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.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
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".
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
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
Friday, March 8, 2013
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."
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."
Friday, February 22, 2013
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!
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!
Friday, February 8, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, January 25, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)