Rigidity's Echo

Behavioral management is a core issue for school students. While the hallmark of the American school system in the 20th century points to the relaxation of rigid behavioral codes, critics are always concerned about whether children, particularly those who are economically deprived, will learn under such a model. The current rhetoric on achievement testing and college readiness provides a fresh perspective on this topic. Joanne W. Golann's ethnography captures a moment in the ongoing debate, focusing on the market-oriented charter school movement known as “no-excuses” schools.

As the title suggests, these schools share common characteristics. The most discussed and central subject of this study is their use of a highly structured disciplinary system (Golann, 2021, p. 5). These systems are typically implemented using scripts or “detailed and standardized behavioral codes and procedures” (Golann, 2021, p. 3). For instance, students were taught to memorize (and chant) “SLANT” each morning, which stands for [S]itting up straight, [L]istening, [A]sking questions, [N]oding for understanding, and [T]racking the speaker.

While the codes and procedures used in no-excuses schools are not entirely new, they are reminiscent of similar structures that we had encountered during our own schooling, albeit to a lesser degree. Golann's argument adds a new layer of sociological perspective for readers to make sense of the success and pitfalls of these schools. The central premise is that schools are institutions that produce implicit social norms. These “taken-for-granted ways of being that valued in a particular context” (Golann, 2021, p. 2) are what sociologists term as cultural capital. However, cultural capital is not entirely omnidirectional. Dominant norms often favor certain groups while disadvantaging others, particularly low-income Black and Latino students, as evident from Golann's research.

No-excuses charter schools aim to institutionalize these implicit norms by explicating them. The enacted policies are straightforward, if not obvious. However, Golann's observations indicate that this type of scripting can deny the same economically-deprived students of opportunities to learn via interaction. Her theoretical perspective is centered on the tools of interaction, which encompass “the attitudes, skills, and styles that allow certain group to effectively navigate complex institutions and shifting expectations” (Golann, 2021, p. 3).

As the academic exercise continues, Golann's account becomes standard and judicious. However, it still overlooks a crucial aspect of education: the process itself. A Chinese reader can readily identify with the situations faced by these charter schools. They are simultaneously hailed as salvation for economically-deprived students and a somewhat great leveler of class mobility. Chinese readers are acquainted with similar stories such as those of Maotanchang High School and Hengshui High School, which have become household names. Their predicament is that educators are forced to select a less poisonous pill when it comes to social interaction. Social interactions are characterized by temporal constraints and inherent uncertainties. College readiness in the Chinese context refers to achieving meaningful (test) results in a short period. Chinese principals would likely concur with their American colleagues because no one could be sure how to achieve long-term goals or whether they are attainable at all while ensuring that students do not fall short in high-stakes tests.

Despite this, several important questions remain unanswered in Golann's account. First, if the cultural capital essential to middle-class success is developed outside of school, it is not clear what roles, then, educators play in promoting this development among disadvantaged children. I remain skeptical about whether assertiveness, initiative, and negotiation can be taught effectively in school settings. Second, how can beneficial interactions be defined within the school context? Is there a “right” mix of cultural toolkits that will lead to success? Can cultural capital, like a screwdriver, be picked up at will? ¹ Finally, the perception of function varies according to one's life course. Rigidity in one context becomes perseverance in another. With the ever-shifting social context, the enactment of cultural capital has also shifted.

Although this study faces these issues, it serves as a reminder of the dilemmas faced by modern school institutions. We expect schools to be many things at once, but in reality, their influence is limited. Educators engage in inexcusable practices (many of which are documented in this book), often because better alternatives are scarcer. Golann rightfully points out that these schools should be scrutinized because, as she quoted Maury Nation, it is “a failed solution to a much larger social problem” (Nation, 2017, as cited in Golann, 2021, p. 174). It is a problem that needs to be addressed.