While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.
I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.
I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)
The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.
I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.
Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.
Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.
I understand all that.
And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.
Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.
In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.
Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.
Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.
“When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.”
Two questions come to mind after having read this:
1. Why lie about something so easily verifiable?
2. I wonder what was going through the minds of the kids he dismissed or ‘fired’. I feel for them. I wonder if he has any regrets. Can you ask him?
I did ask him on national television and he said he closed the entire school. He asserted that was the right thing to do. He expressed no regrets. But his account is not what I read in Tough’s book.
Very good summary. His first chapter is extremely powerful, but I felt he lost steam a little when he started building his “character” argument. He defines character differently than KIPP does, but he conflates the differing definitions. And the part about the chess teacher genuinely frightened me. But the biggest problem is that he didn’t entirely make the leap between the physical and emotional effects of adverse childhood events and how “character” is supposed to correct for that. He even admits that for all the intensive programming that KIPP students endure (and students in the other programs he talks about), they still don’t “succeed” as well as the affluent counterparts with strong safety nets who drift through life. So, sure, teach and encourage “character”, but even better, why don’t we try to expand the safety net so that even the most disadvantaged children have at least the basic necessities and a reasonably stable environment?
Good points re Tough. Diane. But I worry that so many, Tough too, miss the special character strengths that the poor (and stressed) often bring with them to school. Their very strengths (especially if they are males) are seen as weaknesses, including their indomitable feistiness, their independence, their networking, etc. They are seen as traits to be “broken”, and then remade in another image. Kids fight back. And in doing so they are seen as incorrigible! I saw it all the time in 4 and 5 year olds–and, of course, 14-18 year olds. . But instead of encouraging them to hold onto their self-respect, we put it down as a sign of lack of character.
It’s a big subject, and I think you are on the same trail–as has become usual for us–as I am–to see what this “grit” term means when it comes to schooling, and then–who needs to change? The kids or the way the schools (and the larger society and media) respond to them?
I learned a lot just from sitting in the park and watching kids in the sand box–of a most diverse type–and how the adults responded to them and their behavior. Ah well, more another time.
Deb
deb
Deb:
“Their very strengths (especially if they are males) are seen as weaknesses, including their indomitable feistiness, their independence, their networking, etc. They are seen as traits to be “broken”, and then remade in another image.”
Reminds me of how this country tried to convert the “Indian” children to speak and act like white children. I forget the name of the children’s book about an Indian boy that was forced to leave his home and go to the school. All I can remember from the book is that the boy talked to the trees.
Another pertinent quote is this: “Wind-Wolf knows the names and migration patterns of more than forty birds. He knows there are thirteen tail feathers on a perfectly balanced eagle. What he needs is a teacher who knows his full measure.”
~ Robert Lake (Medicine Grizzlybear)
I think you’re talking about “The Education of Little Tree.” I remember reading it for the first time out loud to my wife, who was confined to bed for a while during pregnancy. I was about 38 years old. I hadn’t cried for maybe two decades before reading that book, but I wept like a baby several times before I was done.
I highly recommend it to anyone struggling to understand a different culture, but particularly native American culture. Not everyone’s life is better because they have our modern conveniences. Few Americans understand this any more.
I found “From Neurons to Neighborhoods” too difficult , but in conversations with Jack Shonkoff, I got a useful understanding of the lasting problems of growing up under stress. His ideas for dealing with poverty work.Look at what G. Kaiser is doing in Tulsa, with Steven Dow. Collaborations with Headstart and Tulsa Public Schools make better citizens.
Thank you, Deb.
“I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.”
Really?
This is what I do when I read YOUR books… lol
I think it’s very important to make some distinctions when citing the connection between poverty and student performance. Forgetting to make that distinction creates the opening that the pseudo-reformers use to denounce critics.
I always recall what Dick Gregory, who grew up in a poor Chicago neighborhood, said about poverty. He asked his mother, one day, “Are we poor?” His mother understood that being “poor” or in a state of “poverty” was as much a psychological as a financial condition, which she did not want to saddle her son with. She answered, “No, we’re just out of money.” I hope that Tough makes the distinction between the anti-social, anti-learning and self-destructive behaviors that are present in many hi-poverty neighborhoods and the many parents and kids who don’t give in to letting themselves be defined by lack of money.
Where those self-defeating attitudes are prevalent, it takes more than money to overcome their influence.
Here’s the problem: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/10/17/poverty_nonsense/page/full/
People that downplay the effects of poverty.
I dare you to read this guy’s stuff – if you can stomach it. My favorite is “I Love Greed”, “In Greed We Trust”, and for a GREAT laugh I would dare anyone to read “Schools of Education”.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/archives/2012archive.html
By the way, here’s the author:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/index.html
Well, WEW is an economist. That’s all we need to know as the only thing that counts in an economist’s mind (if you can call it that) is money and only money.
Then you really don’t know much about economics. Read, for example, the very popular “Freakonomics,” co-authored by Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago. Economics is not simply “about money”.
Lauren, Duane’s claim was not what “economics is about” but rather that to an economist’s mind, money is the only thing that counts.
Michael: “…to an economist’s mind, money is the only thing that counts.” Again, not true. Economists study all kinds of non-monetary questions, like: If your child visits a friend’s home with a gun in the house or another friend’s house with a swimming pool, in which house is your child more likely to die? Economists are definitely data-driven, but they are not unidimensional where “money is the only thing that counts.”
@lorentjd: I didn’t agree or disagree with the claim: I simply pointed out that you were arguing against the WRONG claim, one that wasn’t made.
I don’t have an opinion on what matters to “an economist,” or “a typical economist,” etc., let alone “all economists.” But I think that Duane was being intentionally hyperbolic to make a point. Of course, maybe not. If it makes you happier, I’ll agree with you that Duane’s statement was too extreme.
@Michael: I’m reminded of a cartoon I once saw where an agitated husband or wife is sitting at a computer and says to his or her spouse: “Don’t bother me now! I’m arguing with someone on the Internet!”
This cartoon? http://xkcd.com/386/
I actually browsed the book and returned it, but still am on the library waiting list. In my browse I felt he saw KIPP as the hero in that those KIPP or Teach For America teachers were the ones making a difference because they believed in their kids. I believe in my kids too and let them know every day. But I expect I don’t need to get so defensive about that kind of stuff. I didn’t see the other groups, like the chess team, mentioned.
And I also struggle with the need for the need to convert these kids. Deb Meier and Mathcs said it correctly.
So I do plan to read it, but I felt spending my Barnes and Noble gift card on Patricia Polaco’s “The Junkyard Wonders” was much more worth it. 🙂 If you haven’t read it, I expect you’ll see some great parallels in her picture book. Love how the teacher taught these kids. It’s worth going to the library to read no matter what age you are.
This is one of the best discussions I have seen in a long time. We know that the way we teach the required curriculum doesn’t work for all of the dropouts and a great many of those who stay. Is it the curriculum ?
Diane, I hope you’re right about Tough’s corporate reform admirers taking all of his analysis to heart, but I’m not optimistic. I think they will cherry pick Tough’s conclusions, just as their charter schools cherry pick students. For these people, rising poverty and income polarization are things to be enriched by, all while they deny it as a factor in student learning. Virtually all of their market behavior and political advocacy attests to that.
They’ve lied about everything so far, why should parts of one book stop them now?
I agree with your assessment, Diane. Tough is a real scholar in the field of education, as you are, and that’s what we really need right now. Education needs the truth.
I’ll buy the book today. (I’ll look for Patricia Polacco’s new book too!)
Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, “Nickle and Dimed” had a profound effect on me. It is beyond me how anyone can ignore how just struggling to survive can influence lives. When you are without resources, nothing is easy. She spent a year trying to live on minimum wage jobs. If I was going to create a required reading list for all would-be reformers, “Nickle and Dimed” would be on it.
This is just a guess, but if you’re familiar with THE PACT, one thing that comes through very clearly is the importance of having one or more mentors, particularly someone who has your back when you need it most. The men in that book, all of whom survive inner city Newark, make a pact to become doctors, and keep it, each has points in his life when he was on the brink of going down one of the all-too-familiar roads that put minority males in deep trouble – legal, drug-related, violence-related, etc. – from which it’s difficult if not impossible to escape. And each had someone – a teacher, an uncle, a coach, a martial arts instructor – who went to bat for him and kept him from slipping into oblivion.
I don’t know that this need is universal, nor that it would be a panacea, but it’s not hard to imagine that it could make a decided difference at key moments for a huge number of kids, in and out of extreme poverty. The notion of “grit” annoys me, as do a lot of the “character education” cliches I’ve heard from Paul Tough.
Finally, it strikes me as ironic that our “No Excuses” friends accuse “bad teachers” of using poverty as an excuse. Far more members of this nation are not teachers – good, bad, or indifferent – and many of them seem only too happy to use bad teachers as an excuse for doing nothing about poverty. That seems to me to be the message reasonable people should be delivering and heeding.
“Finally, it strikes me as ironic that our “No Excuses” friends accuse “bad teachers” of using poverty as an excuse. Far more members of this nation are not teachers – good, bad, or indifferent – and many of them seem only too happy to use bad teachers as an excuse for doing nothing about poverty. That seems to me to be the message reasonable people should be delivering and heeding.”
Thank you for this reasonable and logical statement.
Poverty, stress and learning is much more than just wild speculation of teachers making excuses. I’m telling you, neuroscientist, Robert Sapolsky, has found the link between the stress levels of poverty and lessened learning and memory….he has found that prolonged stress destroys hippocampus neurons…and it is most often irreversable. Valid biological and anthropological studies… His research validates what teachers have known for generations….I posted this before. I’ve watched the lecture start to finish a few times…why his work isn’t mentioned in ANY education research is beyond me because it hits the nail right on its head! (Of course though, the creationists would have flippin’ fits about it.) I would love to see further ed-psych studies focused on how classroom environments and teacher interaction styles effect learning and retention rates. I have already changed many aspects of my resource room mangement and modified how I carry out interventions with my students as a result of this research. Seriously, his work is very convincing. I’d love to attend professional development sessions his work. Amazing and extremely relevant! (Watch the entire video…the last part ties it all together and focuses on socioeconomic status)
http://spoken-gems.com/2010/11/08/robert-sapolsky-stress-neurodegeneration-and-individual-differences/
If I ever have to defend my teaching employment at a
hearing, I plan on citing this research. Count on it.
JoJoFox, Thanks so much for providing the link to Robert Sapolsky’s lecture. The research on glucocorticoids, specifically regarding tissue damage due to prolonged exposure to high levels of cortisol from stress, was in education courses that I took, as well as education courses I have taught.
What I think is most telling is how similar the dominance hierarchy in baboon society is to the stack ranking of Bill Gates, which has been adopted in education “reform” policies today, i.e., VAM, merit pay, competition etc., resulting in extreme stress due to loss of control, inability to predict, no outlets for venting frustrations and lack of social supports: http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/gatess-cannibalistic-culture-coming-school-near-you Gates, Duncan et al think they are promoting something new and advanced when that is actually very primative and inhumane.
I checked out this book from the library a few weeks ago and haven’t made a lot of progress because I’ve been so busy. However, what I had read seemed grounded in fact and well written. I began hearing a lot of negative things about it from other teachers (including commenters on this blog) and wondered if I was missing something. Now that you’ve given it a good review, Diane, I will continue reading.
“Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny.”
No hope? None? No hope of ever ascending, ever?
I agree that poverty is the problem. I know it. I actually see it’s terrible effect every day. Still are you saying there is no school or school program (or any program) that is having a positive influence to break future generations free of poverty? None?
I stand with you to combat poverty. Sign me up. Actually I’m already signed up.
But you still have to convince me (as an educator) that how I see lives change through education is all for naught — that regardless they will be stuck in poverty simply because they grew up in it. Or am I missing your point?
Don’t take that sentence out of context. It is part of an entire argument meant to be seen in contrast to the “reformer” world view.
I’m actually attempting not to take it out of context. That’s why I asked if I’m missing the point. I believe I understand the context. My impression is exactly what you stated. It contrasts the “reformer.” However if we ever want these debates to go beyond simply political rhetoric we have to understand what is meant by the words we use. That is what I’m attempting to do.
I did not say that poor children are destined to be poor. What I said–or tried to say–is that in a society that passively accepts poverty, poverty is powerful, particularly for those at the bottom. One recent study points out that children from low-income families have only a 1% change of rising to the top 5% of the income distribution, compared to 22% of children from high-income families..
Click to access Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf
That takes nothing away from teachers. Teachers can change lives. But it is foolish to believe that children of the poorest families have equal opportunity with children of the rich. They don’t.
If I understand your statement, what you mean is that the poor don’t have the same opportunities as the rich. I don’t disagree with that. However schools (especially multiple educators over multiple years) can give low income families more opportunities — opportunities outside of poverty.
I don’t think our goal should be that low-income children reach the top 5% of income distribution — although that would be great. I’m not there and It is doubtful that I will ever be there. I’m closer to low-income than to the top 5%. However I have a degree and a career. That goal, from my experience is achievable even for children in poverty — not easy because of the effects of poverty — but achievable with a cadre of dedicated teachers and leaders who engage parents.
I’m not sure that stating “poverty is destiny” encompasses how you are defining it in your reply. I feel like that leaves the door open to misinterpretation — one that could result in devastatingly low expectations (I’m not contending everyone who reads that interprets it the same way, but it is a reasonable interpretation from your post).
If some teachers are in fact changing lives, why don’t we spend time on this blog talking about what they are doing. To me that seems productive.
Early childhood programs make better citizens.
Shaun,
Some teachers change lives. But have you ever noticed that poor children dominate the bottom half of every bell curve? Do you think that is the fault of their teachers? Why don’t you read Paul Tough’s book before you make such claims? You sound like TFA. You must be changing the “trajectory” (Wendy’s favorite) word of every child you teach. Has TFA eliminated poverty in New Orleans? No, child poverty in New Orleans is up to 37% despite all those charters and TFA.
Really, Shaun, grow up, read, learn, grow some compassion.
Diane
Some teachers do truly change lives. I think we can say that without blaming teachers. That’s certainly not my intention.
To answer your questions:
I don’t blame teachers but think they are a big part of the solution.
I’m not a member of TFA nor is anyone in my building.
I haven’t read Tough’s book yet, but will. Are you suggesting that he says poverty is destiny as well?
Regarding New Orleans, I made no claim that TFA was the answer. However based on my premise that children are overcoming it based on the mentorship of teachers it certainly would suffice to say it combats poverty over generations. It doesn’t necessarily bring children out of poverty currently. However that should be a priority for us as a nation.
I will continue to read and try to grow up every day (as an educator I have for the last 15 years). I believe that my question does show compassion towards children and families — if something in our nation is working (or it is working for some) why don’t we try to figure out what we can learn from that. The families I talk to want a better life for their children then they have. Seems simple, really.
I am going back to this point in the hopes that my cooment will not appear to be an e.e. cummings poem.
I recently read (or heard) that 50% of people raised in poverty will remain in poverty. Since I just came off a seven hour car drive, please don’t ask me for my source. I don’t have a clue. I could be making it up. If we remember that 80% of what influences socio-economic growth is determined by out of school factors and only 7% of the 20% that schools contribute is due to teachers, that means that teachers contribute about 1.4% of the total of in school and out of school factors combined.
I hate numbers sometimes. They have the power to dehumanize. In this case, though, they can be used to reinforce something that I take for granted. As much as I liked some of my teachers, my family had much more influence than any teacher I ever had. I have a feeling that my feeling is the rule rather than the exception.
” The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration.”
Well that just isn’t true….take it from a KIPP teacher.
Diane, don’t forget the excellent discussion of the work by James Heckman that is reviewed in the introduction. Heckman is the Nobel Laureate with a background in economics. His website is full of resources that are invaluable to educators. Also, tracking the origin of the ACE (adverse childhood experiences) research is sobering to say the least.
One thing about poverty is that most middle-class Americans have no idea what it really is. They have some kind of quaint notion that it’s simply a lack of material wealth. There’s a Dolly Parton song about a girl who’s so poor she doesn’t have a coat, so her mother sews together a bunch of strips and rags to make her a “coat of many colors”. Even though the other kids make fun of her, the girl sees her coat as a symbol of her mother’s love, and even though they’re poor (in terms of money), really she’s the richest kid in class because of that coat. I think that’s the image many people have of poverty – a lack of material wealth that draws families together in love and builds “character”. If that’s what poverty is, then of course it’s no excuse for failure.
They don’t see how poverty in fact rips families apart through violence, trauma, despair, recourse to drugs and alcohol, teen pregnancy, working too many jobs just to put food on the table, etc., all of which, of course, are not “excuses”, but simple realities.
Thank you for covering this timely and hopeful issue in education. I agree with you that more teachers need to read Paul’s book and come together to have a national conversation about the issues raised. We need to hear from more teachers like Elizabeth Spiegel to give us real accounts of what is happening in classrooms across the country.
My organization VIVA Teachers recognizes how critical these social and emotional factors are to student success and we are inviting all New Jersey classroom teachers for an online discussion to develop an action plan for New Jersey’s education chief on how all students can tap into their character strengths and reach the future they dream about. If you are a New Jersey teacher with an opinion on “grit,” please visit http://bit.ly/vivanj
to share your voice and experience with us. If you know teachers in New Jersey please let them know about this chance to have their voices heard in the first real high level policy discussion of “grit” and “character education.”
Very insightful book that is a must-read for anyone in this day and age to understand where success really comes from.
Find it on Libboo: https://www.libboo.com/read/how-children-succeed/nickihaylon
I agree that Paul Tough makes an important contribution on the poverty debate but when it comes to character education I think he gets it wrong
http://tinyurl.com/cvkfj8k
I read one of the comments that states that the KIPP still didn’t succeed, not like the more influential students. It’s sad – I have read about homeless children improving their grades, graduating college and more. But we as a society want to blame everything on someone else.
I sat down and read “for children how to become rich successful & do well in school” with my son. He is a smart kid but he gives up when studies get hard, he loses focus in test, he doesn’t like failing. But with some work and teaching him that you can learn from failure, that you should never give up, that he should have a desire to learn if he wants to be successful – he came home with an FCAT score of 5 in reading and 4 in math.
Weather he has what you call success in his life latter on – I don’t know. But he has a better chance of success because he has learn a few helpful tips in order to reach success
Seems to me Tough describes a horse race (in which students are the horses). All have different character traits, cognition, cortical formations, etc. Nobody knows exactly what makes winners — though we have a good idea — and certainly Diane would argue that all the horses should start at the same gate (the proverbial level playing field). But even with a perfectly level field, as in every race, there are winners and losers. Not everybody can win, at least not in our culture, and our economic system. By definition, we have losers, and with losing comes the spoils of defeat — low status, low pay, low self-esteem.
Can someone explain to me how an education system — no matter how equitable, visionary, compassionate, rigorous and professional — transcends a Darwinian economic model?
Steve, our economic system has winners and losers. It should not be the role or job of the education system to designate the winners and losers but to provide all with equality of educational opportunity.
Diane, your acceptance of economic “losers” seems too blithe and Darwinian. I struggle with that. The role of the education system is to teach people to think. What are they supposed to think about an economic system in which “losers’ are inherent? A really effective education system would lead people to the unavoidable conclusion that Social Darwinism — what we have today — needs to be scrapped for something more compassionate.
I just completed Paul Tough’s book and found most of it exhilarating! However, it seemed to me he made a very strong point that assisting households with children to exhibit attachment or bonding behaviors to help children achieve the neurological growth needed for human development was most compelling. I was disappointed that he didn’t develop that further. Who all is doing this work and what success are they having? I have read about Educare and thought they modeled their program on this science. Why no mention of their work? I really got discouraged by the length to which he explored the world of black elite young chess players and the way they are taught to win. I appreciated the socially challenged teacher who “lovingly” pounded on them so they might learn from their failures but darned if I could figure out how that information is going to help rescue those infants who desperately need a safe loving environment in which to grow to be the students who may later learn the lessons of character development. An entertaining read but I felt it lacked strategic focus. I think Paul got way too carried away with the chess players. I wonder how successful our schools will be teaching “grit” to students whose neurological and emotional growth is severely stunted by their early home environment?