"In Real Life, You Have to Speak Up": Civic Implications of No-Excuses Behavior Management

• In Event: Beyond Test Scores: The Civic Implications of No-Excuses Charter Schools

Abstract

Active citizenship in a democracy requires a sense of authority and self-efficacy (Kymlicka, 2001; Rubin, 2007). In other words, you must believe in both your right to speak and your ability to be heard. Simultaneously, no-excuses classroom management practices are premised on the almost absolute authority of the teacher. Students are expected to attend to and follow the teacher’s instructions at all times; if a student receives a consequence, s/he is expected to accept that consequence without question or argument. How does this type of management shape opportunities for students to develop as democratic citizens?

My paper will present the results of a year-long ethnographic study examining students’ relationship to authority in a no-excuses charter middle school. This study is grounded in practice theories of identity (Holland, Lachichotte, Skinner & Cain, 1998) and Jackson’s (1968/1990) concept of the hidden curriculum, which together suggest that both learning and identity are shaped by day-to-day practices. It draws upon over 250 hours of observation, over 30 hours of interviews with students, teachers and parents, and many pages of school documents to explore the complex relationship between classroom management and civic identity. In doing so, it represents one of very few studies to link classroom management to civic identity, and one of the only ethnographic studies of a no-excuses school.

Preliminary results point to the significance of student voice in authority relations between students and adults. For some adults in the school, compliance with school rules and teacher authority is a necessary prerequisite to asserting your views: “No one’s gonna hear your voice if you’re just doing whatever you want to.” Yet many students rejected this idea, instead insisting, “If you don’t speak up, you won’t never be heard.”

The school as a whole wrestled with how to deal with student perspectives, at times encouraging them and at other times inhibiting or silencing student voice. Significantly, this tension seemed to run parallel to the fault line between practices encouraged by the school principal and practices required by the charter network. For example, students sent to a time-out area were faced with a network-wide poster asking, “How did YOUR actions lead to this consequence?” but also offered a school-specific form which allowed them to express grievances and seek help from a trusted adult if they felt they’d been treated unfairly.

The young people in this school are facing significant structural inequalities. In the aftermath of the protests in Baltimore, many spoke with concern about racism and relationships with law enforcement, and wondered whether they would participate in a “purge” if it came to their city. These difficult conversations represent only one piece of the challenges facing them—challenges we must address as a country if we are to move in a direction of greater equality. Understanding how, when and even whether students learn to “speak up” and express their own perspectives in the face of authority is a significant piece of understanding the role of schools in preparing young people to meet these challenges.

Author

• Eliot Graham, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway