Throughout the decade since the implementation of No Child Left Behind, the accountability reform movement has been driven by two powerful and connected narratives: claims of "miracle" schools posed as models for reform and "no excuses" ideologies that contend "miracle" schools exist because of the re-doubled effort of those who will not accept poverty as an excuse.
I have been detailing for several years now that essential problems exist within these claims and perspectives:
• "Miracle" schools almost always are exposed as less than they are manufactured by media and advocate accounts (see the miracle school wiki for a centralized cataloguing of that phenomenon). In fact, close analysis of claims regarding "high flying" schools has shown that only 1.1% of high-poverty schools do in fact fly high.
• Arguing that "miracle" schools can and should serve as templates for systemic public school reform rarely confronts two problems: (1) outliers by their nature are atypical, and thus outliers for a reason (suggesting that normalizing an outlier may be an act of futility), and (2) even when schools are confirmed as high flying, rarely are the causational elements in that success scalable to wide-ranging reform.
• "No excuses" discourse implies (and even sometimes states) that outcomes connected with marginalized groups of students are primarily the result of lazy teachers, students, or both. In other words, "no excuses" ideologies keep the gaze of blame on students and teachers and off social and cultural dynamics and norms that may be the root causes of the outcomes.
• "No excuses" ideologies maintain a school-only reform model that detracts from the need to reform schools within larger social reform, all of which must address equity and opportunity.
Just as the accountability paradigm has been embraced all along the political spectrum—Democrat and Republican plans are essentially indistinguishable from each other—the "miracle" schools and "no excuses" narratives often blur the distinctions between competing arguments about education reform.
Of "Miracles" and "No Excuses": Distinguishing the Credible from the Incredible
Sharing blogging with Deborah Meier at Education Week, Pedro Noguera recently examined the tensions among education reform narratives and the people presenting those narratives. Noguera's body of work, and in recent blogs, represents some of the key elements of education reform I associate my work with—equity and opportunity.
In "Working Within Constraints to Transform Schools," Noguera identifies those constraints as political, economic, and social, acknowledging that education reform is a subset of broader social reform—again expressing arguments I endorse.
Yet, Noguera turns in this blog to highlighting the importance of identifying and learning from exemplary schools, notably Brockton High School in Massachusetts. Toward the end of the blog, Noguera builds to this:
"I cite the example of Brockton High School, and I will cite others in the next few weeks, because educators need to learn from schools like these. Such schools are showing us that it is possible to meet the needs of students, including low-income students of color, despite the significant constraints they face. Schools like Brockton devise strategies based on the needs of their students, then organize themselves to meet them. They don't make excuses or blame their students. Instead, they have an internal sense of accountability, a coherent strategy that they stick to, and an enormous degree of buy-in from staff and students."
Noguera's blog, then, incorporates two elements of the corporate reform narrative: (1) The "miracle" or "high flying" school model, and (2) the "no excuses" ideology.
Thus, Noguera's blog poses a significant problem for me, and I think, for the general public.
How are Noguera's claims distinguishable from those made by Gates, Duncan, and Rhee—champions of "miracle" schools and "no excuses" ideologies whose claims are often discredited by educators and scholars who also reject "miracle" school claims and "no excuses" practices?
First, while I recognize and agree with Noguera's essential commitment to equity and opportunity, I cannot endorse wrapping those fundamental commitments within the caustic narratives of "miracles" and "no excuses." If "miracle" or "high flying" schools exist (and they nearly never do), they are by definition outliers, and thus inappropriate templates for the foundational needs of systemic reform. "No excuses" discourse implies that effort sits at the heart of educational failures and casts an accusatory gaze at schools and teachers that I find unfair and misleading.
Beyond this disagreement about narratives and discourse (which I must stress is a profound disagreement for me), I want to take a brief opportunity to suggest that educators and scholars who are outside the power dynamic driving education reform must commit to a few basic strategies to ensure evidence-based reform claims can be clearly distinguished from the failed reform dynamic being imposed on schools by politicians, pundits, and the media; these commitments include:
• Present narratives other than "miracle" schools and "no excuses" discourse.
• Offer rich evidence beyond a single study, and avoid basing claims primarily on media coverage of the study, the school, or the policy being endorsed.
• Present clear and practical claims based on achieving equity and opportunity for all students, rejecting the failed accountability model and discourse grounded in standards and testing.
Knowing Noguera's work, I am suspicious valuable claims and ideas lie beneath his endorsing a "miracle" school and expressing "no excuses" discourse, but many politicians and most of the public would be hard pressed to see any difference between Noguera's blog and media coverage of Michelle Rhee, Bill Gates, or Duncan.
That is a tragic possibility that educators and reformers committed to reforming our schools in the name of equity and opportunity cannot afford.