“No Excuses” charter schools are at the center of many debates in education policy. First, what accounts for their test success, excellent learning environments or merely test preparation? Second, are strict behavior policies necessary to create efficient learning environments or are they harmful to students and their ability to navigate authority? This study uses classroom observations, student surveys, and interviews of administrators, teachers and students to understand the dynamics of pedagogy and discipline in two high-performing charter schools in New York City. Surprisingly, what makes these top “no excuses” schools successful is what distances them from the “no excuses” standard definitions. The schools displayed progressive mathematics pedagogy, reflective and abridged discipline practices, and strong school cultures that retained both students and teachers. These findings suggest that there are more nuances in the “no excuses” model than previously known and which need to be understood before continued replication.
Ben-PorathS. (2013). Deferring virtue: The new management of students and the civic role of schools. Theory and Research in Education, 11, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878513485172
6.
BernsteinB. (1961). Social structure, language and learning. Educational research, 3(3), 163–176.
7.
BoalerJ. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory Into Practice, 45, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4501_6
8.
BoalerJ. (2015). The brain and mathematics learning – Chapter 1. In BoalerJ. (Ed.), Mathematical mindsets (pp. 1–10). John Wiley & Sons.
9.
BoalerJ.ChenL.WilliamsC.CorderoM. (2016). Seeing as understanding: The importance of visual mathematics for our brain and learning. Journal of Applied & Computational Mathematics, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9679.1000325
10.
BoalerJ.SellingS. K. (2017). Psychological imprisonment or intellectual freedom? A longitudinal study of contrasting school mathematics approaches and their impacton adults’ lives. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 78–105.
11.
BoalerJ.Sengupta-IrvingT. (2012). Nature, neglect and nuance: Changing accounts of sex, gender and mathematics. In SkeltonC.FrancisB.SmulyanL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and education (pp. 207–220). SAGE Publications.
12.
BoydA.MarantoR.RoseC. (2014). The softer side of “no excuses”. Education Next, 14(1), 48–53.
13.
BrophyJ. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership.
14.
CalarcoJ. M. (2018). Negotiating opportunities: How the middle class secures advantages in school. Oxford University Press.
15.
ChengA.HittC.KisidaB.MillsJ. N. (2015). No excuses charter schools: A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on student achievement (EDRE Working Paper Series No. 2014–11). EDRE. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
16.
CohenE. G.LotanR. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. Teachers College Press.
17.
DobbieW.FryerR. G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem children’s zone. American Economic Journal Applied Economics, 3, 158–187. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.3.158
18.
FergusonA. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. University of Michigan Press.
GoodmanJ. F. (2013). Charter management organizations and the regulated environment: Is it worth the price?Educational Researcher, 42(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12470856
GrossB.DeArmondM. (2010). Parallel patterns: Teacher attrition in charter vs public schools. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
24.
JackA. A. (2016). (No) Harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715614913
MironG.ApplegateB. (2007). Teacher attrition in charter schools. Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
33.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031001013
34.
ShorserL. (1999). Bloom’s taxonomy interpreted for mathematics. University of Victoria.
35.
SondelB. (2015). Raising citizens or raising test scores? Teach for America, “no excuses” charters, and the development of the neoliberal citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(3), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1064505
36.
Stanton-SalazarR. D.ValenzuelaA. (2001). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Contemporary Sociology, 30, 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655442
TorresA. C.GolannJ. W. (2018). NEPC review: Charter schools and the achievement Gap. National Education Policy Center.
39.
WalkerJ. M. T. (2009). Authoritative classroom management: How control and nurturance work together. Theory Into Practice, 48, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776392
WhiteT. (2015). Charter schools: Demystifying whiteness in a market of “no excuses” corporate-styled charter schools. In PicowerB.MayorgaE. (Eds.), What’s race got to do with it? (pp. 121–145). Peter Lang.
42.
WhitmanD. (2008). An appeal to authority: The new paternalism in urban schools. Education Next, 8(4), 52–59.
