1. The research findings and ideas argued in this story are not those of the hospitality/tourism industry.

2. Lobbyists from this industry will soon challenge the validity of the studies cited in the article.

3. If the “change summer vacation” idea still gets legs, the hospitality industry will commission new studies; and those studies will find (not surprisingly) that summer vacations have advantages that outweigh their disadvantages.

4. If the “change summer vacation” idea still gets legs, a public relations campaign will remind us of the joys of summer vacations.

5. Looking closer at the magazine cover, I now see that the article sub-headline is: We romanticize it (summer vacation). But all that downtime is making our kids fall behind — especially those who can least afford to. Apparently the article is about the effects of summer vacation on our lowest achieving students.

Oops–never mind. Hospitality industry: you have nothing to fear. Summer vacations are not endangered, no matter what the article says.

State and local policymakers don’t care about low-achieving students, many of whom live in property-poor parts of their states. State funding formulas have long ensured that poor children get less-than-equal-educational opportunities; so why would those responsible for these gross inequities now start caring about the achievement of poor children? The only differences across states are differences of degree–how much less-than-equal-opportunities are provided to poor children in some states, compared to others?

So I predict this week’s Time cover story will have no effect on summer vacations. I predict this because I know that, for example, the North Carolina hospitality industry recently lobbied for and received legislation that specifies when school districts must start and end their school-years. The law’s purpose is to guarantee this industry’s access to cheap, student labor between mid-June and mid-August.

The law is binding on all school districts across the state, even though North Carolina is blessed with great geographic and climatic diversity. Western school districts in the southern Appalachian Mountains have frequent snow- or ice-related school closings during December, January, February, and March. Eastern districts almost never get snow or ice.

During recent years of particularly bad weather, mountain districts had to reduce spring breaks (causing families to change vacation plans), have school on Saturdays (poorly attended), or request calendar law waivers from the state (rarely and begrudgingly granted).

This is just one example of why democracy is a poor way to govern public education. I am sure readers from other states can cite their own. If not, Williams (2005) describes numerous times when the adults who govern public education, and who believe in democracy and capitalism, served their own needs before those of students. (If you need it spelled out, he described privileged Americans acting in ways that are corrupt, unethical, but probably not illegal.) His descriptions are summarized in TSVOTEP.

Because these abuses are inspired by capitalism and carried out through democratic governance, we must seriously re-consider how we govern public education. Both our capitalistic and democratic ways of life are desperately in need of a public education system that is governed educationally, instead of politically. I describe what that looks like in TSVOTEP, too.

Follow this link to a blog about the same Time article:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/LeaderTalk/2010/07/summer_vacation.html

The authors agree that we will continue to have summer vacations. They give “business” reasons, as if businesses don’t have to convince elected officials to serve adult interests before those of children.

After more than 30 years of watching the “Politics of Education” Emperor parade down Main Street, I am certain summer vacations will continue to be part of the American public school calendar. I also know that, as far as America’s poor children are concerned, the Emperor has no clothes.

BTW — readers should inform me if I am wrong about numbers 1-4. I won’t be reading the article.

After earning a bachelor’s degree:

Graduates are able to identify problems and make suggestions for improving education.

After earning a master’s degree:

Graduates are able to identify the most significant problems and make suggestions for improvement that overcome various barriers.

After earning a doctoral degree:

Graduates are able to identify the most significant problems, hypothesize about the reasons for them, and know the results of educational research that has explored them. This knowledge results in realizing three things:

1. There is no sure way to improve the situation.
2. Some improvement efforts will have more benefit than others. It all depends on the situation.
3. Luck, hard work and serendipity play crucial roles in all improvements.

The circle is complete. The lesson is, “The ‘Education Research’ Emperor is parading down Main Street, wearing no clothes.”

It was published in The School Administrator, February, 2004. Before being accepted for publication it was rejected by one editor because, according to him, “It’s not funny.”

At first I was disappointed with his judgment. I thought I had failed as a satirist because he was right. It is not funny in a “ha ha” sense. Then I remembered reading and enjoying Jonathan Swift as a college English major. His works never made me laugh or think, “Boy! This is funny!”

So, be warned — this satire is not particularly funny. I even admit that at the end, where I say the ending is sad. And if you know anything about the recent history of American public education, the whole piece is sad because you know how true it is, and you know that its silliness is no more silly than the recent politics of American public education. Enjoy.

See No Child’s Left Behind (A Standards Satire)

Many are familiar with Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” An emperor was duped by scoundrels who claimed they could weave the finest clothing in the world. The key to their scheme was convincing the Emperor that their magic cloth was visible only to those who were not fools or incompetents. They got rich by demanding gold and fine fabrics, which they kept for themselves, while weaving nothing.

The first of the double ironies at the end of the story was that the Emperor, not wanting to be considered a fool or an incompetent, and believing he was wearing fine clothes, paraded naked down Main Street — proving himself to be an incompetent fool. The second irony was that the adults, hoping not to be seen as fools, denied the obvious, proving themselves to be fools, too. Only a small child had the sense to say, “He’s got nothing on.”

The following story tells what happened many years, later, in a federal republic of fifty empires, each with its own emperor. These emperors knew their ancestor had been tricked by the scoundrel weavers, so they were wary of weavers. They rarely associated with any, and didn’t seek their advice about clothing. Nevertheless, the prime responsibility of each empire, was to provide citizens with an equal clothing opportunity.

For many years each empire shared this responsibility with regional and local officials. Working together, they organized and financed programs aimed at achieving this ideal. Clothing a citizenry was complicated. Each empire needed clothing that (1) protected from the elements, (2) satisfied human modesty needs, and (3) attracted the opposite sex. Until recently, clothing decisions were made locally because different empires and regions had different climates, social norms, and stylistic preferences. Rarely did emperors become involved. (Some thought this was a lingering effect of the trick played by the scoundrel weavers many years ago.)

No empire was completely successful at achieving the equal clothing opportunity ideal, but the struggles and successes of weavers were a source of inspiration and pride among citizens. They spoke often about their nice clothing, realizing their fine clothes would not perform all three functions without the work of many dedicated weavers.

Unfortunately, this admiration waned 20 years ago, when emperors claimed that weaving had become inadequate. Emperors and powerful business people reviewed National Geographic magazines and concluded that a clothing crisis had been created because weavers failed to produce clothing that adequately attracted the opposite sex.

Several years later, the president of the republic met with all 50 emperors to confront the crisis. The first step to solving the crisis was to determine how it happened. Powerful citizens, who cared little for equal clothing opportunity; and politicians, who failed to provide equal clothing opportunity, proclaimed that the crisis had arisen because weavers lacked standards against which they could be held accountable. Blaming weavers for the crisis enabled emperors and politicians to shift the focus away from their own failure. (Some believe this was their revenge for the trick played on their ancestor.)

So, emperors imposed standards by which weavers could be held accountable for producing sexy clothes. Weavers were so befuddled by this development they did not know what to do.

Weavers did have standards—standards they held strongly, yet adjusted frequently, depending on the cloth, the person to be clothed, and the different climates. Weavers had standards for all three purposes, which they balanced as they wove clothing that performed all three functions. Regardless, powerful, well-clothed citizens and politicians found it easy to force their “no standards” conclusion on weavers, many of whom were modestly dressed women.

Still, weavers resisted making garments of silk that revealed much and provided little warmth. They saw their work as a complex art, involving many different fabrics and multiple purposes.

What happened next is the point of the story. Claiming that weaving was inadequate, emperors engaged their “pretend” weavers in an effort to improve clothing. “Pretend” weavers were like the scoundrels in The Emperor’s New Clothes — they wove no cloth. Instead, they taught weaving and made weaving rules and regulations. Now that equal clothing opportunity had become unimportant, “pretend” weavers joined politicians and powerful citizens in setting empire-wide standards for sexy clothes.

The first step in setting standards was to visit shopping malls, to see which stores had the most sexually appealing clothes. Emperors quickly decided that clothing should be made from Victoria’s Secret patterns, and they offered prizes for the best designs. Quickly, weavers discarded old patterns and began making the silkiest, most revealing clothes possible.

These new standards for sexy clothing revived an interest in children’s beauty pageants. All pageants had the same rules — one hundred contestants were culled down to five finalists, and one winner. The pageants tapped into the human competitive drive and pleased the emperors because more pageants and contestants signaled that things were going in the right direction.

Unfortunately, other social indicators were going in the wrong direction. Citizens became ill wearing scanty clothing in the colder regions; unwanted pregnancies increased; and productivity declined in workplaces with vinyl upholstery.

But the increase in beauty pageants pleased the president. He had frequented them as an emperor, before being selected president. Soon after taking federal office he engaged his “pretend” weavers in drafting rules that required empires to use Frederick’s of Hollywood patterns.

Some emperors resisted. They saw no need to change because the difference between the two lines was minimal. But the president’s “pretend” weavers responded to their protests with, “There may be holes in our plan, but you will lose your silk farm subsidies if you do not shift to Frederick’s of Hollywood.”

This story has no ironic ending, just a sad one. At this very moment citizens and weavers are flocking to the president’s fashion show, featuring the latest in children’s asymmetrical fashions, entitled “See No Child’s Left Behind.”

The first read:

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.

The second read:

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.”

TSVOTEP readers know public schools value understanding that is unimaginative, strong character that is fearful, and generosity that emerges from pride. Therefore, they know that students at risk of public school failure are simply those who have not developed this virtue-vice combination. 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). Combinations of these six 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 define “at risk” in this way know exactly what to do to help students overcome the “at risk” 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. This same behavior pattern — this time teachers valuing student imagination, courage and humility, and ignoring occasions of ignorance, weak character and selfishness — makes “at risk” students no longer “at risk.” because the program values the virtues and vices they already possess. What could they be “at risk” for, if they already possess what the program values?

Once students are no longer “at risk” the second step is for alternative program educators to use students’ virtues as the foundation for helping them confront the aforementioned 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. Then they used these virtues as a foundation for combating the ignorance, weak character, and selfishness that were often modeled and taught to them by adults who were members of the previous generation’s “at risk” student population.

Therefore, without reading the article, TSVOTEP readers already know:

1. Urban Prep students in this alternative program lacked the virtue-vice combination valued in public schools.
2. Many of them struggled mightily 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. Without such a definition, 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 realize that, before tests are administered, teachers can tell the central office how well specific students will score, and the reasons for those scores?

Any teacher who cannot should be fired. Chancellor Rhee is big on firing teachers. Does she fire those whose students don’t score well (data driven), or does she fire those who cannot explain the multitude of reasons an individual student scored poorly?

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

And also go to
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/07/whos_a_good_teacher.html

Data driven gets us nowhere; but 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.

Here are their (unedited) descriptions of the art and science of teaching:

Male Student – Teaching is more of an art than a science. An art is focused on appreciation. Appreciation is at the core of the classroom. If a teacher appreciates the subject they will be better suited and more inspiring to their students. Appreciation is necessary from both the students and the teachers towards each other in order to be an effective teacher. The teachers that were my best teachers were more focused on appreciating the students and the learning process than on the effectiveness of them. By appreciating these things, the teacher was able to be a more effective teacher. The teachers that were not as good were the ones that tried to be effective teachers but did not put forth any appreciation. My classroom will be built on appreciation. I will make sure that the students see how much I appreciate them, the subject, and the learning process. I will ensure that they appreciate each other and what each of them brings to the classroom.

Female Student — I don’t think teaching can be defined as either an art or a science. I think it can only be defined as a combination of both. If appreciation is the only thing a teacher is concerned about, while the students may have high confidence levels and feel like they are important, they won’t have the skills that they need to realistically succeed. On the other hand, if teachers are only focused on effectiveness, the students may develop good skills and do well on tests, but they might not be able to apply it to themselves on an individual level. The teachers that I learned the most from were very encouraging and appreciative of the natural abilities that I possessed, and were also willing to find ways to help me with the things that I struggled with. I also had a few teachers who neglected both of these who I learned the least from.

Female Student — I believe teaching is a combination of an art and a science. I think you need to have a deep appreciation of what you teach, and be able to express that in a way so that your students will have an appreciation for what you are teaching. If they appreciate it, they will perhaps understand it more or easier, and won’t mind learning about it as much. At the same time, you need to be effective at how you teach to get it across the best way. Some of my best teachers were very effective, while the appreciation might not have been there. My US History teacher in high school drilled the information into our heads. We would quiz everyday and go over what we had just learned. He was very effective at teaching the subject because I received a 98 on the EOC exam, but his appreciation was a little off. We learned more about what happened exactly, rather than why, or who it affected, or what it affected. My worst teachers were not effective. My chemistry teacher stopped teaching altogether halfway through the semester, but she would show us things about chemistry and she loved it. It was great that she loved it, and I could appreciate how cool chemistry was, but she did not teach us how to do it, and thus we all came very close to failing the class because of this.

Here are their (unedited) descriptions of their beliefs about, and their experiences with, standardized tests:

Female Student — I’ll admit that standardized tests can be helpful in examining the curriculums set up. They can assist in seeing which methods are working and which are not. They are also cheap to produce, administer, and grade. That is as much as I am willing to delude myself with the idea that they are a good thing. They have horrible effects on teaching, curriculum, at-risk children, and increase the probability of dropouts.

Teachers face a huge amount of stress because of these tests. Standardized tests end up determining the curriculum because teachers want to keep the administration happy which means getting good scores. Thus, they are forced to teach whatever is on the course of study for the tests and end up sacrificing a ton of other topics to teach about because they need their students to be as prepared as they can be.

Not only do standardized tests affect teachers negatively, it affects students negatively. Stressful and sometimes depressing there has been an increase in the rates of dropouts in states that have graduation tests. At-risk children are even worse off; the unfair comparison of demographics that these test provide end up “failing” children in this situation.

The last thing I must say about these tests is that the subjects that are normally seen as a relief from stress and worry like music, physical education, drama, and art are made less important because of standardized testing. The emphasized curriculums are placed on math and English class and often times the other classes are cut short or end up going without adequate funding. This is perhaps one of the worst problems these test cause; the subjects that are necessary for well-rounded learning experiences are not being taught.

Female Student — I do not agree with standardized test in American public schools. Some students just aren’t very good test takers. I get so nervous about a test that I can’t even focus, then studying becomes pointless. I would rather do my homework and have a pop quiz than have to study and be prepared for a big test. Many teachers don’t even agree with big standardized test either because they have to take the time from their original lesson plans to make time for all this extra review so that their students do well. Teachers would also agree that if they can’t get new materials or textbooks for their classroom every so often then why are the states wasting money on all this extra costly stuff to provide for standardized test. Also, another reason I don’t like standardized tests is because I feel like I could have got accepted other places if they would have interviewed me rather than looking at my SAT score. High-stakes tests hurt students who are very smart, but just don’t test well. When I become a teacher in a few years I’m not going to be able to teach what I want, but instead what is on that big test my students will have to take at the end of the school year. When children have practice test they cheat just to make a good grade, but then when the big real test comes they are given different test and some end up failing. I just don’t believe standardized, high-stakes test are fair.

Male Student — I believe that public schools place to much emphasis on standardized and high-stake tests. I say this because I know plenty of people who are very good students who are awful standardized testers. How can a standardized test really determine what college a student should attend? In my opinion colleges look to those scores more than they should be. If I were the head of admissions at the University I would set up an interview with students, and let that be the determining factor of whether they get into the institution or not. But this whole notion that we can measure the intelligence level of a student through the SAT or ACT is ridiculous.

I am very passionate about this because I was a good student in high school who never did well in these kinds of tests and because of it I was labeled as not being as smart as everyone else. I do not believe that public school teachers need a score to let them know how their students are doing in class. And I do not think it is right for us to be comparing success of students in a school to the success of students all over the country. Who cares how students are doing all around the country? As a teacher it is your responsibility to teach your students and not worry about national scores.

Here are their (unedited) descriptions of their experiences with the (a) visible, (b) hidden, and (c) extra curricula:

Female Student — Being what I would consider a “professional student” of fifteen years I feel that I have seen and recognized the hidden, visible, and extra curriculums incorporated into school curriculums. The hidden curriculum would be school rules, classroom rules and school mottos for example. The visible curriculum would be standardized tests and the pressure from the school board for local schools to excel. The extra curriculum is often pushed by parents, school employees and colleges to a certain extent encouraging students to participate in sports, clubs, and community service in order to be a more well rounded person. During my time as a student my most powerful educational experiences are contributed to the hidden and extra curriculums present in schools.

The hidden curriculum to me would be the rules listed in the classroom for all to read or the syllabus of what is expected of you in a course that is handed out on the first day of class. This curriculum is not hidden to anyone, teachers share it with students and parents so all parties know what is expected of them from the get go. It is important because when followed it allows you to excel as a student because you complete assignments in a timely matter and you respect your teacher and classmates allowing you to do your best in your classes. I would include this in my most powerful educational experiences because by following the hidden curriculum such as school rules and classroom rules I personally gained close relationships with teachers and faculty members that have helped me in furthering my education.

The visible curriculum to me personally was not as influential as the hidden and extra curriculums because I consider the visible curriculum being standardized test scores and the push for students and schools to improve and excel on their yearly state tests. The visible curriculum is known it’s not a complete secret, but it’s not as publicized as the class or school rules and policies. The visible curriculum is important but test scores are not what have helped me through my education, what has helped me has been strong relationships with teachers, faculty members and other students. Test scores are used to analyze progress I understand that but I am a terrible test taker and I personally don’t feel that standardized tests have reflected my understanding of the subjects being tested. Personally I do not think the visible curriculum is as important as school boards and officials make it out to be.

The extra curriculum is important for social and personal growth because it allows students to focus some of their energy into other areas besides academic work all day long. Extra curriculums include sports, clubs, and community service these extra activities help shape students into well rounded individuals capable of a life outside of a school setting. It is important that students participate in other activities so that they do not become overwhelmed and discouraged from school work. Extra curriculum activities provide students with opportunities to meet other people that they might not have had the opportunity to meet in a school setting. Personally some of my best friends still are friends that I acquired through extracurricular activities.

Female Student — The visible curriculum is one of the curriculums I saw the most in high school and now in college. Teachers have handed out syllabi since day one of high school, and I continue to get them every semester. Syllabi help me visualize what is to come in a course or what is expected of me in the class. It is visible curriculum that helps me to succeed in classes.

The invisible curriculum is exactly as it sounds. It cannot be found in a syllabi or anywhere else. You can learn the most from the invisible curriculum. I get the most out of my education from this curriculum because it can relate to me or life personally. I believe the invisible curriculum helps me connect with my professor and classmates more than a visible curriculum would. Class discussions that are similar to a topic in class is like an invisible curriculum, it will help you understand material in class and relates to you.

Extracurricular activities fall under the extra curriculum. These extra activities such as sports or a club have been proven to help a student’s grades if school and the extra activities are healthily balanced. I had extracurricular activities in high school. I was the yearbook editor and chief for all four years of high school. The extra curriculum did not really help me, but it did not hinder me either.

Female Student — An example of the invisible or hidden curriculum would be when we use to have recess in elementary school and I would run to the dolls first and would collect all of them and not want to share with anyone. Then the other girls would complain and I would have to share with them. The lesson that I learned here and what the other children are learning also is that for me I have to share my the dolls that I got to first with every person who wants to play with one meaning that I have to learn to share and the other children who did not have dolls at first had to accept the fact that they did not have them and had to figure out a strategy on how to get the dolls and have one of their own.

With extracurricular activities that would involve either playing a sport or attending an after school program that you were involved in. I had an extracurricular activity every day of my life. Even in elementary school I had extracurricular activities. I have been running track since I was five years old and after elementary school I would go and run with my dad and practice different things. When I was in middle school I played basketball and we had practice every day except for on Fridays. While in high school I played junior varsity basketball and I ran track. I think that extracurricular activities keep a lot of children out of the streets and it gives children an opportunity to try out something new and something that they enjoy doing that makes them happy. I know that it made me very happy and I really enjoyed it a lot.

With the visible curriculum in my schools and even in college my teachers would hand out syllabi and they would have everything that you were doing from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. I actually like these because you could turn in homework early or start on assignments early because you have it right in front of your face. The only thing that I do not like about syllabi is that most are tentative and they change if your behind schedule most teachers skip to the next thing to catch back up or either take something out of the syllabi and you do not learn about it.

The visible and the extracurricular activities experience played a major role in my life the most because this is what I was growing up on in school and these are all of the things that were given to me to follow and use. I was always given a syllabus in classes even in middle school we had syllabus and like I stated earlier I was always doing an extracurricular activity after school. I was even tutoring and being tutored after school and before school so I was always a busy person.

Here are their (unedited) descriptions of how their schools compared to “effective schools” on the criteria of (a) strong leadership, (b) a clear school mission, (c) a safe and orderly environment, (d) monitoring student progress, and (e) high expectations:

Male Student — I believe that yes my school was an effective school. The school had great leadership in the office and in the classrooms. They constantly pushed you to do your best in any subject and would be more than willing to help you out too. Which brings me to the fact that my school did expect a lot out of their students, they even had a school motto to help push you which I guess you could use as a mission statement too. But on top of this you could go to school and feel safe during the day! The environment was great and the teachers really tried to help you.

My school was full of leaders; it wasn’t just the principle that would take charge. Yes there was a system of leadership or what you could call a chain of command but the teachers where not afraid to speak up either. For example, my music director would make sure her classes were taken care of. If the principle decided something that was not best for the music classes she would, in a polite manner go up to him and tell him. We also had very few teachers that would not take control of their classrooms. If you misbehaved they would not tolerate it. The principal rarely made decisions that would affect parts of the school in a negative way, he tried to always find the right answer or the best answer.

Which brings me to the mission statement; however this statement really wasn’t the official mission statement it worked just the same. “Shoot for the stars and you will land somewhere in them”. We all knew by this statement what the schools administrations goal was and at the same time we were not bored reading it on the school handbook, where some schools have those long mission statements that no one reads but the parents because they were boring the administration made one that we would pay attention to as students. So even we knew what they expected of us.

The great thing about this statement it meant that we knew coming into this high school that the teachers would expect a lot out of us. The staff would push us to succeed through all odds even when we felt we would fail. I remember my calculus teacher in particular, he was not easily impressed with what you got right but he was determined to make sure everyone understood what he was talking about. In class at the beginning of that year I was a senior and did not really pay attention in the class because it was in the morning first thing. So when December rolled around and we were half way through the class (it being a yearlong class) he started to push me to start paying attention and to do all my work. I believe if there had been any other teacher that was teaching that class I would not have do as well because he had the expectation for every student in that room to pass and we did. Because he kept such a close eye on my progress and others progress he knew where we stood and what our weakness were. He would find those weaknesses and help us even if it meant meeting on a Saturday, which he did a few times.

The final part I want to talk about is how safe the school was or at least felt. Even though the school was not tight on rules people knew what to and not to do. Everyone was like family so we watched out for one another. There was rarely any fights for the simple fact that everyone in the school would get punished if there was. We were given the task of making sure fights did not break out or if they did we were asked to try and break them up. So where as other schools may have students crowd around the fight to watch we as a student body would crowd around to grab each person and get them away from each other. You would think that this would put other students in danger of getting hurt but when the students that were fighting got grabbed they would know what was going on and they would not hit anyone else, however they may try to get away so they could continue to fight with the other student.

So yes I thought of my school as being effective. We learned a lot academically but not only that but also we learned some life lessons. We were a close knit school because of the teachers and administrations views and policies. We all tried to strive for the stars and those who missed still landed in the sky!

Female Student — I feel like the only schools that I went to with really strong leadership were the ones I attended while living in Illinois. I don’t know what it was, but I felt like I was in better hands with them. Especially my elementary school principal, he is the only principal that I ever recall having a conversation with besides in the case of me doing something wrong. He was always in and out of classroom and I remember he was very responsive to parents and teachers problems. On the contrary, my High School administrators seemed to be focused on the bad. They only wanted to be involved if there was an issue and it was never in a positive way.

All of my schools have had a clear mission, but most of my schools weren’t extremely effective in carrying them out. When my high school started implementing the smaller learning communities, I remember they had all these great goals but not really any effective way of reaching them. It seemed like there was a lot of disconnect between the different administrators of the different schools and I personally think this was one of the main reason it wasn’t as effective as they thought it was going to be.

I never felt threatened or unsafe at any of the schools I went to, even my high school which had the occasional fights and bomb threats. They did regular searches and sometimes they would put metal detectors at the front of the school. They also had security guards roaming the halls. I think all of this contributed to the feeling of security for the school.

Every single one of my schools has monitored student progress closely, but it wasn’t really discussed or evaluated, at least what I can remember. If we didn’t do well on the test, the response was just that we needed to do better on the test. No one tried to figure out why it was that some students weren’t succeeding, it was just blamed on the teacher or that the student wasn’t smart.

Some of my teachers had very high expectations and other didn’t. Although I don’t specifically remember experiencing this personally, I remember more than a couple instances where unconscious prejudice came into play. I also remember that although it annoyed me at the time, I responded more and did better in classes of teachers who said things like “Mary (pseudonym), I know you can do better than this.”

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 this link: 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.

You can respond to this post by clicking on “Comment.” 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 the modeling and teaching of these virtues. Please comment.

So, why don’t educators teach the six virtues of the educated person? We are literally caught in a “vicious cycle.”

TSVOTEP argues that the best public school educators model and teach three virtues — understanding, strong character and generosity. That is the good news. The bad news is they also teach three of the vices — intellectual incompetence, fear, and pride. Therefore, even our best graduates demonstrate understanding that is unimaginative, strong character that is fearful, and generosity that emerges from pride.

That is why the six-virtue definition of the educated person is so important. Only when all six are modeled and taught can the cycle be broken.