No-excuses for character: A critique of character education in no-excuses charter schools

Abstract

The ‘no-excuses’ model of education has become one of the most prominent educational alternatives for urban youth. Recently, notable no-excuses charter schools have begun a concerted effort to develop students’ character strengths, striving to increase their chances of future success. In this article, we situate the no-excuses approach in the context of two prototypical positions in the history of character education: the ‘Traditional’ approach, stressing habit formation and the inculcation of virtuous character traits, and the ‘Progressive’ approach, dedicated to autonomous reasoning in determining moral codes. We identify two central limitations of the no-excuses approach. First, it combines incompatible components from both positions: the Traditional emphasis on a meticulous management of student conduct, together with the Progressive aspiration to cultivate autonomous decision-making. Second, while both Traditionalists and Progressives strive to develop character in light of moral values or principles, the no-excuses model is characterized by an instrumentalist conceptualization of character strengths as means towards achieving the goal of college completion. Consequently, this approach compromises the two central mechanisms that support the internalization of character strengths – practice in autonomous decision-making, and habituation in the service of principles. These shortcomings are further accentuated by the vast divergences between the no-excuses setting and future contexts in which character strengths are to be applied.

Getting Developmental Science Back Into Schools: Can What We Know About Self-Regulation Help Change How We Think About “No Excuses”?

“…Common features of “no excuses” behavior policies include: (1) extremely high expectations for young children’s behavior, for example calling for 100% of students on task 100% of the time (Lemov, 2015), (2) use of negative consequences or punishment, including removal from classroom, loss of privileges, and public reprimands for minor infractions such as classroom interruptions or not correctly standing in line (Lamboy and Lu, 2017), and (3) a reliance on highly structured, adult-control of behavior, such as physically re-situating children’s hands on their desks, or rigidly prescribing in detail how children should look when they are appropriately engaged (Goodman, 2013; Lemov, 2015; Taylor, 2015). Some argue that this approach to school discipline mirrors the broken windows theory of policing (Kelling and Wilson, 1982), in which teachers are instructed to “sweat the small stuff” (Whitman, 2008) and students are given automatic consequences for behaviors like eye-rolling or squirming in their seats (Balogh, 2016; Balonon-Rosen, 2016; Golann and Torres, 2018). Often conceptualized in the context of charter management organizations (CMOs), elements of “no excuses” and exclusionary disciplinary practices can also be found in public and private schools across the United States.…”

“…Indeed, more and more “no excuses” schools explicitly state that they focus on character, values, and other SEL-related skills. Yet in practice, the development of these mindsets, skills, and competencies are de-prioritized and undermined through school policies and practices that contradict these goals, for example by limiting students’ opportunities to practice autonomous decision making (Dishon and Goodman, 2017) and by compromising other aspects of learning and development such as the cultivation of self-determination, intrinsic motivation, and self-respect, as well as agency, identity, and civic voice (Lamboy and Lu, 2017). In addition, reactive and exclusionary discipline policies can inhibit children’s abilities to practice self-regulation skills and jeopardize the relationships between students and teachers (Ben-Porath, 2013; Barker et al, 2014; Golann, 2015).…”

“…Zero tolerance and other reactionary disciplinary policies may contribute to these unequal rates of suspensions and expulsions, both of which are linked to negative developmental outcomes later in life (Meek, 2014; Skiba et al, 2014; Gregory and Fergus, 2017). This can be particularly harmful for students who have experienced trauma, in part because the act of social exclusion is often re-traumatizing (Marcus, 2014; Balogh, 2016). Finally, these policies may contribute to the exclusion of children with disabilities from “no excuses” schools altogether, when schools counsel out students who are deemed a poor fit for the school when they struggle to be successful in the “no excuses” environment (Dudley-Marling and Baker, 2012; Noguera, 2014).…”

Improved Learning Design for Pre-Service Teacher in a Character Education Course

“…Another main goal of implementing character education is to help students develop future goals (Dishon & Goodman, 2017) related to the skills they need to have after graduation. In this context, pre-service teachers are expected to have skills such as higher order thinking skills, creativity, collaboration and communication skills (Hoon, 2017).…”

Citizenship Education through the Pragmatist Lens of Habit

“…The stable environments in which most aspects can be anticipated generate a neutral context for taking on the new skill or habit. This is both effective and efficient, but it should be noted that it creates limited opportunities for developing more complex and dynamic habits that require reflection, adaptation and adjustment (Dishon and Goodman, ). Habits practiced in schools such as collaboration or deliberation will remain exceedingly limited if not practiced in a more open and varied environment in which one can try out forms of reflection, adjustment and adaptation to others’ responses and to changing circumstances.…”