The article “Why ‘no excuses’ Charter Schools Mold ‘Very Submissive’ Students – Starting in Kindergarten, also highlights how students receive deliberate shaming that can include an isolated chair, wearing a different colored shirt from their peers, sitting on a lower bench or not allowing any other students to talk to the “disobedient” student (Strauss, 2014). This research demonstrates what is valued in this model and how this model can again affect a child’s emotional development because they are deliberately facing shaming. Through shaming, students are not learning to become problem solvers or learning from their mistakes. This form of discipline makes it difficult to help students regulate their behavior, learn self-management and self-awareness, as well as responsible decision making – skills they will need to succeed in …show more content…
The lack of utilizing class discussions, individualized learning and activities that promote social and emotional development can serve as a disadvantage for students. An article from Education Studies, show that students who come from a “No Excuses” school are not successful in higher level thinking (Tomchak, 2016). The methods of instruction that are typically used in these charter schools can negatively impact students and result in an inability to succeed in college. A New York Times article highlights that charter schools like Achievement First are beginning to notice a severe issue. Students are doing well on tests, but fewer than a third of its high school graduates are earning college degrees on time (Taylor, 2018). Accordingly, a lot more of these charters schools have come to the realization of the negative effects that the “No Excuses” model has had on students. They are also beginning to raise questions about whether or not their methods of instruction are translating to college success and in other areas besides high performance levels on test. A sociologist named Joanne Golann found that “No Excuses” schools are producing children who might be doing well on tests, but who are constantly self- monitoring, holding back their opinions and have little chances of becoming the next Steve Jobs (Golann, 2016). In other words, students are not