There has been much discussion in the blogosphere and elsewhere about the importance of “grit.” Some of this started with the publication of Paul Tough’s book “How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiousity, and the Hidden Power of Character,” which argued that those characteristics are crucial to succeeding in adverse circumstances and that they can be taught. It continued with the award of a MacArthur to Angela Duckworth, who studies grit, and in recent days it heated up when Lauren Anderson insisted that the whole idea of “grit” was to shift responsibility to children for their terrible life circumstances instead of talking about structural inequality in society.
Now, I confess, there is a part of me that finds this all passing strange. Having grown up in a different era, I recall that in school we were regularly bombarded with stories about heroism, about the people who showed grace under fire, about the soldiers who threw themselves on a live grenade to save their buddies, about the importance of character. History was told as a tale of people with grit and character. And, of course, all the movies from Hollywood were morality tales of grit and character. The good guys–the ones with grit–always won, or at least had a heroic death. So, the sudden interest in grit and character seems a bit weird. Like, what else is new?
What is new is the idea that we might have classes in grit. When I hear “grit,” I think “grits.” I like grits. Or I think about sandpaper. Or the grit that gets into the gears so they don’t work. But let’s be serious. When I was in D.C. a few weeks ago, someone told me he had gone to a high-level meeting between the White House and the U.S. Department of Education to determine whether there was a metric for “grit.” He asked me–this at a public meeting at the AFT headquarters, where I was discussing my latest book–what I thought about the idea of measuring grit. It was the end of a long day, I was tired, and I didn’t choose my words carefully. I said, “It makes me want to throw up.” I mean, really, will we ever have people at the Department of Education who know or care about education, you know, like the arts and philosophy and history and civics and loving what you read and what you do, not just measuring stuff?
I am happy to say that Peter Greene, who is both a high school teacher and a part-time columnist for his local newspaper in Pennsylvania, has developed a way to measure grit. Yes, he has invented the Institute of Grittology, where “we’re committed to helping monetize the work of our research partners, The Research Institute for the Study of Obvious Conclusions (“Working hard to recycle conventional wisdom as proprietary programing”).”
Yes, there are ways to measure grit, Greene says, and the good news is that it can be done with multiple-choice questions. Read on.
I am so sick of “grit”. Here’s my take: http://atthechalkface.com/2014/03/22/ignoring-mental-health-in-the-grit-debate/
This is from the DOE website today:
Taking Time to Talk to Your Child About Tests:
“Be familiar with the terms used on the test (such as proficient, percentile, and norm-referenced) and be prepared to ask what those terms mean when talking with the classroom teacher, counselor, or principal.
If needed, schedule a meeting with the teacher to discuss your child’s test results.
Ask your child’s teacher for tips and ideas about working with your child at home. Are there specific packets or materials available that will help your child improve?
Ask the teacher if a private tutor might be available. Are there resources the teacher can provide?”
The link provided goes (where else!) to a test prep site:
“So, how do you compare with students nationally and from around the world?
Pick a subject, a grade and how many questions you want to see (750+ currently in database), then click the Show Questions button below.”
Remember: it’s not about the tests!
Do you think a compulsion by adults to administer standardized tests to children might one day be recognized as a disorder? 🙂
http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/03/taking-time-to-talk-with-your-child-about-tests/
Do you think a compulsion by adults to administer standardized tests to children might one day be recognized as a disorder?
This definitely belongs in the DSM.
Bob, I think it’s already in the DSM V. It’s called Obsesssive Compulsive Disorder. And, the comorbid disorders among our Billionaire Common Core designers and government & corporate promoters is more in the “B Cluster” which includes: Narcissistic, Borderline, AntiSocial, and Histronic Personality Disorders.
Now is the time when we can say with all sincerity that the “inmates are running the asylum”!
“When I was in D.C. a few weeks ago, someone told me he had gone to a high-level meeting between the White House and the U.S. Department of Education to determine whether there was a metric for “grit.” He asked me–this at a public meeting at the AFT headquarters, where I was discussing my latest book–what I thought about the idea of measuring grit.”
Oh, God, I hope not. For their sakes. If they think there’s pushback on the Common Core from parents they have no idea what will happen when they set out to both define and measure “character”.
Good lord. I cannot even imagine. Will there be a data wall? Have they lost their minds?
Character gets measured every day. By behavior.
Well said, Harlan.
Yes, Chiara, they have.
And the data wall already exists. Here’s the outline for it:
If you want to see what USDE is doing on this matter, see the 126 page draft report–literally, The Grit Report” at http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf
Theoretically, this draft is open to comment.
Of course, this sudden focus on so-called non-academic, non-cognitive, and “soft skills” comes, in part, from a systematic purging from educational policy any discourse that traffics in affect, affinities, and appreciations, qualities in thought and conduct with intrinsic appeal and value…unless these can be also be dubbed rigorous, academic, cognitively demanding and so on.
This report makes heave use of the term “intervention” in the sense of getting grit into lives of children within and beyond schools.
The closing sentence of the USDE report (page 94) has a gritty juxtaposition of powerful and impactful: “Findings across interviews with key informants and a broad review of the research literature indicate that there is a strong theoretical and practical base for making powerful and impactful advances in the field.”
For this report, there were 25 “informants.” Apparently, USDE has adopted this language of “informants” to sidestep the question of consulting with experts and persons likely to be responsible for acting on the Grit Report. Two informants were from the Gates Foundation.
Thanks.
Did you notice how there wasn’t a single public school leader consulted but KIPP was there and so was a representative of a “country day” school.
At this point it’s outright hostility towards public schools. They aren’t even invited to the table. Outrageous, in the US DOE.
I bet public schools will get the GRIT mandate, though!
I know public schools are no longer fashionable, but this is ridiculous.
We public school teachers are notoriously lacking in grit. That is why we are rapidly losing our jobs.
“Of course, this sudden focus on so-called non-academic, non-cognitive, and ‘soft skills’ comes, in part, from a systematic purging from educational policy any discourse that traffics in affect, affinities, and appreciations, qualities in thought and conduct with intrinsic appeal and value…unless these can be also be dubbed rigorous, academic, cognitively demanding and so on.”
Well said, Laura!
The USDE and the Stasi, both masterful users of informants. LOL.
” I mean, really, will we ever have people at the Department of Education who know or care about education, you know, like the arts and philosophy and history and civics and loving what you read and what you do, not just measuring stuff?”
OMG, Diane! I cannot tell you how much I LOVE that. Thank you for saying it.
This is my reaction, again and again, on an almost daily basis, to the junk being peddled in the name of reform and to the opportunity cost of this continual testing and training and data chatting.
When I hear that someone at the Department of Education is concerned that kids might not be reading enough Emerson or Dickinson or Derek Walcott or might not be getting a broad enough experience of varieties of orature or might not be learning main currents in American thought, then I’ll start taking these philistines seriously. When I hear them start worrying about kids graduating not knowing the difference between a Calvinist and a Transcendentalist and a Wobbly and a Social Darwinist, I will start thinking that THEY actually learned something in school worth passing on to kids.
When I hear that some district is doing a training for its English teachers on ways of ending narratives or varieties of pastoral poetry or possible relations among sentences in discourse or themes in post-Colonial literature or theta/thematic structure in English grammar or how film scripts are formatted or Historicist critical approaches in the K-12 classroom or physical/sensory activities for developing sensitivity to metrical patterns or how to create websites for fan fiction, then and only then will I start believing that someone in education administration and policy lalaland a) has actually received an education and b) actually understands that ELA is a field, like any other, in which there are things to be known.
Grit seems to be one of those words like rigor and standards that the reformers have co-opted,hen we anti-reformers have demonized and even disallowed their use.
That’s sad and wrong.,it empowers the enemy. We can’t measure grit or even teach it, but I’ve taught and coached kids with grit. It gave them an edge. I taught AP math courses, and they were rigorous. But not morbid. I had high standards for my kids. I followed the AP content.
If UVA reaches the Final Four, all of the above will apply in some senses. And they probably have taken rigorous courses.
It’s a little sad we have ceded some vey good words to the intellectual midgets of the reform world. Like the Fordham institute.
But, you know how this goes. There will be a book. The author will be trotted out on all the news programs. They’ll all quote the book, but only the parts that fit the script. The word “grit” will be everywhere. Then the grit-aligned standards begin, and then the grit assessments “tied” to the standards. Someone somewhere is already figuring out how to make money on it.
I think it’s great you use character as a human being with limits and discretion and common sense, but that isn’t the MO with this stuff. These people DEFINE the phrase “slippery slope”
When standardized tests began under NCLB, I was fine with it. A measure, I like measures, I’m an adult, I’ll take it in context as one tool. okay fine. Then I watched over a decade as they completely consumed the public school my kids attend. My eldest had a very different experience in school than his 5th grade brother, and it’s not better. Luckily, my 5th grader doesn’t know it, because his entire experience at school has been under this testing regimine.
Ed reformers don’t know how to say “no” 🙂
Chiara Duggan: I enjoy reading your comments, but I beg to disagree on one small point.
Look at literally two stars of the “education reform” firmament, Michelle Rhee and David Coleman. When it came to having an open public discussion with Diane Ravitch they were willing to say “No!” even at the expense of personal dignity and credibility.
That GRIT! That’s DETERMINATION!
Albeit as defined by a few in what some call this most cage busting achievement gap crushing innovative twenty first century.
I supposed I am sadly behind the times, but when I was growing up such folks were called cowards and bullies.
But then, when one sees the whole world through the prism of $tudent $ucce$$, it makes a lot of ₵ent¢.
Only, if just for once in their lives, they would abandon their diehard insistence on Marxist axioms:
“The secret of life is honest and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” [Groucho]
😎
P.S. Don’t waste time holding your breath for them to challenge their philosophical stance:
“You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.” [Dorothy Parker]
😏
Rhee and Coleman know that however much grit they had, they couldn’t win in a debate with Diane. I can’t either.
Dr. R.
Glad to see you still know what grits really are. Come to Tennessee and help us out sometime, and I will leave the mountain to fix you some cheese grits!
Grit is what birds eat to help in digestion.
Well kiss mah grits.
Well said, Duane.
A brief orientation for those just learning about this whole grit business:
The classic test for gritfulness is the marshmallow test. A child is put into a room with some marshmallows and must put off eating them in order to get, at a later time, some larger reward. There are many variations on this sort of delayed gratification experiment.
Think of someone you know who has a Type A personality. His or her work is an obsession. This person has “grit” in spades. He or she can pass the classic marshmallow test for gritfulness easily. He or she can put off that gratification–the time with his or her family, vacation, leisure activity, learning to salsa dance or to play the guitar, whatever–because one thing and one thing only matters: the work, the big payday later on.
Now, if you are such a person, and you are in a position of power–if a lot of underlings report to you–you also want them to have grit–to put off that time with their families or that time watching the game and get the revised spreadsheets and Powerpoints on your desk by Monday morning.
Or perhaps you are such a person and your underlings do repetitive, demeaning, servile, mind-numbing tasks and you want them to have the grit to persevere in those tasks despite their alienation from those tasks.
In each of these cases, this grit stuff sounds pretty darned good to you.
So, it’s not surprising that “grit” has become a popular meme in the echo chamber inhabited by oligarchs and by those who strive, gritfully, to join the ranks of the oligarchs.
It’s easy enough for something positive–the ability to carry through, to take adversity and opposition in stride–to become a horror, to take the form, for example, of a) obsessive compulsive striving, lack of balance, ruthlessness, disregard for everything and everyone who gets in the way or b) of obedient resignation to personal alienation.
To recap, grit can be conceptualized in very different ways:
1. There are people to whom the notion of grit is appealing because they want kids to learn how not only to set goals for themselves but also to have the perseverance to carry through to achieve those goals. Such people think of grit as personal fortitude in service of one’s OWN goals or dreams. Those are the good guys.
2. There are others to whom the notion of grit is appealing because they want others to be as obsessive compulsive as they are. Those are the sick guys.
3. And then there are those who get all excited about grit because they want the people who do soul-killing work for them to stop complaining and work harder. Those are the evil guys.
Those with the third view do a lot of talking about grit as an important 21st-century workforce skill because they believe, with much justification, that in the 21st century, income and wealth equality will continue to increase and most of the available jobs will be low-level service positions that involve wearing a nametag and saying “Yes sir. Immediately sir.”
Importantly, this national conversation about grit is not occurring in a vacuum. It’s taking place in an era of unprecedented wealth and income inequality in our country. And grit is being spoken of loudly and frequently by a lot of oligarchs and their toadies who have benefitted from this bifurcation and who also happen to be the same folks who want to centralize authority over education, to standardize and regiment that education, to steal away building-level teacher and administrator autonomy, and to subject teachers and students to distant, centralized command and control.
In other words, a lot of the talk about grit is coming members of the oligarchy, from plutocrats and their sycophants.
Back to those studies of whether children are properly gritful:
The child who has learned from his or her life experiences that rewards don’t come as promised is wise to take the marshmallow. He or she doesn’t show, by that, lack of grit. He or she shows sense gained from experience. The bird in the hand as opposed to the one in the bush.
He or she has learned a kind of grit: how to have the grit to ignore the rule and take what’s actually available while he or she can get it.
It’s mind-blowing to me that the famed, award-winning psychologists studying grit don’t grok that. There must be a pretty low bar for becoming a famed, award-winning psychologist these days.
BTW, what I do not see on the KIPP grit evaluation form linked to on Dr. Duckworth’s website is this question:
Does the child evaluate the task and determine whether it is worth doing? Does he or she have the self-interest, the drive, the determination, the tenacity, the perseverance in pursuit of his or her own goals to do THAT?
Interesting omission.
The short story writer in me is, naturally, imagining a tale involving one of these children and a famed grit researcher undergoing a trial, together, of true grit. Rod Serling would have done a great job with that premise, I think, in one of his little morality plays.
Thanks, Dr. Shepherd, for such a clear explanation of why reformers are on the grit bandwagon. Now I have to find a way to use gritfulness in a sentence sometime tomorrow as my new word for the day. (as in “if I had more gritfulness, I would get two miles of hiking trail cleared tomorrow instead of one.)
Grit is not measured by the marshmallow test. Duckworth explicitly started the grit research program on the basis of her perception that the marshmallow test was measuring something other than grit, namely short-term self-control and impulse control. She isn’t repudiating that the self-control and impulse control literature, she’s just trying to supplement it with the related (but distinct) notion of grit.
Yes, CTee, Dr. Duckworth distinguishes between resisting temptation and ability to sustain attention on long-term goals, and both are mixed up in the marshmallow test. But my point was that there’s much more involved in that test than those two traits: that kid who has failed to trust that the long-term reward will materialize may well be working from a sophisticated understanding of what his or her life, in fact, is like because all kids are little inference machines. We are all familiar with street-smart kids who have enormous “grit” when it comes to pursuing goals that they have set for themselves THAT ARE NOT THE APPROVED GOALS. That was my point. Again, see KIPP character report card featured prominently on Dr. Duckworth’s site. There are many, many traits here related to obedience and very little to do with independence of thought and judgment and action, skepticism, self-reliance, ability to stand up to negative social sanction (peer pressure), etc. NO ONE is arguing that it isn’t important for people to have tenacity. The whole point of Peter’s piece is that that’s simply OBVIOUS. But this grit training can easily become a nice spin on training in absolute obedience, character training for do-bots, and that spin appeals to a lot of authoritarian types. I don’t see anything about THAT on Duckworth’s site, but frankly, I have the same reaction to all this talk about grit that Diane did and am not going to spend a great deal of my precious time following these seers of the obvious who allow themselves, so obviously, to be used.
Robert,
As you know, I am a fan of your posts.
This may be the best one yet.
Three takes on grit. Perfect.
And don’t start me on the problems with self reporting questionnaires.
Too silly for words.
Anyone with 2 neurons to rub together to get a spark figures out what they ” want” and chooses to give it to them or not. Serious methodological issue with all those personality type tests.
Bob Shepherd: very well said! One of your best posts.
Let me add just two small points.
First, you raised in an earlier discussion the point that high-stakes standardized testing—the prep and the practice and the actual taking of them—are part of the student learning experience. And you raised a crucial point that the self-styled “education reformers” avoid at all costs—just what are the vast majority of students learning during all that prep and practice and taking? I agreed with your conclusion: they were not only learning things of little or no value, they were learning how not to think and not to experiment and not to take risks. I would simply emphasize what you touched on: just HOW are students taking these lessons in “grit” and “determination” and WHAT are they supposed to do with it once they’ve got “it” and of course, “cui bono?” [to whose benefit?].
Which leads me to my second point. I will never stop pointing this out because “cui bono?” applies with full force to “education reform.” What you describe is what the leading charterites/privatizers and their edubully enforcers and educrat enablers are mandating for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.
What they ensure for THEIR OWN CHILDREN is starkly different. Yes, their children develop “grit” and “determination” and let me point out how in just the case of Harpeth Hall [Michelle Rhee]:
Enriched academics, visual arts, performing arts, clubs and organizations, international exchange programs, collaboration with other schools, and community service programs.
Link: http://www.harpethhall.org
For “Winterim,” well, just click on the link below:
Link: http://www.harpethhall.org/podium/default.aspx?t=151822
So instead of learning “grit” and “determination” as a set of abstract atomized rules and strictures [eyes here!] they learn them as part of mastering a wide variety of social, emotional, intellectual and mechanical skills.
For a democratic society, a two-tiered education system that teaches a few to lead and the vast majority to follow, unworkable. For the world of the “education reformers” whose children are being [literally] groomed to be the leaders of tomorrow, the low-level skills and docility training for the vast majority of students makes perfect ₵ent¢—and it brings in lots of $tudent $ucce$$.
As always, thank you for your comments.
😎
Tiger Motherhood, here I come!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374069/politicos-voucher-story-bogus-michael-q-mcshane
Ed reformer rebuts Politico piece on vouchers by trashing…you guessed it! Public schools!
All roads lead to Our Failed and Failing Public Schools which are also Failure Factories.
People may one day need a voucher to escape public schools and learn science.
Its always instructive to read the original research that a buzzword is based off of. I would urge everyone to read Duckworth’s papers in particular.
Obviously, grit is extremely important. It is defined in the literature as “the tendency to pursue long-term challenging goals with perseverance and passion”.
No adult, much less a teacher or parent, could possibly argue that grit, so defined, is not tremendously important. Its certainly on my top 3-4 most important trait list, and it might just be #1.
Can we measure grit? Apparently, we can. Duckworth’s work is predicated on the notion that we can. How does she do it? Through an 8 question self-reporting questionnaire that would take anyone about 3 minutes to complete. They answer 1-5 on whether a phrase like “setbacks don’t discourage me” describes themselves. If you don’t think that such a thing could measure grit, its not enough to trot out a tired cliche about the inadequacies of multiple choice tests. You better be prepared to offer a serious methodological argument, and you also better be able to explain the apparent inconsistency with Duckworth’s findings.
Obviously the self-reporting questionnaire couldn’t measure grit in pre-K kids like some “reform movement” types might like to, but it could work for adolescents on up. That brings me to the next question: should we measure grit?
I don’t think we should. First of all, because teachers can already tell which students are grittier, probably more accurately than any questionnaire. Second, because its not clear what diagnostic purpose might be served by such a measurement. Do we give supplementary grit lessons to students who are lacking in grit? Seems silly to me. If grit can be taught, we should teach it to all students (though not through explicit “grit lessons”).
I don’t think we should. First of all, because teachers can already tell which students are grittier, probably more accurately than any questionnaire. Second, because its not clear what diagnostic purpose might be served by such a measurement. Do we give supplementary grit lessons to students who are lacking in grit? Seems silly to me.
Very well said, CTee!
“Obviously, grit is extremely important.”
Especially if you’re a bird!!
I do a lot of woodworking, and you should see the grit I go through!!!
Peter, I have been rolling on the floor reading this. What a delight! I agree with Diane. This piece is masterful!
Flexibility matters; that is, knowing when to stop pursuing a path that is not bearing fruit.
Grit is not always a virtue.
Grit is what keeps a lot of unhappy people in jobs that they hate.
Stiff upper lip and all that.
One must always ask, grit to what end? If all these folks were getting really excited about THAT, then I could climb on board.
The same folks who have made grit a meme are the ones who are pushing an extrinsic reward and punishment view of education. That’s not an accident.
This is driving innovation already. This is Pro-Core, an Ohio vendor that offers pre-tests for the Common Core tests.
“Pro-Core is an approved state vendor. As such, Pro-Core provides PARCC-like assessments in subjects across various grades which can be used as a growth measure as it relates to teacher effectiveness. based on data-driven instruction.”
I love the photo of the one little kid staring horrified at the screen. She’s not college and career ready. More tests needed.
http://pro-core.us/
The picture of that kid is priceless. Her reaction is entirely appropriate.
The Pro-Core site quotes Carl Sagan, “Understanding is a form of ecstasy.”
Yeah. Carl must have had in mind getting the correct answer to Evidence-Based Selected Response question 6 on CC$$.Literacy.ELA.RL.11-12.4b.
Nothing thrills like that.
Students Take the Pretest
Each subject area test takes about 1 to 1½ hours. It is suggested that the entire diagnostic proficiency test be given over several days near the beginning of the school year.
Students take the Interim-Tests
Interim tests are given later in the year to measure learning progress and readiness for the CCSS Summative Test.
I think I see where this is heading.
There is a metric for grit and a grit scale. At the Kipp schools students receive scores for grit and acadeic scores. If you google grit you can find the scales and how to administer them. They are multiple choice.
My opinion is that “grit” (strong character & personal courage) is determined by a person’s sense of self (identity). Young children need a safe (non-judgmental) environment that is “validating” and allows them freedom to develop their own identity. They need to have freedom to express their independence and individuality. They need to be able to form healthy “attachments” to their teachers as well as parents. They need social interaction with peers and adults, as well as their natural environment. They learn from the behavior that is “modeled” for them. (80% of behavior is learned from modeling, while only about 15% is learned from verbal communication.) Children need and deserve mutual respect from adults, just as they are expected to give respect to adults.
The Common Core Environment (CCE) is the opposite from what children need in order to develop their own identity. As they reach age 5 and first begin to express their independence and individuality, they are “shut down” in the oppressive CCE.
They are entrapped, managed, and controlled by domineering teachers who are under stress and often perceived by the children as “bullies”. The children cannot form healthy attachments to teachers in CCE, nor do they have opportunities for social interaction with peers, since most of their work is designed to be done independently in isolation.
The intimidation of the authoritarian, critical, performance based reward/punishment environment is punitive and fearful for children. It causes chronic stress. The “work” is boring and repetitive, and there is little joy, spontaneity, or humor. They learn to repress their own needs and emotions to please the demands of their teacher/parents. They have chronic fear of making mistakes and displeasing their teacher or parents. This chronic stress leads to desensitation and regression in their social & emotional development.
Morals are part of social/emotional development. Indications of moral deficit is becoming common in our society, as we see more products of the punitive school environment that has intensified over 30 years with the testing obsession. We are seeing corporate and government leaders who have high intellect, but weak morals (think Wall St, Enron, gov scandals, etc).
It is my observation that “grit” is found in a person’s emotional development as part of their identity or character. If they have a strong sense of their authentic self, they are more likely to have empathy and compassion. However, if they have an insecure sense of self and are immature emotionally, they will be less likely to have empathy, compassion, or moral courage.
The CCE stifles children’s imagination and natural curiosity, as well as their independence and individuality. It forces children to repress their own emotions and needs in order to please domineering adults. They are conditioned to “trust” authority and never question it….even if that authority is “abusive”. They learn to do as they are told and become obedient children who cannot think for themselves. They are conditioned to become “codependent” adults who are insecure and without their own sense of identity.
Codependency shows up in many ways and usually includes addictions:
Some will find their identity in their work and become workaholics , some will be codependent in relationships with people, others will be codependent with alcohol or other substances, some will have food addictions and eating disorders. Some will require continued “incarceration” and become dependent on the justice system.
The CCE will not produce people with strong character or moral courage “grit”.
It will produce people who are codependent and with addictions as their escape.
…just my opinion…. based on years of work in mental health and education.
Sounds persuasive to me. I argue that the majority of the electorate is already like that, and that that is responsible for the election of Obama. To put it slightly another way: the evidence for the failure of public schools over all is Obama’s election, twice.
Any thoughts mimi?
I agree with you Harlan. There was no critical reading of his thoughts captured on paper, or an examination of his actions past. No one should be surprised by his actions, he made it abundantly clear what his thoughts were and who had influenced him.
Harlan,
My opinion is that Obama did not cause the problem, but he has perpetuated the problem and therefore abused his power.
It’s getting really difficult to spot a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” when it comes to politicians and corporate executives. 1984 in progress!
The learner’s developing identity is one of the key elements of the approach I cited below.
That is a brilliant and funny post.
There’s another take on resilience that’s worth looking into. It’s described in an article that reports studies done in the UK on developing lifelong learners. It’s more along the lines of “treating children with support and kindness helps them do better in life.”
In the article, resilience in learning is defined as the opposite of “dependence and fragility”:
“Dependent and fragile learners are more easily disheartened when they get stuck
or make mistakes. Their ability to persevere is lower, and they are likely to seek
and prefer less challenging situations. They are dependent upon other people and
external structures for their learning and for their sense of self-esteem. They are
passive imbibers of knowledge, rather than active agents of their own learning.
The opposite of dependence is resilience. Learners with these characteristics like a
challenge, and are willing to ‘give it a go’ even when the outcome and the way to
proceed are uncertain. They accept that learning is sometimes hard for everyone,
and are not frightened of finding things difficult. They have a high level of
‘stickability’ and can readily recover from frustration. They are able to ‘hang in’
with learning even though they may, for a while, feel somewhat confused or even
anxious. They do not mind making mistakes every so often, and can learn from
them.”
(From “Learning How to Learn: The Dynamic Assessment of Learning Power,” by Ruth Deakin Crick, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 135–153.)
Resilience is presented here as one of seven dimensions of “learning power” that the researchers were studying to students develop. The emphasis is less on “grit” training than on helping students develop “a sense of agency and self-regulation” in their learning. I’m guessing that what she describes won’t be found in Kipp school. The author has stated elsewhere that as students go through traditional schooling, their self-reported resilience tends to get worse, not better.
As much as I resist systems approaches to teaching and learning, I found a lot to like about this approach. It’s constructivist in its theoretical framework and focuses on how dynamic self-assessment (rather than static summative testing) and flexible, learner-centered practices can help build each student’s learning capacity. There’s plenty that could be adapted to the classroom without a teacher buying into the whole program. The overall narrative of learning as a journey with the learner as the main character is a nice idea, I think. Metaphor also plays role in her conception of how kids can strengthen their ability to learn. Here’s the link:
Click to access deakin.pdf
Ouch. Sorry about the bad formatting. Try the link if you want to read that excerpt. It’s under the “Dependence and Fragility” subhead.
The reemergence of grit is really a contemporary reiteration of the the old saw about the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor.
The worthy poor are deferential, compliant and hardworking, unlike the unworthy poor, who are coarse and shiftless (or else just cost too much, such as ELLs and other high-needs students) You may notice how well it dovetails with charter school enrollment and retention policies.
As in 19th century Britain, the worthy poor are to be given a helping, if intensely patronizing, hand. The unworthy poor, however, are to be feared, disciplined and controlled. And, since we live in a neoliberal era where everything is a commodity, both are potential profit centers: charter schools (with the kids SLANTing till Pavlov’s dogs come home) for the worthy, and private, for-profit prisons for the unworthy.
I thought children were failing because they had ineffective teachers, but now it seems as though they are implying the issue is the children themselves lack “grit”.
Diane, please keep choosing your words recklessly. “It makes me want to throw up” says it all perctly. No need to apologize for the unvarnished truth! Plain speaking is so refreshing! Keep it up.
And thanks for links to Curmudgication, which is terrific.
Your fan, The Crabby Counselor
Someone needs to expose the grit fetish for what it is: a thinly veiled propagandist tool to brainwash Gen. Y and Z parents and their children into believing that if you don’t succeed it is your own fault.
Sure, as another ‘thing’ to measure it is as funny as, say, an emperor wearing no clothes. BUT I believe it to be true that it is a well-calculated drive to push back “free-handouts” such as public education.
I’m not tired at the moment and I have had quite a bit of time to choose my words very carefully:
The idea of “measuring grit” makes me want to throw up.
So, FWIW, Diane, you do have company.
It’s easy to sit at a desk and come up with ideas and slogans that will legitimize what you’re being hired to do. Easy answers to cloak difficult, multi-faceted problems:
“Try harder! Show some grit! Nobody gives a s*#@ about what you think or feel. We don’t care about your junkie mother, the cockroaches in your bed or your parent’s divorce and loss of your lovely home to foreclosure. Get over it! Sit down at this computer and complete this test so we can measure and compare your current ‘GRIT Quotient’ to your peers in Shanghai. Now.”
To the originators of this concept: Try to personally take your ideas into the classroom and employ them for a year or two (not a day, week, or month, please) and then come back with some real findings and evidence.