Thank You to Orchard

This is my final blog post as a member of the Orchard community.

I came to Orchard in 1997 from New York as the director of the middle school and then became head of school in 2000.

I had no idea in 1997 that I would spend the next sixteen years at Orchard.

These have been the most fulfilling and wonderful years of my professional career.

From my first day Orchard enchanted me.

Orchard pushed and challenged me professionally with deep and robust conversations about program, pedagogy, and what it means to be child-centered.

Prior to coming to Orchard, I taught the way I had been taught--mostly through lecture and direct teacher instruction.

Orchard helped me see the importance of empowering students with voice and choice in their learning.

To me, the essence of a progressive school like Orchard is its understanding that a child brings natural intellectual curiosity to school and that a school's foremost responsibility is to maintain that interest and engagement, a quality unfortunately missing in many schools today. Orchard wants its graduating 8th graders to move to high school with the same excitement and enthusiasm towards learning as when they entered preschool.

Orchard also gave me a deep appreciation for honoring and celebrating each child's uniqueness. Too often other schools narrowly define student success while Orchard encourages each child to find and develop his/her passion.

Since Orchard is such a tight-knit and supportive community, its students practice and develop empathy and inclusion and learn to recognize and strive to overcome injustice at school as well as locally, nationally, and globally.

Orchard's product is a graduate who is self-confident, self-assured, and eager to solve problems and face challenges.

At Orchard's’s core is a deep and unwavering belief in what is right for kids, even when it differs from what other schools offer or from what is currently in fashion in education.

 It’s this idealism from its founding in 1922 that influenced me the most.

Here is a link to a recent Ted Talk from educationalist Sir Ken Robinson that to me captures what Orchard strives to do for its students: Click for Link

Among many heads of school, school headship is cynically viewed as a “lonely job", yet for me it has never been lonely. Both the Board of Governors and Trustees know their roles and responsibilities, make decisions in the long-term best interest of the school, and never micromanage. The school administration is comprised of consummate professionals, and the faculty and staff are incredibly creative and dedicated. The parents support the school and its mission with time, talent, and treasure, and, most important, the kids come to school every morning with joy, excitement, and an ever-present infectious smile on their faces!

The most common descriptor people have of Orchard is "It's a happy school", and I couldn't agree more.

I leave Orchard with wonderful memories and lasting friendships.

Indianapolis is the city my kids grew up in and will always call home, and Orchard is where they spent the majority of their school years. Orchard's campus has been my home--and my literal backyard--for the past ten years!

Since coming back to school from Spring Break, I faced the reality of leaving Orchard after sixteen years. As such, I  am cherishing each and every one of my final days at Orchard--from OIB to the Spring Pageant to next week's graduation.

I thank all of you—faculty, staff, trustees, governors, and especially the kids (including the nearly 1000 8th graders I've seen graduate)--for making my job as head of school so enjoyable, rewarding, and so much fun!

I will deeply miss you and look forward to following the continued success of Orchard and its graduates. 

Joe

Technology in the Classroom

Recently I read an article in a Southern California newspaper about the implementation of one-to-one iPads in upper elementary grades (3rd-6th grade).  

To me, the results in this Encinitas public elementary school pretty much mirror what other public and private schools are experiencing with respect to technology, specifically one-to-one student devices, be they laptops, iPads, or iTouches.

Clearly, the use of technology in schools is becoming more and more ubiquitous, including in elementary classrooms. 

For most children today who are growing up in an age where they have access to portable devices and the Internet from birth, their expectation is their learning in schools will be an extension of this connected world.

One of the teachers in this Encinitas school completed a research project about the use of iPads in her district.

The subject of her research focused on three topics:

• How was technology affecting kids and their learning?
• Are iPads motivational for students? 
• How do students and their parents perceive the iPads?

Not surprisingly, her research found that kids found iPads to be a valuable tool. 90% of students said that iPads aided their learning. 

Why? They liked the instant feedback that comes with iPads. They can get immediate feedback on what they do and don't  understand, rather than waiting for the teacher to grade their work. Students also reported being more engaged in their learning process.

The academic discipline students felt iPads made easier to understand was math. This is probably a result of iPad math apps providing a personalized step-by-step process, including student-accessible animation, of how to complete a question correctly as well as a more interactive process that often includes awards/achievements like moving to another level.

Not surprising, parents were a little more skeptical about iPads in the classroom. Most recognized that their child was more engaged using the iPads, and they liked that their child was being exposed to a variety of computer programs. But they also worried that technology in the classrooms was in some ways a novelty and that the excitement of using it would  wane for their child over time. They believed that while their child's classroom could benefit from technology, it should never replace hands-on/hands-with learning, physical education, paperback books, and even cursive writing.

To me what was missing in her research was to what extent teachers were using technology. Were they using iPads to support their current teaching methods or were they using it to change how they taught? 

As an English teacher with students who have access to their own laptop in my classroom, I have not yet made the transition to teaching differently. (I recently read an article about essay-grading software; it both intrigued and frightened me.) 

For students the classroom is an opportunity to gain/access knowledge and to use that knowledge through critical and creative thinking.

Teachers and parents like me need to recognize that the old rules and paradigm of the classroom need to change.

In this Encinitas school, 3rd-6th grade students spend up to 70% of their day on iPads, and the school is seriously considering providing kindergarten through 2nd graders with iPads as well.

Yes, there remain questions about how to use technology in the classroom regarding content, pedagogy, and student assessment, yet kids clearly see that portable devices are essential, not an add on. 
It's up to us--as adults--to change our view of education.

Yes, I'm  a little nervous, but I am also excited about the future of education.

Importance of Birth Order?

I am a first born. I have one sibling: a  sister who is ten years my junior.

My wife is a first born, the oldest of seven kids.

I have two kids--naturally one is a first born.

I, my wife, and my older son are very much alike in terms of personality, ambition, effort, etc.

While I don't think that being a first born is the only commonality that shaped us into who we are, I have always believed that birth order is a contributing factor.

A number of years ago when my younger son was playing in an indoor soccer tournament, his team was routed by a team from Columbus, Ohio. After the game, I spoke with the Columbus coach, complimenting him on his players' skill, attitude, and effort, and I asked him how he got his team to play so well.

He looked at me and said, "I avoid having first born kids on my team."

A recent article on Inc.com referenced a study on birth order.

The study found that generally first-borns "are more likely to value 'mastery goals', which involve improving one's own performance at certain tasks, while second born children are more likely to focus on 'performance goals' and the pursuit of outperforming others...first borns may be more motivated to learn, whereas second borns may be more motivated to win."

When I think back to my childhood, I was never competing against anyone but myself. Self-improvement and personal mastery were more important. (Heck, in college I took courses that interested me rather than would make me more marketable.)  I grew up in a world where my limits were age appropriate.

My younger sister, on the other hand, was continuously being compared to me by my parents, and she measured herself against me. She never had a eight-foot baskeball hoop to shoot at as I did. If her brother was shooting on a ten-foot basket, she would too.

I was also much more coddled and protected by my parents since they were experiencing different parent rites of passage at the same time I was experiencing my pubescent and adolescent rites of passage. Like many first-borns, I was dismayed years later at how lenient my parents were to my sister compared to me.

I was very much a rule follower: in fact, I enjoyed school so much, I stayed in it by becoming a teacher (as did my wife and my older son--both first borns).

There is definitely a greater level of competitiveness to my sister and younger son compared to my older son, my wife, and me. They also are more inclined to taking risks than we first-borns are. But we first borns are more cautoius and aim to please: we always completed our homeowrk on time and rarelt, if ever, didn't come home after our curfew.

What does this mean for teachers?

The reality is the uniqueness of all us is comprised of many factors. While birth order is not a sole determinant in who I am, being a first born did shape me differently than if I had been the second, third, or fourth child in a family.

My last blog contained a list of qualities great teachers possess. And one of the qualities was getting to know your students. What I needed from a teacher was a different from what my sister needed, and the teachers we remember were the ones who took the time to get to know us...including our birth order.

My sister and my second son were much "tougher athletes" than my wife, older son, and I ever were. I understand why the Columbus soccer coach avoided having first borns on his team.

Being Progressive

While Orchard is a progressive school, the question the school and its teachers grapple with every day is "How progressive are we--and should we be?"

The reality is every school and every teacher move around on the progressive-tradtional continuum (see below): no school or teacher is "purely progressive".

Traditional-Progressive Continuum

Traditional……………………………………………………Progressive

Behavioralism……………………………………………….....Constructivism

Emphasis on Academics Only………………………………....Emphasis on Whole Child

School Imparting Society’s Values…………………………......School Changing Society

Teacher Centered……………………………………………….Child Centered

Teacher Directed………………………………………………..Student Directed

Teacher-Generated Homework………………………………....Student-Generated Homework

Assessment through Tests/Quizzes………………………..........Authentic Assessment

Breadth……………………………………………………….....Depth

Separate Disciplines…………………………………………......Integration or Interdisciplinary

Set Curriculum for All…………………………………………...Differentiated Curriculum

Tracking……………………………………………………........Flexible Grouping

Individual……………………………………………………......Collaborative

Product…………………………………………………………..Process

Memorization…………………………………………………....Access Information

Isolated Facts………………………………………………….....Conceptual Understanding

Extrinsic Motivation……………………………………………..Intrinsic Motivation

Competition……………………………………………………...Cooperation

Regardless of whether a school views itself as being more on the progressive or traditional side of the continuum,  it does want to equip its students with "21st Century Skills", which include collaboration, character, communication, creative and critical thinking. These are the skills needed to be successful in the today's workplace.

I feel these skills are better developed within a progressive educational environment than a more traditional one.

In the past few weeks, I have seen a number of short videos on ways schools can be more innovative and better develop 21st Century skills in students.

One explains what is meant by project-based learning: Click

The other two are Ted Talks: one focuses on a new way to teach: Click. The other focuses on what education will probably look like in the not too distant future: Click

Each one in its own way is inspirational.

Watch and enjoy!

Joe

Qualities of a Great Teacher

A Google search on "qualities of a good teacher" results in almost 4 million hits--meaning everyone has an opinion and/or list of the characteristics of an effective teacher. 

However,  I recently read a blog from education writer Annette Breaux on what she deems the essentials of a great teacher.

While the qualities below might seem obvious, the reality is that many of us--especially right now in the weeks before Spring Break and before the weather begins to change--can lose sight of what students needs from us. 

As such,  I recommend all teachers keep a list like this one and periodically ask themselves if they are living to them.

"Great teachers truly love children! If you don’t love children, you shouldn’t be in education.

Great teachers are masters at classroom management. They understand the importance of structure. Their management plans consist of clearly stated rules that are enforced fairly, calmly and consistently and of procedures that are practiced until they become routines.

Great teachers are intelligent people who possess a thorough understanding of their subject matter. They use their knowledge to simplify what’s complex and to accommodate their students’ individual abilities and levels of understanding.

Great teachers understand that they are actors on a stage. They are performers capable of entertaining, capturing and enrapturing their audiences every day. 

Great teachers are positive, kind, compassionate, patient people. They handle even the most challenging situations with composure, thoughtfulness and professionalism.

Great teachers do not allow their personal problems to bleed into their teaching.

Great teachers are problem solvers. They don’t play the blame game. They identify problems and immediately get busy finding solutions.

Great teachers don’t endure change; rather, they ensure it — not simply for the sake of change, but for the betterment of teaching and learning.

Great teachers have a sense of humor, and they share it daily with their students.

Great teachers continually strive to make learning fun, relevant, interesting, challenging and engaging. Students are encouraged to question, discuss, debate, experiment, invent and make lots of mistakes.

Great teachers recognize the importance of establishing positive relationships with their students. 

Great teachers have high expectations of all students and truly believe that every student can succeed.

When great teacher make mistakes, they act as good role models do, admitting their mistakes, learning from these mistakes and offering apologies if necessary."

Worrier or Warrior?

I recently read a very interesting article in The New York Times entitled  Why Can Some Kids Handle Pressure

The article focused on the pressure kids feel taking standardized tests, especially tests like the SAT and ACT that, to some, impact a child's academic future, i.e., the quality of school they attend.

While we all deal with competition and pressure in different ways, this article focuses on a specific gene (COMT) that influences why some of us when it comes to competition are warriors and while others are worriers.

The COMT gene regulates dopamine in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain "where we plan, make decisions, anticipate future consequences, and resolve conflicts."

Dopamine is like a shot of adrenaline for the brain: to function well, the prefrontal cortex, like Goldilocks, needs not too much or too little but just the right amount of dopamine.

There a two variants of the COMT gene: one slowly removes dopamine and the other quickly removes it from the prefrontal cortex.

In general, those who have a slow-removing gene function best in normal day-to-day situations that are predictable and rarely involve much stress. (The article states that people with the slow-removing gene on average have higher IQs than those with the fast-removing gene.)

However, in a stressful situation, your body injects a lot of dopamine into your brain. But, because the slow-removing gene cannot in a timely manner remove the dopamine from your brain, your prefrontal cortex does not work optimally--hence, you panic and can't think straight.

Conversely, those with the fast-removing gene love challenge, competition, and stress: they thrive on stress; however, "to them, the everyday can be underwhelming."

According to the article, about 50% of us have both genes, 25% have just the slow-removing gene, and 25% have only the fast-removing gene.

If we in America think tests like the SAT and ACT are high-stakes in terms of a child's future, be glad your child does not attend school in Taiwan, where 9th graders take the Basic Competency Test that largely determines which high school they will attend. Only 40% of 9th graders pass the test; the others head to vocational school.

COMT gene researchers used this test in Taiwan as an opportunity to study the effects of high-stakes testing competition. Sure enough, those with the slow-removing gene performed worse on the test than those with the fast-removing gene.

Does this mean the COMT gene is the key to the explaining why you either did or didn't do well on the SATs (or hit the game-winning shot in a high school basketball game)?

No: the article explains that worriers can learn to handle stress with practice. By gaining experience of stressful situations (which could include even talking about how to handle oneself when confronted with stress), worriers can learn to become more comfortable in stressful situations.

While there is the danger of relying too heavily on any one explanation of how we learn and deal with stress and competition, this article did make me think about reasons why some of us embrace competition and others don't. In my case I think I am in the 50% group that has both COMT genes. I prefer routine and predicability, but I do not melt down is stressful situations. I have benefited and learned from experience: when in a stressful situation, I do try to think about what I felt like and how I dealt with it before.

Earlier I referenced having the pressure of taking an end-of-game shot in a high school basketball game. Why did I choose this example? Because I experienced it.  I won't tell you whether I made or missed an end-of-game free throw to win a game in high school, but that was a stressful situation--and regardless of the outcome (I'll keep you in suspense), I learned from the experience!

Parent-Teacher Relations

There was a recent article in The New York Times called The Dicey Parent-Teacher Duet that provided some sage advice on how to foster stronger relationships between parents and teachers.

The author is both a teacher and parent, and she wrote the article from both perspectives.

Parent involvement in a child's life is a delicate balance:  On the one hand, you want need to provide guidance and support while on the other hand you don't want to smother your child and "become an obstacle to your child's growth."

The author points out that in fact many parents are not very comfortable at school. They think of school they way they experienced it. I have heard from many parents how uncomfortable they are in my office: they feel like they're in trouble.

Parents also typically have one to a few kids, and they don't have much experience with the full gamut of kids, as teachers do. (I'm a parent with two kids, yet I've taught and coached thousands of students through the years.)

But teachers are uncomfortable as well. Most of us became teachers because we liked school, the classroom, and kids. We leave our comfort zone when we have parent-teacher conferecnes. The author of the article also points out that teaching today is tougher than ever: "Teachers are being bashed everywhere they turn. They're scared. They feel parents put their jobs in jeopardy. The parent is in the position of power."

She offers a few tips on "how to best reduce the mutual anxieties and establish and maintain the kind of trust that is essential to respectful and productive parent-teacher communications."

First, parents need to empower their children to be personal advocates. The author cautions parents to resist contacting the school whenever their child is dealing with some difficulty at school. As many child psychologists (Wendy Mogel, Madeline Levine, Robert Evans, etc.) have noted, kids need to learn how to deal with and overcome problems and disappointments. Don't call the school when your child doesn't make the basketball team or gets the part he/she wants in a play. Instead ask them how they will deal with and settle the problem. (Of course, there are times--bullying, etc.--when parents need to take the lead, yet in my experience parents are all too often much too quick to get involved with a school issue that the child needs to deal with on his/her own.)

Second, be mindful of how dangerous electronic communication can be. Use it to convey factual information. Teachers and parents should not get into lengthy email communication over meatier topics. Use email to set a time to speak on the phone or better to meet face-to-face.

In terms of email etiquette, the author also cautions teachers or parents to not cc the teacher's supervisor. To her, "it's disrespectful to teachers and parents alike, as it sends the message you don't think there's even a chance you can work this out on your own."

Teachers need to respond to parents inquiries in a reasonable time period. Even if you won't be able to deal with the issue immediately, still let parents know that you have it on your list and, if possible, give them an approximate time you'll be in back in touch with them.

Teachers also need to develop a trusting relationship with parents. This occurs more easily if, early in the year, the teacher contacts parents with good news about their child. Teachers need to show parents that they know and understand every student as a unique individual. With that accomplished and a level of trust set, it's much easier for a teacher to contact a parent about a concern.

Finally, the author advises parents to listen skeptically to your child's explanation of what happens at school. We are all the protagonist of our own life story and our version is rarely 100% accurate and objective. And going back to her first recommendation, if your child does complain about something at school, empower him/her to work out the problem.

Student Engagement in School

I came across a sobering (but not very surprising) result from a Gallup survey of students.

The survey asked students in elementary school, middle school, and high school if they were "engaged in school".

While we can argue about the the actual definition of "being engaged", most of us would agree that relevance, purpose, meaning, and enjoyment are major aspects of being engaged.

Anyway, 80% of elementary school students say they are engaged at school.

Middle school students: 60%

High school students: 40%

As the head of school of an elementary/middle school, I was pleased to read that for high schools that had student engagement averages well above the 40% mark, the most common reason given was "well, our high school feels and operates more like an elementary school".

The reasons for student engagement declines in middle and high school are not surprising.

Elementary schools typically build upon a child's innate sense of curiosity. Most days in an elementary school classroom are filled with new discoveries, wonder, and excitement. Plus, while parents still often want to compare and rank kids' academic performance and aptitude, elementary school remains a time when kids are on a more personal, individual journey. Also, students in early elementary school in general are less self-conscious and typically do not compare themselves to others.

Clearly this begins to change as students move into the later elementary years through middle and high school. Most of us can probably remember when we began to compare ourselves to others: "I'm not a good writer, I'm not good at sports, Will anyone want to date me". Comparison and self-doubt set in.

As kids mature and begin to question their abilities, schools then begin to "sort and rank" more than they did in elementary school. Courses become much more content focused. There is usually much more teacher-directed learning, e.g., lecturing, notetaking. Textbooks, which are used sparingly in elementary school, are the norm in high school classes. Assessment in high school is more "pencil and paper tests" and less experiential, project-oriented. In general, school is much more sedentary.

In other words, school becomes boring and more of a chore to survive, even fake your way through: I remember teachers telling me to "at least pretend you're interested".

A hoped-for student outcome in Orchard's middle school is continued engagement and interest in the learning process. This is accomplished by being child-centereed and child-focused, giving students voice and choice in what they learn, how they learn it, and how they demonstrate their understanding.

Until more high schools look to elementary/middle schools to help them make learning more relevant, exciting, and interesting to students, high school surveys will continue to show low scores on student engagement.

Character Counts..But Can It Be Taught?

A recent article entitled Content of Their Character in CommonWealth Magazine reviewed two books on how to develop students' character.

One book, Paul Tough's How Children Succeed, has been covered in a few of my previous blogs.

The most interesting point the author, Michael Goldstein, makes about Tough's book is that Tough's belief in home and school developing a child's character traits like grit and persistence makes more sense for middle class families who don't have to worry as much as low-income families about their child's acquisition of knowledge.

As the author writes, "As educated, middle class families, both Tough (whose child is three) and I (my children are two and four) are relaxed about our children's acquisition of knowledge only because we know it will invisibly and inevitably seep in. Hence, we have the freedom to turn our attention to character."

Goldstein doesn't believe his children are more intelligent than kids from  low-income family; rather, his children--by virtue of their parents financial comfort--will live in a environment of intellectual stimulation (i.e., have opportunities beyond school to learn and acquire knowledge).

Hence, while he supports Tough's thesis that character needs to be stressed in schools, he recognizes that knowledge cannot be ignored, especially for children growing up in poverty.

"Beyond IQ and character, there is knowledge. IQ affects the rate at which we develop knowledge; and character affects our willingness to devote time needed to pursue knowledge. But individual schools and teachers are probably even bigger factors affecting a poor child's knowledge...A parent of a kid whose family background does not confer knowledge absolutely needs to worry about how her kid will acquire it, quite apart from any focus on building character."

Although I still support the premise of Tough's book, Goldstein's points made me recognize that educational ideas, policies, and "innovations" are simpler in the ideal than in delivery.

The other book Goldstein references (which I just ordered on Amazon) is Character Compass by Scott Seider, which researches the question of whether or not character can be explicitly taught in schools.

Seider references a recent "mega-study" of character education programs by the Institute of Education Sciences that concluded that sadly the answer seems to be "No".

However, Seider believes that character emphasis in schools will not be successful with imported, packaged programs from outside the school but can be successful if the program/emphasis is home-grown and unique to a school.

The remainder of his book explores three schools in the Boston area that have developed and have implemented different kinds of character education programs: performance character (skills like persistence and optimism), civic character (emphasis on improving the community), and moral character (e.g., empathy and integrity).

Even though theses schools focus on different kind of character (and Tough would opt for emphasizing performance character traits--as I also do), they all have resulted in their students A. doing better on knowledge-based standardized tests and B. showing growth in the character traits emphasized at each school.

Again, character education, specifically performance skills, is the current new thing in education, and maybe I've gotten caught up in the excitement and flash of all the articles, books, and studies that tout character education; yet I feel there is traction here and feel schools need to look beyond knowledge acquisition to the development of character habits and skills.

Yes, I may be overly influenced by my middle-class upbringing and values, yet I have wintessed in myself, my children, and the hundreds of students I have taught that knowledge/intelligence/IQ is nothing without strong character--performance, civic, and moral. And I do believe that character is not innate but is malleable and influenced by school and home.

Can We Learn From Finland?

A book I read over Winter Break was Finnish Lessons by Pasi Sahlberg, who is considered the preeminent expert on Finland’s educational system. He devotes much of his time to hosting tours of Finnish schools and lecturing about Finland in other countries.

This book was not the easiest read, but it successfully highlighted how different the Finnish educational system is compared to others', particularly the U.S. 

The Finnish educational system for the past few years has been an international “rock star” because A. its reforms are so contrary from most other countries' ideas at improving education and B. because of its very high student scores in reading, math and science literacy on the international PISA standardized test. (PISA stands for Programme for International Student Assessment and is given 15-year-olds in many countries. The test asks students not only to recall content learned but to apply that knowledge through problem solving. Click for some sample questions on the PISA test.)

Finland’s success was also touted in the recent documentary Waiting for Superman.


Finland dramatically changed its educational system a generation ago and did so in a very different direction compared to other countries—like the U.S. Sahlberg refers to other countries as the Global Educational Reform Movement, which typically stresses the following:

• Competition and choice, e.g., vouchers, charter schools, private schools
• Standardization of teaching and learning, e.g., academic standards like Common Core
• Test-based accountability, e.g., standardized tests and state end of course assessments
• Merit-based pay for teachers

Sound familiar?

This is basically what the Unites States has done for the past number of years with limited success in improving student outcomes.

How is Finland different?

All education is public. There are no private schools, including no private colleges and universities. Hence, everyone’s education (from food to classroom supplies) is paid through public monies.

Little quantitative measurement (standardized testing) of students. As Sahlberg states, “We prepare children to learn how to learn, not how to take a test.”

While teachers are not necessarily highly compensated, teaching is a respected and highly-sought profession. Typically one in ten applicants are accepted in college as education majors and before one gets to teach, he/she must earn a masters degree.

Teachers and schools have a high degree of autonomy. While America does not have a national curriculum (like a country like Japan), state and national standardized tests and academic standards (like Common Core) have led to many schools teaching to the test. In Finland each grade’s math goals easily fit onto one piece of paper. Finnish teachers are not rushed to cover material but have ample class time to help their students truly understand.

Every child is known. Schools are small. Elementary school teachers often teach students for multiple years. Much emphasis is placed on early identification, intervention, and remediation of learning difficulties.

Students receive very little homework. The school day includes ample time for recess and creative play. Emphasis is on conceptual understanding. Classes are not ability grouped.

I hope as you read the above, you recognized that these "reforms" are common characteristics most progressive (and often private) schools in America have provided for more than 100 years.

Many counter that while Finland has been successful in its reforms, it is so different from America, that we really can't learn much from its system of education. After all, its has a fairly homogeneous population of 5 million while we have a very diverse population of more than 300 million.

As I read the book, though, I kept thinking that the real difference between Finland and the U.S. in Finland’s premise of the goal of education: commitment to equity, i.e., equal educational opportunity for all students.

The American system of education is based much more on competition. We believe that through student hard work and scaffolding to support and challenge a child (like tutors and private schools) he/she will succeed and surpass his/her competition, i.e., other students.

In Finland, there are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland as is common in America. Educational policy is based on cooperation between teachers, schools, and students, not competition.

Finland is somewhat embarrassed by its high test scores. The goal of its educational reform movement a generation ago after all was not “excellence but equity” with every child having exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background or income. Great standardized test scores are a byproduct.

In Finland, education is not a means to produce star performers but means to even out social inequality.

Interestingly, Finland's neighbor Norway has an educational system similar to America’s and its student scores on PISA are in the middle of the pact like the U.S. However, South Korea and Singapore, which have an educational system that is much more drill-heavy, competitive, and content based, score very high on PISA.

I don’t think the U.S. public school system will ever move from competition to equity. We seem rooted to the idea that competition will strengthen the overall education system, hence making schools better for all.

But I do feel that the characteristics of the Finnish educational system are just like the ones progressive schools in the U.S. espouse.

And, most important, these are the qualities that best benefit and engage students---and provide them not just content and knowledge but opportunities to apply that knowledge.

Paul Tough's Book on How Children Succeed

Early in the school year, I wrote a blog on the positive reviews Paul Tough's book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character received.

Last year I wrote a blog on an article Paul Tough wrote on how KIPP schools and highly-prestigious Riverdale Country School were attempting (with varying degrees of success) to include character--specifically habits, skills, and attitudes that help in academic achievement (hence performance rather than moral character)--in student progress reports.

Over Winter Break I finally had the opportunity to read Tough's book, and, while I don't want this blog to become one long ode to Paul Tough, his ideas resonate so much with me that I had to begin 2013 with a synopsis of his most recent book.

(My favorite book on education is Daniel Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom, but Tough's book now prominently rests next to Willingham's.)

Tough begins his book by explaining that the American educational system remains predicated on the cognitive hypothesis: "the belief...that success depends primarily on cognitive skills--the kind of intelligence that gets measured on IQ tests...and that the best way to develop these skills is to practice them as much as possible, beginning as early as possible."

However, research over the past ten years--be it in psychology, neuroscience, education, even economics--is character skills and habits like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence are much more important for academic success than cognitive ability. Tough references a research study that found that these habits and skills are more than two thirds more crucial than cognitive ability in academic success.

These habits and skills extend far beyond school and help a person in the workplace and in life in general.

He furthermore states that these habits and skills are not imprinted in each of us from birth but can be developed and honed by parents and schools.

To Tough, "we need to approach childhood anew, to start over with some fundamental questions about how parents affect their children; how human skills develop; how character is formed."

I won't go into Tough's description of the effects of stress and nurture in a child's (and rats') early lives, but if you read the book and are a parent,  you'll probably re-visit how you treated your kids as infants. (FYI, in one of the final printed issues of Newsweek, Jared Dimond wrote an interesting article about the difference in child-rearing in current nomadic cultures versus sedentary cultures.)

Tough devotes a chapter to how both affluent and low-income families can fall short in providing physical and emotional support to their children needed to develop these critical performance character habits and skills.

"For both rich and poor teenagers, certain family characteristics predicted maladjustment, including low levels of maternal attachment, high levels of parental criticism, and minimal after-school supervision. Among affluent children, the main cause of distress was excessive achievment pressures and isolation from parents--both physical and emotional."

Tough concludes his book by describing how he parents his infant son: he recognizes that being a parent is much more difficult than advising people how to parent.

Yet, he writes that from researching and writing this book, he has moved away from the cognitive hypothesis and is now focusing more on nurturing and supporting his son as well as helping him "learn to manage failure." Before Winter Break I wrote a blog where psychologist Robert Evans in a webcast advised parents to let their children learn from failure. I prefer Tough's advice to allow children to learn how to "manage failure."

Tough closes his book with the following: "Science says that the character strengths that matter so much to young's people's success are not innate; they don't appear in us magically, as a result of good luck or good genes. And they are not simply a choice. They are rooted in brain chemistry, and they are molded, in measurable and predictable ways, by the environment in which children grow up...Parents are an excellent vehicle for those interventions, but they are not the only vehicle. Transformative help also comes regularly from social workers, teachers, clergy members, pediatricians, and neighbors."