In this post, Jan Resseger reviews Joanne W. Golann’s Scripting the Moves: Culture & Control in a No-Excuses Charter School. What she describes is a culture of behaviorism and strict control.
Resseger writes:
Joanne W. Golann’s new book is all about schools that insist their teachers follow the guidance of Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion instead of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, but whose principals and teachers have convinced themselves they are liberating students from oppression.
Lured by the promise that their middle school will put them on the path to college, many of the students in Scripting the Moves: Culture & Control in a “No-Excuses” Charter School quickly become angry and disgruntled as teachers assign them demerits for failing to sit at attention or whispering or speaking as they walk in straight lines marked by squares on the hallway floors. At Dream Academy, teachers are driven obsessively to “sweat the small stuff.” School leaders warn teachers that the whole system might collapse if anyone loses control.
Golann explains that, Dream Academy, the pseudonymous name of the school where she conducted her ethnographic study, typifies to one degree or another no-excuses charter schools managed by many of the huge charter management organizations, beginning with KIPP, but also including Achievement First, Aspire, Democracy Prep, Green Dot, IDEA, Mastery, Match, Noble Network, Promise Academies, Rocketship, Success Academies, Uncommon Schools, and YES Prep.
Anyone with the most rudimentary, university-based, public school teacher certification training—including philosophy of education, educational psychology and learning theory—will likely find it shocking to read what Golann describes observing in her year-and-a-half ethnographic study. Yet Dream Academy exemplifies the kind of schooling so many families are choosing—based on a promise that college admission will follow…
Golann explores Dream Academy’s failure to work with students to develop critical thinking and the kinds of study and interactive skills they will need if they do go on to college: “Dream Academy was successful in getting its middle school students to think about college and in getting its high school graduates to apply to, and be admitted to, college. But… Dream Academy’s rigid behavioral scripts did not encourage students to develop the types of cultural capital that higher-income students use to gain advantages in college. Cultural capital, which I have defined as tools of interaction, comprises the attitudes, skills, and styles that allow individuals to navigate complex institutions and shifting expectations. These tools include skills like how to express an opinion, be flexible, display leadership, advocate a position, and make independent decisions.” (p. 58)
Finally Dream Academy teachers’ obsession with minute behavioral infractions undermines trust and generates anger and antagonism: “No-excuses schools ‘sweat the small stuff.’ Under a sweating-the-small-stuff approach, authority is exercised over ‘a multitude of items of conduct—dress, deportment, manners—that constantly occur and constantly come up for judgment.’… (A)s teachers took on the role of disciplinarians, they became enmeshed in a racist system that perpetuated stereotypes of Black and Brown bodies as needing to be controlled rather than one that humanized students as individuals to be understood, cared for, and respected. It is unlikely that belittling and shouting at students, for example, would be acceptable at an affluent White school, yet these practices are common at no-excuses schools, which serve almost exclusively Black and Latino students.” (pp. 86-99)
The term “sweating the small stuff” is the title of a book written by David Whitman and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in 2008. It praises several no-excuses charter schools for their strict discipline and paternalistic control of students. The next year, Whitman became Arne Duncan’s chief speech writer.
It is unlikely that belittling and shouting would be acceptable…
Then again, there seems to be the rules of exception.
The pure-hate rule: Since my hate is pure, belittling
and shouting at (fill in) is OK.
HEY you PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT, breathtakingly uninformed, amateurish, unscientific, backward, befuddled, biscuits of
deplorable dumbsters, you ain’t JACK. Reality is what I
say it is, so take a fly on a rolling donut…
““(W)e can interpret the rigid behavioral scripts employed by no-excuses schools as in line with a long history of managing poor youth of color through social control, surveillance, and punishments.”
This type of thinking views young people through a deficit model of colonialism. As someone whose students were mostly Black and Brown ELLs from poor countries, I saw my students as human beings that had been through a lot. but they had the potential to to cope and move forward. These students like all students deserve to be treated with dignity, and the vast majority of them will learn to adapt and become effective learners and contributing members of society.
colonialism: yes
The knowledge deficit is real, as the Hart Ridley study showed. Acknowledging this truth is not “colonialism “.
There are no excuses for no excuses schools.
In her introduction to Scripting Moves, Joanne Golann writes:
“This book began at Princeton University, under the guidance of Michael Duneier. He took a recovering demographer under his wing and turned me into an ethnographer. His lessons to seek variation, to humanize subjects, and to connect the micro and macro are at the heart of good ethnography and good research.”
Ah, yes. “Seek variation.”
Seek not diversity. It is analytical. It centers discreteness. It categorizes subjects. It dehumanizes.
Seek variation. It is synthetical. It centers wholeness. It relates subjects. It humanizes.
Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge comprises four components, and to practice it Deming says requires having some understanding of 1) what a system is, 2) variation, 3) knowledge, and 4) psychology of people.
Variation from the Means
Variation
Is the means
Keeps away from
Normal means
“Nonstandard Deviation”
(versification of Yong Zhao – aka “The Zhao
of Education”)
Deviation from the norm’s
Anathema to school reforms
But variance is future’s seed
Not a thing that we should weed
Try teaching in an, “Only Excuses”, Social Justice inner city school. The main drivers of the charter school industry are the chronically chaotic out of control schools. The No Excuses model did not materialize for the fun of it.
Rage, behavior problems in our schools are not serious. And where they do exist, they can be fixed with simple, humane solutions. What’s wrong with you?
It’s not just charters, either. My public middle school teachers had to read “Teach Like a Champion,” although we at least didn’t follow word for word. Still demeaning and counterproductive though.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
As a special education teacher, I often ran into students who were use to gaining attention thru disruption. My time in a low income minority community added another twist to it. Some black students were use to being loud and disruptive to get their way. Even parents would use that tactic if they felt their child was being treated unfairly. I even had a student stop a parent from going into a diatribe. I had smiled and greeted one of my advisee students as she attended go-to-school night with her mother. Her mother’s hackles went up until her daughter quieted her with a hand. The barely contained suspicion/disrespect was less pronounced with my Latinx students because teachers are generally held in high regard in the Latinx community. That being said, I had to earn their respect before they would give me respect and more importantly trust. At times that required strong parapros from the community who coulld speak to them as their own parents would. As an outsider and an old white lady, I couldn’t. I can’t imagine trying a no excuses approach although the district was big into a program called PRIDE where we were supposed to reward students for “pro-social” behaviors, etc. They could exchange points for prizes. I don’t know who in their right mind thought it would appeal to high school students.
“(A)s teachers took on the role of disciplinarians, they became enmeshed in a racist system that perpetuated stereotypes of Black and Brown bodies as needing to be controlled rather than one that humanized students as individuals to be understood, cared for, and respected. It is unlikely that belittling and shouting at students, for example, would be acceptable at an affluent White school, yet these practices are common at no-excuses schools, which serve almost exclusively Black and Latino students.”
The parallels to racist, overly aggressive policing are glaring. I have always found the arguments that no-excuses charter CEOs made to justify why they had such extraordinarily high out of school suspension rates in KINDERGARTEN and FIRST GRADE (!!!) — but only in elementary school charters with virtually no white students — to be astonishingly racist and I found it disgusting that so many white education reporters dutifully reported this without question — pushing this as a legitimate narrative that needed no actual evidence beyond “the kids who reach 3rd grade do well on standardized tests, so that confirms to us white education reporters that the 5 year old students who were suspended must have had incredibly violent natures and needed to be treated harshly”.
They remind me of the white reporters in NYC who fawned over Mayor Bloomberg and decided that the fact that crime was low in NYC was thanks to aggressively policing African Americans. How many white reporters and politicians constantly connected low-crime rates and aggressive policing and gave credibility to the absolutely false narrative that without aggressive policing, there would be sky high crime. It took Mayor de Blasio to prove them wrong, as crime continued to decline.
No excuses charters always seemed to be an excuse for dumping kids that charters didn’t want to teach because they valued their own success far more than any students, and therefore students that did not help them promote themselves as successful were not wanted. It was so clear that I couldn’t believe any journalist would fall for it, and the fact that so many did is a testament to how much privilege – and not journalistic skills – pervades education reporting. Did those journalists not notice that the one time “no excuses” took over an entire school system and couldn’t just dump kids, it didn’t work? Did those journalists not notice that the highest performing no excuses charters had very high attrition rates, which was absurd given that they were supposedly 99% successful — how racist do you have to be to accept without question the false narrative that lots and lots of African American parents who sought out the charter because of their high success rates just “changed their minds” and all decided their child would be better off in a lower performing school where their child would fail?
How racist do you have to be not to notice all the high performing African American and Latinx students in a large urban school system who attend public schools, and decide without one shred of evidence that it would be impossible for a charter that taught a small fraction of that number to cherry pick students, and their success is due to their “no-excuses’ philosophy.
How racist do you have to be to believe that the students who do well in “no-excuses” charters would be abject failures if they had attended the same kinds of well-resourced public schools that children of privilege attend?
Giving credit to “no excuses” education for charter “success” is just as racist as giving credit to “stop and frisk” for low crime in NYC.