A school, he argued, was a civilization in microcosm. “I believe that the school must represent present life—life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, or the neighborhood, or on the playground,” Dewey wrote in “My Pedagogic Creed,” which was published in 1897. The society for which the child was being prepared should not be conceived of as an abstraction from the remote future, Dewey believed. It should be replicated, in simplified form, within the structure and culture of the school itself.
“A school should be a model of what democratic adult culture is about,” Deborah Meier, a veteran progressive educator, and a theorist in the tradition of Dewey, told me. “Most of what we learn in life we learn from the company we keep. What is taught didactically is often forgotten.” A corollary of Dewey’s belief is that, if children are exposed in school to an authoritarian model of society, that is the kind of society in which they may prefer to live.
The question posed by the article, left unanswered, is whether a rigid and even repressive culture can be combined with a progressive approach to pedagogy, and whether these classrooms are the best preparation for life in a democratic society.
What can we learn from the Success Academy model? Its students get the highest test scores in the state.
This year, a Success high school, on Thirty-third Street, will produce the network’s first graduating class: seventeen students. This pioneering class originated with a cohort of seventy-three first graders.
So, seventeen out of an entering cohort of 73 first-graders survived to graduation. What does that mean?

“Can Deweyism flourish in a repressive environment?”
To even ask the question is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Deweyism is.
LikeLike
In fact, that fundamental misunderstanding (or perhaps I should say “misunderstanding”) is at the heart of neoliberalism. If we give people (or at least the good, deserving people) good things (or the appearance of good things), we can take away democracy. If we give people security (or the appearance of security) we can take away civil liberties like free speech and protections from search and seizure and warrantless detention. If we give people fun toys and distractions, we can take away job protections, housing protections, healthcare, you name it. If we label a class “inquiry based” or “project based” we can take away any sense of control, individuality, spontaneity, joy and, of course, democracy. Of course, that does mean we have to be quick to punish those bad people who threaten the good things (or, more precisely, they threaten the illusion of good things). But trust us, we have your best interests at heart.
LikeLike
As a progressive educator, I find the proposition offensive. John Dewey is rolling over in his grave at being included in the same sentence (paragraph, article, universe) as Evil Moskowitz. First of all, the allusion to progressive as “permissive” is inaccurate and a typically dismissive idea of progressive education. As dienne77 writes, progressive is utterly incompatible with repressive and punitive. A few “hands-on” classes and catch phrases in the curriculum do not make progressive. Dewey didn’t suggest democracy as a subject. He suggested democracy as a lived idea in a school. Students have a voice, they have dignity, they practice the democratic processes that lead to engaged, informed citizenship. Progressive education honors individuality and eccentricity. Uniforms and uniformity suppress real learning. Progressive education means students are loved and supported in whatever way they develop. Humiliating a child is inconceivable in a progressive school. I could write a book about it. Oh, I did that already.
LikeLike
” Dewey didn’t suggest democracy as a subject. He suggested democracy as a lived idea in a school.”
Very well said.
LikeLike
My elementary education closely resembled what you describe. It was what a catholic school education looked like. I am a much older and better person for this type of education. Too many “snowflakes” and those who endorse them.
LikeLike
My good friend with incredible handwriting attended a parochial school. She describes “Sister Mary Torture” and “Sister Divine Insults,” as her “best” memories. She too was a survivor. However, one size fits all discipline should be applied with caution. As someone that taught elementary students for many years, I know that insults and threats are not a great way to motivate children, and not all children are socially and emotionally the same. Besides, there are many better and more humane ways to treat young people. You describe sensitive children as “snowflakes.” a pejorative term used by the right to describe those on the left. My own experience has shown me that teachers should be firm, but encouraging, and never hurtful or insulting. Some children are timid and self-conscious, and we have a responsibility to never undermine their self esteem.
LikeLike
“Firm…and never hurtful or insulting”: good policy.
LikeLike
Well, tbrown, your comment is an unsurprising testimonial to the education you describe. I won’t comment on your assertion that you are older because of this type education, but harsh discipline does prematurely age people! And, as an older person, I’m proud to be a “snowflake,” if by that you mean a sensitive person who tries to have empathy for those who have been historically marginalized or have been the victims of systemic racism.
LikeLike
Steve Nelson, what is your fix for the myriad inner city middle schools (like the one in my neighborhood; I don’t teach there) that is an utter zoo according to current and former teachers? All veteran teachers have fled; new teachers only stay one or two years.
LikeLike
It’s late, but I reply to several things in one comment. Your dismissal of a lived democratic experience as simplistic is simplistic. Exercising judgment, having a voice, learning to compromise, engaging in respectful debate . . .all these and more are the ingredients of good citizenship. You also glibly characterize “democratic but disorderly schooling.” What does one have to do with the other, unless you are subtly suggesting that challenging students, often students of color, are incapable of managing freedom and responsibility? That’s what Moskowitz and “no excuses” charter advocates think. I can make – do make in my book – a strong case that the rigid discipline in these schools represses ethical development and responsible behavior. Any dilettante psychologist knows that tough discipline represses behavior but doesn’t change it.
As to what to do about the “inner city middle school . . .” I find your characterization (by proxy) of it as a “zoo,” somewhat offensive. I suspect the kids are poor, often hungry, perhaps homeless and suffering the ravages of life in neglected communities of color. Maybe I’m wrong.
The answer isn’t to get “tough.” They’re tough enough already. The answer is adequate funding, small classes, teachers who love kids, support services and a great deal of patience. These kids need to be loved, not punished or rigidly disciplined. No one said it’s easy, but the diversion of funds to charter schools and the political attacks on teachers and teacher unions are not answers. Here’s the truth: We might have to spend twice as much on these schools in order to mitigate the damage we have done to these communities through racism and neglect. The problem with our approach to schools in poor communities is not that we don’t know what to do. It’s that we don’t want to do it.
LikeLike
Amen.
LikeLike
Steve, it seems to me you’re out of touch. When was the last time you stepped into a run-of-the-mill public middle school in NYC?
LikeLike
Out of touch with what? Because I support marginalized people, care about children and worry about the assault on public schools? I have been in many public schools, middle schools, high schools, elementary schools. I spent an entire day at a public middle school in East Tremont, NYC. I visited a public/community based charter school in the Bronx quite frequently. My school partnered with them on many levels. I spent a significant part of a day at Success Academy, including an hour with Eva Moskowitz.
All of this was in the last few years. I have a close relationship with a group of parents of color actively working to bring humane, progressive education to Manhattan middle schools. I have hosted scores of public school teachers at my former school (retired in June) every year.
Out of touch?
LikeLike
Steve, well, I’m impressed that you’ve visited a lot of schools in recent years. What did you see? Do you think you got an unfiltered view of the daily reality in a typical classroom? I’d be surprised if you did. My impression is that many urban schools are absolute horror shows –kids run the show, abuse adults, learn nothing. Limousine liberal suggestions for humane discipline get my goat, because it outrageously implies that it’s the adults who need to be humanized! Like they’re the rough and unfeeling ones. They’re the victims! One of the horror stories I recently heard was about a gritty suburban district here in the Bay Area where a mob of high school kids, angry about dress code enforcement, ganged up on the principal and forced him to flee campus for his own safety. This gives you the flavor for the dreadful out-of-control atmosphere of these schools. There’s a whiff of it it at my own relatively affluent middle school. You tow the party line by suggesting that this bad behavior is all because of the trauma of poverty and racism, etc. What about normal teen rebelliousness? What about the well-known ugly dynamics of the mob? And even if it were all trauma-based, how does letting kids walk all over you help heal that trauma? What good does it do the kid when their trauma-induced bad behavior destroys their own and their classmates’ education? If we have to wait for the poverty and race issues to be solved, or before we’ve mastered the subtle psychological jui-jitsu that thwarts misbehavior without having to sully our hands with discipline to get civil behavior from students, we’ll never get civil behavior from students. Liberals’ moral fastidiousness about employing discipline is very misguided. I once had a very unruly 12th grader who joined the Marines the next year and returned to me to tell me the discipline there was exactly what he needed. Many black parents employ stern discipline. The schools are failing the kids by not providing it.
LikeLike
This was one of the most nuanced and perceptive pieces of education reporting that I have ever read. Mead’s account of the story lesson was brilliant. What a great observer and listener she is. That type of close reading lesson is ubiquitous nowadays –it’s not unique to Success. It’s driven by the new tests which demand that kind of analysis from kids. To my mind, this kind of teaching is vastly overrated, if not outright malpractice –not because it’s rigorous, but because it’s the wrong sort of rigor. And it’s wrong to suggest that that’s typical of “traditional education”. It’s only traditional insofar as it’s teacher directed. A more traditional (and in my view, more age-appropriate and enjoyable) approach would be to ask some comprehension questions and then have a relaxed discussion about the meaning of the story and kids’ reactions to it. You can see here how the story is being used as mere grist for the test prep mill. Ugh! That’s what we’re doing to our kids. The other irritating and non-traditional approach you see here is the obligatory turn-and-talk technique. As an adult I loathe workshops where I have to do this; the “talk” is always stilted and lifeless. I doubt it’s much more edifying for kids, but it’s the fashion these days.
I love the JS Mill autobiography that Mead and Moskowitz allude to. But I wish it seems they failed to note that Mill learned by listening to his erudite father on long walks, and by reading, not by analyzing texts a la Common Core or by turning and talking in formulaic ways to jejune peers. Mill was asked to write many synopses of what he read and then relate these to his dad. Synopsis is scorned by the geniuses who devised the Common Core standards; they’re after much loftier game –yes, that’s right, they’ve devised an improvement on JS Mill’s education. David Coleman and Eva are egregiously misguided in thinking that third graders should be acting like they’re analyzers in a graduate level English seminar. If they really want to replicate JS Mill’s education, they should have their kids listen to erudite adult talk that’s advanced but not pitched too high above their heads, and also have them write or utter synopses of what they hear and read to help them solidify their learning and to show the teacher what they are and are not grasping. And, to correct for the deficiency that Mill found in his own education, they should be sure to throw in a lot of poetry –but NOT treat it as fodder for analytical test questions!
LikeLike
Cx: “But it seems…” not “But I wish it seems…”
LikeLike
I was surprised to see Success espousing play. Pace some progressivist purists, I find that my students’ play is incredibly enriched by the “traditional” direct instruction they receive. Facts are fuel for the imagination.
LikeLike
I think Dewey was simply wrong to suggest that kids must LIVE democracy at school in order to be stalwart democratic citizens when they grow up. That’s simplistic thinking. I think, counterintuitively, that the opposite could well be true: a democratic but disorderly schooling could easily prevent the transmission of the knowledge that creates an appreciation of democracy and a horror of alternative forms of government. I think this is happening in many of our schools and it’s part of the reason Trump won. A more authoritarian school coupled with a rich, pro-democracy curriculum (and one that really drives home the horror of totalitarian regimes) seems to me a better bulwark against tyranny than the “free school” and its ilk.
LikeLike
You have this wildly ridiculous notion that schools have somehow been getting more progressive and that’s what’s causing the problem. You couldn’t be further from the truth. The 60s and 70s were the heyday of progressive education. Education has become more and more authoritarian for the last 30 years. Students now regularly have to walk around in a “bubble hug” (and not just at charters) and repeat chants and wear uniforms and all follow all sorts of other most definitely not progressive procedures and methods. I’m finding it hard to believe you really are a teacher or know any because what you constantly spew around here bears no resemblance to schools that I’m familiar with or the experiences of students and teachers I know. I think you got lost in a Sudbury School or something.
LikeLike
Dienne, you’re right: most public schools are not Sudbury Schools. But many, at least here in Northern California, do have very weak discipline that allows kids to wreck, or at least severely impair, the learning process. It’s this disorder, combined with the anti-knowledge curriculum, that is starving our kids minds of the knowledge that can make them stalwart democratic citizens. Letting this anarchy run unchecked is serving neither the kids themselves nor society. I can’t help but think that a dose of military-school type discipline would be beneficial to kids in really chaotic schools.
By the way I get a lot of my info from two colleagues who have worked in CA urban districts. Recently I talked to a sub who works in a nearby urban district. He sees many schools there intimately and has many horror stories. There’s a conspiracy of silence among teachers and administrators –they don’t want to publicize how bad the situation is because people will blame the adults.
LikeLike