Entries Tagged 'Usefulness of 6-Virtue Definition' ↓

Today’s newsflash from the Education Week newsletter:

Lack of Knowledge Stymies Efforts to Stop Bullying
School bullying is drawing attention across the country, but experts at the Education Department’s first national summit on bullying say more research is needed to pinpoint effective anti-bullying practices.

This conclusion astounds me. Common sense tells me that, once we define what it means to be educated in a deep, useful way, we will know how to prevent bullying — by modeling and teaching that definition. Bully prevention may be unpleasant, but it is not complicated, or mysterious.

Common sense also tells me that, if we don’t define “educated” in a deep, useful way; all the research in the world won’t prevent bullying. How could it? Research findings describe potentially “effective” approaches to bully prevention, all of which will have different results in different situations. But how will teachers know which ones to use in which situations? They will rely on judgment and trial and error — the very things policymakers and researchers try to avoid. This suggests that we don’t need more research as much as we need more astute (educated) school personnel.

The second thing that astounds me is that so-called educational experts don’t know how to prevent bullying. In my mind, not knowing how to prevent bullying disqualifies one from educational “expert” status. (Can one be an expert dermatologist and not know how to treat psoriasis?)

I know one more thing for sure. None of these “experts” would have been hired to teach at St. Joe’s Grade School in the 1960s. Would you hire them at your child’s school? If not, why should we pay attention to them? (We should not.)

If you attended this conference (or even if you didn’t), explain this to me. Please comment by logging in, typing in the comment box, and submitting.

The Six Virtues of the Educated Person and this website are based on a simple premise — until we define “educated” in a deep, useful way, we will not be able to improve education. We are such an aphilosophical society that even teachers ignore what it means to be educated as they try to improve what they have not defined.

Education policymakers have filled the vacuum with a knowledge and skills definition of “educated,” not because it is deep, but because it is useful. Standardized tests, that supposedly measure knowledge and skills, are used to hold teachers accountable.

This is unfortunate because it moves education away from a virtue definition of “educated.” A little philosophical insight tells us that virtue leads to knowledge and skills, but knowledge and skills don’t lead to virtue. America’s position in the world is jeopardized because our graduates lack the six virtues of the educated person, not because they lack knowledge and skills.

Recent history provides many examples of how the vices of our uneducated human nature (ignorance, intellectual incompetence, weakness, fear, pride and selfishness) have damaged our national life and reputation. The political and business leaders responsible for things like military appropriations scandals, coups d’etat, Enron, the Savings and Loan bailout, the mortgage crisis, the BP oil spill are uneducated in the most profound sense of the term. They demonstrate vice instead of virtue.

The outlook for improving American public education is dreary as long as the pursuit of research-based “best practices” obscures the need to define what it means to be educated. My blogs in the “Usefulness of the 6-virtue Definition” and the “NurtureShlock” categories explain that a deep, meaningful philosophy is actually more useful than research findings.

The good news is that, as soon as we embrace the six-virtue definition of the educated person, the path to educational improvement is clear — model and teach those virtues. I am seeking other deep, useful definitions. They should be “deep” because they are supposed to inspire us to greater depths of teaching and learning. They should be useful because, if they aren’t, they won’t tell us how to deal with a wide range of classroom and school situations. If they can’t guide action, what good are they?

Please click on “Leave a Comment” to offer yours.

A recent ASCD Smartbrief juxtaposed the following article leads:

(1) Chicago’s Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men is sending 100% of its first graduating class to college next fall. Just 4% of incoming freshmen were reading at grade level or above when they entered the school in 2006, and many have been affected by poverty and violence. But the school’s culture — strict discipline combined with an emphasis on high achievement and at least one mentor for every student — has helped many make significant changes in their lives.

(2) Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Michelle Rhee plans to expand standardized testing for K-12 students, according to Washington Post education reporter Bill Turque. The additional tests are part of Rhee’s policy to use data to drive decision-making and are meant to offer a more comprehensive picture of student progress and teacher effectiveness. Critics, however, say the move favors excessive testing and test preparation over other forms of in-class instruction and student learning, Turque writes.

I am currently crafting a blog on the meaning of “at risk,” so the first article grabbed my attention. The point of my blog is that the six-virtue definition of the educated person tells us how to program for all students, including those labeled “at risk.”

Part of the argument inTSVOTEP is that public schools value the virtues of understanding, strong character and generosity, and the vices of intellectual incompetence, fear and pride. According to this premise, students who are at risk of public school failure are simply those who have not developed this specific set of virtues and vices. Instead, they may have developed virtues not valued in public schools (imagination, courage, and humility), and vices not tolerated in them (ignorance, weak character and selfishness). Any combination of these six can cause “at risk” students to misbehave in class or score poorly on standardized tests–either of which puts them “at risk” of public school failure.

Those who understand this argument in TSVOTEP know exactly how to help “at risk” students overcome this label. First, they value the virtues and ignore the vices these students bring to the schoolhouse door. This is what regular public school teachers do with students who are not at risk. They value student understanding, strong character and generosity; as they ignore occasions of intellectual incompetence, fear, and pride. The same behavior pattern — this time teachers valuing student imagination, courage and humility, and ignoring occasions of ignorance, weak character and selfishness — removes the “at risk” label from these students.

Instead of asking students to demonstrate the virtue and vice combination that was never modeled to them by significant adults, good alternative programs value the virtues these students have already developed, even if those virtues are not the ones valued in regular public schools. Once students are no longer “at risk,” their virtues become the foundation for helping them overcome their vices. After students feel valued for their virtues, they can battle their vices, not before.

This reasoning tells us that Chicago Urban Prep teachers valued their students’ imagination, courage and humility as a foundation for helping them combat the ignorance, weak character, and selfishness that were modeled and taught to them by members of the previous generation’s “at risk” students.

Therefore, without reading the article about Chicago Urban Prep, TSVOTEP readers already know:

1. Students in this alternative program lacked the virtue-vice combination valued in public schools.
2. Many of them struggled mightily in Urban Prep because, for the first time in their lives, significant adults were modeling, teaching, and insisting that they develop understanding, strong character, and generosity.
3. The main credit for success belongs to the students, although teachers deserve credit, too–for their insight into public schools and human virtue and vice.
4. Those of us who were never “at risk” can hardly imagine the depth and grandness of these students’ achievements.

Washington, DC, has many “at risk” students, too; so it is disheartening to read that Chancellor Rhee is stepping on the data driven pedal. Without first defining what it means to be educated in a deep, useful way, what data will they collect? Will they collect test score data? Why do they care about student scores? Don’t they already know that some students will score better than others? Don’t they already know that classroom teachers can tell them why some students will score well and others won’t? Don’t they already know that any teacher who cannot should be fired?

Chancellor Rhee is big on firing teachers. Does she fire those who don’t know why specific students got low scores? Or does she fire those whose students got low scores? Being driven by the data means she does the second. Why is that supposed to be admirable?

For more recent news on DC firings:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/07/_states_and_districts_across.html#

Also:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/07/whos_a_good_teacher.html

A deep, useful definition of what it means to be educated can drive educational improvement. Without such a definition, we are doomed, no matter how much data we collect.

Click on “Leave a Comment” to reply.

Alfie Kohn made the following comment in an email exchange about what it means to be educated: “Ultimately, of course, this isn’t an empirical question; one definition can’t be more true than another, only more useful.”

His point explains why so many definitions leave me cold — they are useless. It also suggests why we don’t bother to define “educated.” Since “one definition can’t be more true than another,” why debate?

I thank Kohn for his insight. It inspired me to argue that philosophy is more useful than social science in my three-part NurtureSchlock blog:

(http://www.sixvirtues.com/2010/02/26/nurtureschlock-part-1/, http://www.sixvirtues.com/2010/02/26/nurtureschlock-part-2/, http://www.sixvirtues.com/2010/02/26/nurtureschlock-part-3/ ).

This post explains that understanding the context of the six-virtue definition makes it eminently useful. First, the six-virtues refer to what makes us human — intellect, character, and spirit. Second, the first of each virtue pair is a capacity and the second is an ability to act. Third, we have to understand how each virtue is defined. Fourth, we have to understand that they are integrated and interconnected in all human situations. More explanation is at: http://www.sixvirtues.com/2009/10/28/how-are-the-six-virtues-defined/

Finally, we have to understand that, according to the six-virtue definition, making any situation better is simple. If a situation is fraught with ignorance and intellectual incompetence, understanding and imagination are needed. When weakness and fear are apparent, strong character and courage are needed. If pride and selfishness are present, humility and generosity will make things better.

These six virtues always make situations better, and their opposite six vices always make them worse. That is why this definition is so useful.

For example, there could be a variety of reasons why a student scores low on a test. One might be that the teacher used inappropriate materials or methods. In this case the teacher ought to bring more understanding and imagination to the situation. Another might be that the student is surrounded by selfish people, whose demands prevent him/her from studying. More generosity is needed in this student’s life. A third possibility is that the student did not study hard enough. He/She needs to bring to bear greater strength of character.

When life is seen through a six virtue lens, the improvement path is always clear — bring to bear the virtues that are lacking. That is why this definition is so useful.

Click on “Leave a Comment” to reply. You may want to suggest a more useful definition of “educated.” Or you may want to argue that not everybody wants their children to develop these six specific virtues, or that the separation of church and state is violated by modeling and teaching them.

Breaking News on Tracking– Read all about it.

The NASSP NewsLeader (February, 2010), summarized two new reports on tracking:

The focal points of the reports hinge on whether math tracking at the middle level has a positive or negative effect on high-achieving and low-achieving students. One camp argues that detracking holds back the best students, while the other camp believes that tracking is an unjust practice that puts low-income students at a severe disadvantage.

Evidently social scientists answer philosophical questions over and over, until saying the answer enough times makes it eligible for funding as “research-based.” This summary of findings on tracking could have been written (and probably was) 30 years ago.

On the other hand, chapter 9 of TSVOTEP explains that the tracking debate is resolved by adopting a useful definition of what it means to be educated. It is amazing what happens when philosophy is used to answer philosophical questions.

My sarcastic “ugliness” in the title of this post is intentional. I am pointing out that the social science improvement paradigm makes unimportant, irrelevant beliefs seem important and relevant. In this case, the belief that there is a best grouping practice is unimportant and irrelevant. There is no such practice because purpose is at the center of every grouping decision, and purpose is a philosophical/aesthetic concept, not a social scientific one.

A greater ugliness is distracting from the essence of education by pointing to the periphery.

Click on “Leave a Comment” to reply.

I read education articles on the internet today. My head is spinning with the words of Jay Matthews, Susan Ohanian, President Obama, Arne Duncan, Thomas Friedman, and the late Gerald Bracey. Try it sometime. Your head will spin too. There is so much out there. It is all so contradictory, so arbitrary, so political, and so not-informed by a definition of what it means to be educated.

I should give up. Defining what it means to be educated should be our first concern, but it seems to be our last concern (or of no concern at all).

How did this happen? Where are the writers/analysts/educators who can cut through all the peripheral stuff about merit pay, new teaching strategies, applying what works, etc.? Does anybody see that addressing these concerns will not improve education until we have a rich, useful definition of what it means to be educated?

It is illogical to pursue our current definition. Higher test scores bring shallow satisfaction. Nobody says, “Test scores went up! Our children will have fulfilling lives! American schools are great!”
Continue reading →