Ever since Paul Tough popularized the idea of “grit” (e.g., determination, persistence) in his best-selling book How Children Succeed as the key ingredient in how children can succeed despite their circumstances, grit has entered educational discourse as a remedy for poverty. Character education, always an embedded staple in American education, went explicit. It was not enough to have a code of behavior or discipline, but it became a necessity in some schools to teach grit or character. KIPP, which was a major player in Tough’s book, became an exemplar for teaching “grit” to poor kids.
Jeff Snyder of Carleton College signed up to take a month-long online course with Dave Levin, the co-founder of KIPP to learn more about KIPP’s character education program. He was enthusiastic when he started but disillusioned by the time the course ended.
First, he asserts, despite the hoopla, no one really knows how to teach character or even grit.
Second, it may be impossible to teach character without any relationship to morality. The current approach, he writes, “unwittingly promotes an amoral and careerist “looking out for number one” point-of-view. Never before has character education been so completely untethered from morals, values, and ethics.” He suggests that fraudster Bernie Madoff had “grit,” he was certainly hard-working and persistent, but he lacked morality.
Third, this mode of education drastically constricts the overall purpose of education. Grit is supposed to facilitate college and career readiness. It is supposed to close the achievement gap. It is utilitarian. It drives towards certain goals and necessarily overlooks other goals of schooling. Snyder writes: “Gone are any traditional concerns with good and evil or citizenship and the commonweal. Gone, too, the impetus to bring youngsters into the fold of a community that is larger than themselves—a hopelessly outdated sentiment, according to the new character education evangelists. Virtue is no longer its own reward.”

Grit is for sandpaper, not kids.
LikeLike
Good one.
Reminds me of “High stakes are for tomatoes, not for children.”
LikeLike
Two big problems with “grit” (among many other possibilities). First, we almost exclusively teach it to poor and minority kids as if lack of “grit” is their problem, rather than poverty and racism. These are kids who are often responsible for younger siblings, sometimes even parents. Very often they have to find paying jobs at early ages. They have to navigate tough and violent neighborhood (and sometimes even families). Etc., etc. And we spoiled white folk, most of whom couldn’t survive a day of their lives, are going to presume to teach them “grit”??
Second, “grit”, the ability to stick with something and persevere in the face of obstacles, is a by-product of interest. Ever seen a child building a block tower? How many times does the tower fall down and they just re-build it? Ever seen a kid who really wants to figure out how to draw, say, a horse? How many horses will they draw over and over trying to get it “right” by their own standards. When we try to teach “grit” to get kids to get them to sit still and complete tasks that we designate to our standards, it’s just all about power and control (which is the reason for point number one).
LikeLike
Dienne: well said.
As in so many other cases, the self-proclaimed “education reformers” play fast and loose with the English language. For example, Chiara has pointed out that they tout “choice” when they really mean (and when able, enforce) “choice but no voice” aka “y’all get to choose from among choices that ensure $tudent $ucce$$ for the few at the expense of the many.”
The idea of “grit” in rheephorm think doesn’t just apply to the students in a particular charter school or chain either. It basically means: be obedient; be quiet; and get busy doing what I tell you to do, whether it’s students or parents or entire communities.
Hence it’s not just KIPP SLANT but unchecked mayoral control of schools and midyear dumps and playing by different rules and all the rest.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Some school leaders are pushing grit in the wealthier burbs, too. The cities are, in my opinion, the appetizer. The big $ in the suburbs is the dream main course of reformers. You have no idea how hard we are working out here to keep the beast at bay. They are infiltrating in micro-steps, but they are here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Second, “grit”, the ability to stick with something and persevere in the face of obstacles, is a by-product of interest.
Excellent point. There is no room in the ethos of schools driven by tests for this powerful incentive for learning.
LikeLike
Excellent points, Dienne! It is no accident that the rise of “grit” has coincided with the rise in standardization and attacks on low-income black and brown communities. “Grit” places an emphasis on compliant and unquestioning perseverance on a task, regardless of that task’s worth. And as the academic tasks of school have become more and more ridiculous under high-stakes testings and Common Core, “grit” is an important control mechanism to silence rising and appropriate student rebellion.
As an aside, isn’t it funny how reformers love to praise the quality of “grit” when that means a student sitting silently working through their unengaging test-prep curriculum, but consider the students, parents, teachers, and communities rising up again and again to resist their disgusting policies-never giving up in the face of great power and threats (displaying an abundance of their beloved “grit”!) – as also lacking “character”? What, “grit” only matters when you’re following the 1%’s rules?
LikeLike
Grit should not be a test taking requirement. Long, arduous, confusing, frustrating, subjective, and impossibly difficult CC tests do not inspire grit in children because it is a senseless activity. Can’t begin to count the number of 8th graders I see with their heads down after 20 minutes, staring with glazed eyes for the remaining 70 minutes.
They just don’t care – and why should they?
LikeLike
What if it’s not about GRIT like Dweck and Tough preach but about giving kids second, and third, and fourth chances to succeed. Teaching perseverance isn’t easy but it can be modeled. Our students need as many chances in life to succeed before they become adults and run out of those chances. Failure is an option in my classroom especially when we learn from our mistakes.
LikeLike
Second, third, and fourth chances, failure….this is grit, this IS perseverance. I want my kid in your classroom.
LikeLike
and 5th and 6th and 7th…and 20th We keep going and going until success. If one pathway doesn’t work we look for another.
I can’t tell you how many times my mother would tell me “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again”. If I didn’t follow that advice I wouldn’t be where I am today.
Thanks Dorothy, your child would be more than welcome.
LikeLike
“Failure is an option in my classroom. . . ”
Not in mine. I do not allow the four letter “F” word in my class (and I’m not talking about the word fuck).
Fail/Failure are quite destructive concepts and have no place in a just, civilized public school class. A, B, C, D and F, only one has a specific word attached and that one should be abandoned ASAP.
LikeLike
You’ve missed my point and your vulgarity is unappreciated. We fail and fail again and again. We are human.
Do you not get back on the horse and try when you’ve been knocked down or rejected or do you just wallow in your own misery?
Have you never failed at something Mr. Swacker or are you perfect?
Do you not let your students learn from their mistakes?
LikeLike
I think you’re both saying the same thing. Duane is just saying, as only Duane can, that he doesn’t call it failure.
LikeLike
Carol Dweck doesn’t preach “grit.” She researched “growth mindset,” which seems to have gotten lost in the Angela Duckworth translation to “grit” (Paul Tough was citing Duckworth’s work in his book)–no one seems to understand the very simple premise of mindset when they’re discussing grit these days. http://mindsetonline.com/howmindsetaffects/parentsteacherscoaches/index.html
LikeLike
No, I didn’t miss your point. I knew what you were saying, however, the choice of words, in this case “failure” can be quite important. Why is there only one word with a meaning on the grade scale? Why use a grade scale, which is conceptually bankrupt? Why “grade” students? Some practices need to be questioned at the foundational level and not at a secondary or tertiary level.
And that is where you missed my point, questioning even why we grade students. In order for important fallacies of practices to be thrown out they need to be challenged at the fundamental level and shown to be illogical and harmful to students. Grades/grading is one of those educational malpractices that needs serious challenging even though Noel Wilson has already proven the complete epistemological and ontological invalidity of that educational malpractice.
As far as your last couple of questions and of my “vulgarity”, well I wear that vulgarity proudly as most in education need to have their eyes opened to what is really happening and being “on the edge”/at times vulgar serves to highlight the idiocies of the idiologies that abound.
And I give myself an A in “failing” for the many times that I have not been able to accomplish tasks, projects, etc. . . but in the end I don’t give a fuck about them as they are in the past and I can’t do a damn thing about my prior shortcomings.
LikeLike
When ever I read your responses, I see why May King sees us as similar in our philosophy of education. I had no choice but to confer a grade on each student. I did not give tests, and I did not put grades on the student writing when I returned it, until the last semester. By then the rubric (the clear expectations for a piece of writing) was well known to THE PARENTS as well as the kids.
Seriously, these east-side Manhattan parents wanted to know how their kids were doing… so I made it possible, in the skills sheet that accompanied each returned letter which the kids wrote to me!
And, there were weekly letters to parents, parent conferences and phone-calls to parents. One attorney collected all my weekly letters to the parents and the students into a book, noting the unique tool that I used… i was in the rubber room when he didi this.
back to the progress report for each student:
At the top of the skills sheet I wrote : Here’s what…. needs to do as a writer.
Parents signed it. Thus, when a parent came to see me about their kid’s progress, they KNEW what the kid could do, or what was still not being addressed… like punctuation, spelling, grammar, or more important clarity of language and thought.
No parent, with one exception, ever disagreed with the final ‘grade’ which the school required that I assign to each student.
That one exception says it all… that girl, who barely could put 100 words together on paper, and who chattered through my classes, was the daughter of the PTA president, and a prominent rich, restaurant owner.
She was part and parcel of the drug culture that took out a portion of our student body that sad, last year of my practice…. but she was not swept up in the terrible days of this debacle.
She was however, scared that I knew… the kids used the letters to do more than discuss their reading, and they revealed their lives; (one parent did her Masters thesis on the relationship that the letters engendered between adolescent girls and an adult they trusted).
Ergo sum, this girl believed that I KNEW she was the druggies gal-pal… and I did, but I said nothing.
BUT she told her mother that I called her a ‘f@%king, slutty, dyslexic whore,” (sounds like me)
(she also TOLD ALLTHE STUDENTS, which their emails explained to me, otherwise I was never told what allegations were made, and I never had a single meeting, before I got that “you have been found guilty” by the superintendent of District 2, Elaine Fink….gotta love her name… which was actually MRS ANTHONY ALVERADO… GOOGLE HIM).
SOOO, MAURA’S mom who sat next to the new principal DR. DENISE LEVINE–whose main job in this tiny NYC middle school (BEFORE SHE GOT TO BE SUPERINTENDENT OF A BROOKLYN DISTRICT) was to find a way to remove me, said that this was corporal punishment” and out I went….
… and as soon as I was gone, Maura’s grade was CHANGED… and I had to hire an attorney to get out of the rubber room, because Ivan Tiger, the UFT Manhattan rep, sat mute at that meeting where Ms Fink told me how SHE found me guilty.
It is the total absence of the dramatic stories like my one, the ones that refute the ‘bad teacher’ narrative of the media, which are so badly needed.
Such an interesting story… Rob Kall, by the way, the publisher at OEN where I write ,is doing a series about THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STORY.. “Writing stories that change the world. I think you alls hold go there, and tell your stories, and maybe change his belief that ‘schools are not a ‘topic’ that he is very interested in.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Writing-Stories-to-Change-by-Rob-Kall-Activism_Change_Story_Story-Mythology-Archetypes-150124-432.html
LikeLike
I think the “teaching” of character goes back to the nature versus nurture discussion. We attempted a character education program that took on cartoon dimensions. The program was built on the premise that children with better self esteem would have better character. We had to teach IMLAC, “I am lovable and capable.” After a time, it became funny. “Now, Felix, remember, you are lovable and capable so slamming Tom’s head into the wall is wrong.” Whether it’s “grit” or “self esteem,” you can model and discuss ethical choices, but the ultimate choice is up to the individual.
LikeLike
I suggest that students learn true grit by joining their parents and teachers in opposing those who would impose it – by which they mean reflexive obedience to authority, and tolerance of tedium and meaninglessness – upon them.
Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s what the so-called reformers have in mind.
LikeLike
Hey Mike,
Fellow SEA teacher. I believe in grit, just a bit differently then Dwek and Tough. I don’t buy into the KIPP crap. But, I do believe we should all have GRIT when it comes to fighting the so-called reformers.
LikeLike
Echoing other posters, grit is wonderful provided that it is directed at school tasks. The concept has value but its application is somewhat condescending. And as an above poster noted, grit is not something that everyone (or anyone) universally applies. I have tremendous grit in gaming and strategy. I don’t have a lot of grit when it comes to dieting. When I was in school, I had tons of grit for writing. None for geometry.
LikeLike
“Imagine attending a high school where your teachers grade you on how well you handle disappointments and failures; respond to the feelings of your peers; and adapt to different social situations. Imagine, too, that the results are tabulated in a document called a “character growth card” and sent home to your parents along with your report card.”
I think parents here would go absolutely berserk if they put this program in the local public school. Since when did we all agree on how to define “character”? What if you have a 15 year old who doesn’t “adapt to different social situations” in the prescribed manner? Does he get training? Who decides whether he’s “adapting” correctly or not?
LikeLike
They will use fear of SAT’s and getting into the best colleges, as the way to trick suburban parents into accepting grit. School leaders play on the prestige of Penn and parents trust Penn and the school leaders. Many suburban parents still think ed reform is an urban issue.
Lack of media coverage limits their knowledge. They are trusting and blind in many ways. If public school parents understood it, I agree – they would go berserk!
LikeLike
So, the “grit” they are learning at Kipp is to comply and act like compliant, silent prisoners. No thank you. Grit, when in your eye, is an irritant that needs to be removed. Grit, when in your teeth, needs to be flossed out. Grit is not a necessary human ingredient. Grit is just another throwaway rheeformy term. Lately I’m seeing the word re-imagine/re-imagining when it applies to edubullying. Gotta give them credit for their abilities to speak so confusingly.
LikeLike
Current and former students get it right when they call it the Kids in Prison Program…
LikeLike
GRIT:
Great Results in Tomatoes??
LikeLike
Character and morality probably cannot be taught but rather must be learned. The grit that is most important for children is that which they accumulate from playing outdoors, whether in the yard, at the beach or at a playground.
LikeLike
A 2011 Gallup poll shows that 9 out of 10 people in the U.S. believe in God. But we have removed God from school. There is no moral framework without God. Character Education without any reference to right and wrong and the intrinsic value of doing the right thing just because it is the right thing doesn’t work. All of the PBIS programs that rely on extrinsic rewards for our students to work for, the tickets, the marbles in the jar, the pizza parties do nothing to teach them actual character.
Without God, there is no reason to be good. If we are just randomly here because of an accidental big bang and we will die and turn into dust, why should we be anything but selfish manipulative creatures that look for comfort and pleasure? Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something – a singularity. All of which is inside of an expanding universe began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown – See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.wek9erkx.dpuf
But we are each born with the knowledge of right and wrong and we know intuitively, without civil laws, that murder is wrong, that lying is wrong. Where does this come from?
So outside of school walls 9 out of 10 people believe in morality because God created people and created the ten commandments, which can be condensed down to two: Love the Lord with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. But inside schools we cannot acknowledge these truths so we get what we get.
LikeLike
“Without God, there is no reason to be good”
Bullshit!!!
LikeLike
First of all, it’s utter nonsense that there is no reason to be good without God. It’s not like it’s atheists who are blowing up newspapers and abortion clinics.
Second, I’ll say what I always say when the issue of religion in the public schools comes up: fine, if all you Christians can get together and agree on a curriculum for how it’s to be taught, you can do it. The caveat is that all Christians – the Catholics, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Mormons, the Pentacostals, every denomination that considers itself Christian – get a seat at the table and decisions have to be made by consensus, not majority rule. I’ll supply the army of custodians with strong stomachs to clean up afterwards because within the hour all these good “Christians” will be ripping each others’ guts out. Then maybe you’ll understand why we don’t teach Christianity in schools.
LikeLike
Bull! One of the most “Christian” people I have met in my life is an atheist! Some of the most hypocritical people I have met in my life regularly attend church every Sunday while they treat others like S… the rest of the week.
We, as a society, must collectively pass on our moral compass – it doesn’t have to have anything to do with a belief in God!
LikeLike
Atheists fail to make an important distinction. One can be good (as many atheists are) without believing in God. But one cannot be good without there being a God. That is, they can believe in a moral law (and live accordingly) without believing in God. But they cannot justify this belief without reference to a Moral Law Giver (God).
The truth is that many of the great atheists themselves understood well that without God there is no basis for being good for goodness sake. The famous French atheist, Jean Paul Sartre said, without God, “I was like a man who’s lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, not right or wrong, nor anyone to give me orders” (The Flies, Act III). Nietzsche said that when God died (see the “Madman” in Gay Science), then all objective values died with Him. And a subjective understanding of goodness to which everyone can assign their own relative meaning, is not goodness at all–let alone being goodness for goodness sake. (Nazis thought they were being good)
http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/Atheism/CanAtheistsBeingGoodWithoutGod.htm
LikeLike
Our capacity for goodness comes largely from our biological need for social support and relatedness. Read about attachment theory. Our capacity for evil likewise comes from the same place, except from its failure. When we have been securely cared for and learn to trust, we learn to be good because we learn to care about others. To the extent we experience lack of security and care, we fail to learn to love and trust and care for others and we act in evil ways as a result of our insecurity.
LikeLike
“But we are each born with the knowledge of right and wrong and we know intuitively, without civil laws, that murder is wrong, that lying is wrong. Where does this come from?”
Even if you are correct that everyone is born knowing right from wrong, why would you presume that this human trait is somehow ‘god’ given?
Children can quite easily learn to be selfish, petty, or pious, depending on their individual life circumstances, their own innate personality traits and their intellectual capacity. And while many people claim that they believe in ‘god’, many of those people do not believe in religion.
Comparative religion, within the discipline of sociology, is a fascinating topic for study and should be part of course work during secondary education.
The problem with teaching ‘god’, is coming to an agreement on whose idea of god should be taught.
LikeLike
The founders of this nation were Protestants, of a reformed theology clarified by Calvin. They believed that any person could read the Bible on their own.
Lincoln listed his three rhetorical influences as Shakespeare, the Bible and Euclid.
I did not say anything about religion. I am simply talking about a belief in the existence of God, the God of the Bible who gave us the 10 commandments, which provide the moral laws. Without them — all is relative and meaningless.
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.”—Hebrews 8:10
My point is that children can behave well or badly depending on their upbringing but they know when they are being bad. The law is written on their hearts.
If we come from ancient slime that oozed out of the ocean, after an ocean was created on an earth in a universe, that somehow all of this well orchestrated life came from non-life, for no reason because there is no creator and no God, then how is there any morality? There is no moral law without a moral law Giver – God.
LikeLike
Dawn,
Your attempts to justify an unjustifiable position regarding this god of yours shows a lack of human understanding of the human, very human condition in which we all find ourselves. Believe what you want but please do not push (as in the old drug pusher meaning) your opiate of the masses.
LikeLike
Amen.
LikeLike
Praise the Lord! Flerp! has joined the conversation.
LikeLike
Professed unbelievers prove things all the time. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
If you admit that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal….
Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God. http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/preproof.php
The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.
C.S.Lewis came to study at Oxford as an avowed atheist He ended up being one of the greatest Christian apologists. “In reading Chesterton (The Eternal Man), as in reading MacDonald (The Shadows), I did not know what I was letting myself in for”, he writes in Surprised by Joy. “A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”
I am not trying to push anything…except in that God instructs us to defend the faith in an effort to save souls. If you are so sure of your position why do you push so vehemently against mine?
The reason this discussion is occurring on this blog is because the federal government is trying to place itself as the arbiter of character for our children. This is a matter for parents to decide in the privacy of their own homes. I am asking for the government to get out of the business of testing for “grit” and developing some kind of score that will label our children on some kind of character spread sheet.
LikeLike
If God created Man with an intrinsic sense of morality, and all children know right from wrong because God’s moral law is “written on their hearts,” and 90% of Americans believe in God, then why do we need God in school?
LikeLike
We just need to get the government out of the business of character education. That is for parents in the home. To expect a school to be able to teach character in school without a moral framework is impossible. So either let the Bible stand as moral law in school or take character education out of school.
LikeLike
I’m a fan of the “show, don’t tell” approach when it comes to things like this. That is, I think that character can be taught by modeling much more effectively than by explicit instruction. I’m not sure that “character education” requires or involves instruction about concepts of right and wrong. If it doesn’t, it still sounds like a waste of time, not to mention condescending and frivolous.
If “character education” does involve instruction about right and wrong, then, I’m opposed to it being taught in public schools, because I don’t think government should be teaching right and wrong. It’s too Orwellian for my taste.
I also think your comments here show that teaching right and wrong in public schools could lead to all kinds of First Amendment problems. My sense is that the notion that all morality derives from “the God of the Bible who gave us the Ten Commandments” is very widely held. So it may not be possible to teach morality without also engaging in religious instruction. In that sense, I think your fears about schools teaching “character” without reference to God may be unfounded.
LikeLike
My fears are not unfounded. The facts are in Alexander’s ESEA bill being discussed now.
The ESEA Reauthorization bill continually refers to interventions of ‘at risk’ students, and then states how they will be treated for remediation: Specialized Systems of Support; Response to Interventions, Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports funded through Special Education, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). And those children with a disability, TITLE I, (any child not meeting COMMON CORE STANDARDS) will be targeted for interventions under the Rehabilitation Act as “related services.”
How do you measure, score, and remediate those social, emotional, behavioral, dispositions of students?
It’s all about how TITLE I identifies the child and how IDEA implements the interventions.
LikeLike
I meant your fears that teachers will be teaching morality without reference to God.
LikeLike
The latest addition to the Common Core outrage is that attitudes, values, and dispositions are being tested, known as “grit.” There are specific outcomes that are deemed correct. Teachers or perhaps adaptive computer programs will be “:teaching” students how to correctly answer these “values” questions. The computer delivered test will see to it that the student is subjected to interventions until compliance is achieved. Behavior modification not moral law. Get it?
LikeLike
Dawn,
They want to know why teaching morality is necessary if God wrote the law into our hearts:
He also gave us free will, and we see here rebellion walking hand in hand with pride–the deadliest and surest road to self-destruction.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
This is a pointless conversation. There is zero evidence that character can be taught – in the school/home, with/without gods involved.
What is well-proven when you survey societies tribal/global, secular/religious is that humans evolved to be socially cooperative. That’s where the “good” comes from. They also evolved not to let others one-up them (protect, defend, acquire). That’s where the bad comes from.
Actual Facts About Religion and Society
Education, intelligence and religion
– An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2000.
– The majority of believers come from poor and ignorant countries. Poor uneducated women have more children – which is the main contributing factor to there being so many religious people. (Religion is anti-women on so many levels).
– In America, fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do.
– Among members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% are believers.
Healthy moral societies and religion
The percentage of believers in U.S. prisons is 99.9%! Rational people, apparently do not commit crime. Note also the divorce rate is lowest among atheists. Apparently, having better reasons for marrying than God ordains it is more enduring.
The most damning evidence against religion as a negative social force is this study, http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
This 2005 study found that, “More secular, pro-evolution democracies have come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.”
“The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.
LikeLike
Updated link http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
LikeLike
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. The other “statistics” you are throwing around have no merit without a reliable source.
LikeLike
Mincing words? The plain meaning of democracy in Creighton’s paper means non-dictatorial, non-theocratic – in other words, the government is of, by, and for the people.
If you have heard of Google, you could find all of these sources by pasting in the phrases, which are all direct excerpts.
— Less intelligent = more religious: Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, 2002, reviewed all studies taken of religion and IQ
“Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold “beliefs” of any kind.”
Furthermore, in a more recent meta-analysis, 53 of 63 studies found that analytical intelligence correlated negatively with religiosity: “New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith”. Ars Technica, August 11, 2013, Rathi, Akshat
— More religious parents = less intelligent kids: “Understanding Human Behavior” by James V. McConnel (1986)
“Sociologist Zena Blau of the University of Houston recently conducted a study of more than a thousand children in Chicago. […] In 1981 Blau reported that IQs were lowest among children whose mothers have overly strict religious beliefs. Children whose mothers were from a non-denominational or non-religious background had the highest average IQs – 110 for whites, 109 for blacks. Children whose mothers belonged to “fundamentalist” religious groups tended to have IQs that were 7 to 10 points lower. According to Blau, these religion-IQ differences hold even when you take into account the mother’s social class, current occupational status, and education.”
— NAS religiosity: “Leading Scientists Still Reject God.” Nature, 1998; 394, 313. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham.
— Atheists in Prison: FOIA request of Federal Bureau of Prisons by Herman Mehta
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/
BTW, Dawn, you are noticeably argumentative, tending toward mean, closed to evidence, pushing an exclusionary agenda. Ironic, considering the topic. It’s pretty apparent that the approach to character education that you espouse, didn’t work in your case. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Mean? I actually have never been called mean before. Pushing an exclusionary agenda in a mean and argumentative way is definitely not my intention. I am unwilling to be shot down by people who look down on those who believe in God. I will defend the faith no matter how unpopular it is to do so on this blog. You might say I have “grit.”
There are so many brilliant people who are Christian apologists who make mincemeat of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in debates that I find your argument to be quite silly. Do you really think only dumb people believe in God or believing in God somehow makes people dumb? I would offer up Professor of Mathematics, John Lennox from Oxford as a great example. See the video below.
Are Top Scientists Really So Atheistic? Look at the data:
The book from Oxford University press, is entitled Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund.
In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/13/are-top-scientists-really-so-atheistic-look-at-the-data/#.VMhSsS72pHA
LikeLike
Just the fact, M’am. Just the facts.
LikeLike
Dear Patriotism For All,
That’s an interesting name “Patriotism For All.” What does that mean? Does it mean that you would like to mandate that everyone be patriotic? Does it mean that you want to be like Hitler? He wanted patriotism for all, too….his patriotism. Do you want all the little brown shirts to fall in line? Do you want to teach that everyone must think alike to YOUR patriotic theme? Maybe your definition of grit is to defy God! Maybe your definition of grit is to make sure every child going to school will defy God! You might not want all those poor little children who have parents that believe in God, to turn out dumb, do you? Are you saying the state would be a better parent because parents are too religious and too dumb? Ahhhh, but you could do better? Oh, Master!
Are you saying that the founders were dumb because they gave you the right to think whatever you want, even if it is dumb? Because you are a hypocrite. It sounds like you want to be the next savior and you are pretty smug about it, too. Because what you want is worse than anything I can think of for our children. You want to make everyone like you! And that is dumb! You are a weak little dumb person who thinks they can tell people what to think! Sorry, Patriotism For All! This nation and our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. People can think and believe in what they want. Our moral code is based on a set of rules. Thou shalt not….but what you want is the 10 Commandments to be yours that say…you will do as I say.
Slither back to your corner, and re-write your name. It is dumb.
LikeLike
Pointless? ya think?
LikeLike
Dawn – get over your Christian persecution complex. Disagreeing with you is not “looking down on you”.
Anita – wow, just wow. All that over someone’s screenname? Did you even bother to read anything s/he wrote?
LikeLike
Mr. Patriot said:
“An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found.
The majority of believers come from poor and ignorant countries.”
I don’t think I have a “Christian persecution complex” because I perceive that he is looking down on me. He states that he is looking down on me and all Christians. He thinks we are dumb. I just don’t feel like letting statements like that stand without a response.
Again take a look at some lectures by John Lennox, a professor of Mathematics from Oxford University, who holds three doctorates. He is a brilliant sweet old man who wants nothing more than to illustrate the logic and science behind being a believer in contrast to the ideological faith it takes to be an atheist. He does a great job. If you have ears, listen.
LikeLike
This may seem a bit off topic but it does have to do with religion. There are thousands of Christian denominations/sects—-the same diversity in belief also is found in Islam and Buddhism—-and here a Christian Denomination Selector site. In fact, in the U.S. alone, there are about 3,000 Christian Sects to choose from. I even dated a woman who belonged to two different Christian Sects because it was the only way she could hear support for her Christian thinking.
This site claims to be the place where you can figure out where your Christian beliefs match up with. The site claims, “This is the simple, clear, and accurate way to examine your beliefs and figure out which Christian denomination would be most appropriate for you.”
“This SelectSmart.com Religion selector, a free online personality quiz, is a creation of Mike Hopkins and for amusement purposes only. The implicit and explicit opinions expressed here are the author’s. SelectSmart.com does not necessarily agree.”
http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom
LikeLike
Muslim jihadists believe in their own God, and they believe that those of us who don’t believe as they do should be murdered. God doesn’t equal good, not in humans, not in education. We don’t all believe in the same God, and some don’t believe at all.
This is why the US government separated church and state – but now with “opportunity scholarships” that line is blown.
LikeLike
I am arguing against “opportunity scholarships,” not for them. I do not want the re-authorization of ESEA as proposed by Lamar Alexander to pass. I do not want a voucher system to be put in place nationally. The biggest mistake a private or religious school could make would be to take voucher funds because then they will be put under the control of the federal government. They will have to teach the Common Core and give standardized tests on schedule.
There is only one God. There are many cults and false religions. People may believe whatever they like. School is not the place to teach character and definitely should not be testing for certain character traits. My point is that to try to teach character or ethics without a moral code is impossible. And God is the author of moral law. If you don’t want to include teaching the Bible in school then keep character education which is controlled and tested by the government out. Like others have pointed out, Bernie Madoff had plenty of “grit.”
LikeLike
Grit is for turkeys!
LikeLike
“It was not enough to have a code of behavior or discipline”
Why is that “not enough”? Doesn’t the code of behavior or discipline encompass or underlie the shared beliefs on character? That’s how laws work. Why don’t they trust the students to make the same connection between the rule and the idea behind the rule everyone else makes in adult life without this obsessive command and control?
I think they get that the reason they can’t break a rule is not just because it’s an arbitrary rule but because there’s an idea about shared values or decent behavior behind it. I think they can be trusted to make that connection. If they don’t get that then there’s a problem with the rule, not the student.
LikeLike
Levin’s whole idea of teaching a values-free program of character education is profoundly disturbing, and this article gets at why. If “character” is only the ability to effectively carry out your plans — and not the ability to create good plans in the first place — then not only Bernie Madoff but Hitler or Mussolini or anyone else who ever held a position of power has “character.” Essentially, he takes the distinction between performance character and moral character (see http://vimeo.com/21766221) and decides that only the first is worthy of the school’s explicit support. Creepy.
LikeLike
It’s true, no on knows how to teach character or grit, because TEACHING such things is impossible.
I know that here at this blog, you are tired of hearing about the REAL National Standards, BUT THIS is a perfect example of how that research was based on authentic principles that underly learning.
The word ‘ grit’ was not in the lexicon that the LRDC academics who were the staff developers who ran the workshops (which Carmen attended, as we all did in District 2…FYI.)
The watchword was WORK! You may recall if you went to the link I provided so many times here, that rewarding performance (i.e. WORK) IS the fundamental principle that underlies the Pew funded Resnick’s theory on EFFORT -BASED learning.
Click to access polv3_3.pdf
If the REWARDS for work are there, and if the EXPECTATIONS for work are CLEAR then children work with enthusiasm and the accomplish things… they PERFORM.
“AUTHENTIC assessment” does not need a standardized test. You can’t evaluate ‘grit,” but you can do a “GENUINE evaluation” of performance…of WORK DONE.
The words above, in quotes, are the very words of the PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING. Notice the absence of the word ‘tests.’
I am so tired of listening, over a decade later, to all the semantic arguments used to explain what is wrong. Yeah, you cannot teach grit, or character traits… but as mentors, which is WHAT TEACHERS ACTUALLY ARE, we can show emergent learners those traits that enable good work.
By examining literature an history, by reflecting on what succeeded in the past, we can offer examples to kids of the rewards and benefits that follow hard work and real dedication. We are the guides to education, and while we cannot teach ‘grit’ we can as educators in control of our profession, do what we can to FACILITATE LEARNING (more language front he real standards).
It is time that we, you and I, take control of our profession, so that conversations and narratives that disable real reform vanish from the public arena.
This link is to a 2008 editorial in THE AMERICAN EDUCATOR, which addresses our profession and the need to take control of it… 2008 for crying out loud, and we are talking about ‘grit.’?
It begins:
“What are the hallmarks of a profession?
Formal qualifications, a shared code of conduct, specialized knowledge—these and many other qualities are all important, but there’s ONE that teachers should CAREFULLY CONSIDER: responsibility not just for the quality of your own work,but for that of your peers.
“Doctors have their medical boards and attorneys have their bar associations, but most teachers have no such opportunities to take responsibility for their profession. Advocates of peer assistance and review (PAR), a program that gives teachers the lead in guiding and guarding the teaching profession, want that to change.”
AND HERE COMES THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION which we should be discussing instead of how does one teach ‘grit.:”
“Like doctors and lawyers, shouldn’t teachers set the standards for their own profession, help newcomers meet those standards, offer intensive assistance to anyone who is struggling, and recommend the removal of those individuals who, after receiving assistance, are not meeting those standards?
Are any of these things really better left to administrators?”
LikeLike
Susan,
“If the REWARDS for work are there, and if the EXPECTATIONS for work are CLEAR then children work with enthusiasm and the accomplish things… they PERFORM.”
Please watch (if you haven’t already seen it) the video concerning “rewards” as a motivating factor. Rewards need not be a part of the teaching and learning process. Clear expectations, yes are part of the process and help for students to understand why they should learn a given subject matter.
Duane
LikeLike
Duane, I taught for 40 years and I can tell you that the only motivation that works is rewards… and I do not mean a star,or a grade or a medal. The reward is the accomplishment the performance, and the appreciation that comes when one does a good job.
I was surprised when the LRDC identified the ‘rewards’ in my classroom. Rewards for Achievement was the second principle of learning.
They filmed my practice, and discovered that when the folders containing MY responses to the weekly Reader’s letter were returned, the kids were very excited. “Look, Mrs S. wrote a whole page on my letter,”one kid said.
My response on a letter was a reward?
I usually wrote a few sentences on each letter, identifying interesting thoughts, or recommending another, similar book in the genre, if the student seemed to enjoy the one he was reading.
The other reward was seeing their letter posted on the walls in the hall. The only letters that I put up, met the expectations for clarity, and interesting conversations about a book, or thoughtful commentary about a theme or character.
A third reward, was the use of my classroom at lunchtime. I had a huge library, and an art center. One old computer and a tv, but the kids loved to hang out with me, as I set the room up for the afternoon.
I had other rewards, like ‘author’s day,’ when a student would be int he author’s chair, for having written a wonderful poem, story or essay.
The reward for paying attention when I spoke, for applying what I showed them was two fold —MY appreciation… AND their obvious success.
Like John Taylor Gatto said in that radio interview which I transcribed,” I seldom had any trouble with my students. They KNEW that I had something to offer them, and that I would find the genius in each of them.”
That is the reward… trusting the teacher and knowing that something special was being offered if they did the work and respected the teacher.
LikeLike
Susan,
Your “reward system” is exactly as Carol Dweck said it should be to encourage a growth mindset. You were probably also doing things without realizing it that were encouraging growth mindsets in your students. From what I read on your personal blog about early childhood, it seems like you definitely have, yourself, a growth mindset (probably taught to you by your parents), and so passed that along–without even knowing it–it your students. Lucky students!!
But people like me–raised with fixed mindsets (“if you’re not a “natural” at something, don’t bother working very hard at it because you’ll never get anywhere”)–can learn how to communicate growth mindset messages to our students, even if we’re too old to really except it’s truth in our heart of hearts. We can praise practice over results: “You clearly worked hard on that picture,” or “You’ve been drawing for a long time, I’ll bet,” rather than “You are a talented artist” or “You’re really good at drawing.” Applied to subjects like math, teaching a growth mindset–even as late as middle school–can make a huge difference with students. I’m not just recounting personal anecdotes but am referring to the Stanford research done on this.
I have two twin four-year-olds in whom I’ve worked hard to foster growth mindsets. It’s been a real struggle for me because every time I throw a ball way off to the side, I want to say, “Wow, I’m awful at throwing!” but instead I say, “Mommy needs a bit more practice!” which is, in fact, true. It’s also a struggle because the kids’ preschool teachers have fixed mindsets like me, and they tend to communicate their mindsets to my kids. My kids are pretty good now at keeping at whatever they’re doing–reading, building with blocks, writing letters, riding a pedal bike, throwing a baseball, singing, dancing–but sometimes there are message conflicts between home and school that cause setbacks. For instance, a few months ago, my daughter Madde declared “I’m just not good at reading.” It was such a ridiculous statement on so many levels that I didn’t immediately know what to do with it. She wasn’t even four yet, and she could read at a first-grade level already. What could possibly be the pressure? Then I realized that her sister, who was then reading at a third-grade level, was being treated like some genius at school by her teachers, and that she could be heard by Maddie reading chapter books aloud to herself in the other room at bedtime most nights. Maddie perceived herself to be inadequate, and I realized I had been ignoring her mindset needs around reading because she was already ahead of where she was expected to be. My husband and I from that point on made a huge effort to change her attitude about reading and the practice that is involved, and I explained to the teachers that both kids were only good readers because they practiced so much. (Like you, I believe that every child could be reading by kindergarten with the right supports–supports that aren’t even that hard to provide.) Maddie is now back to feeling confident in her ability to make progress, and is really excited about reading. She also seems to recognize that her sister is better than she is only because she’s practicing aaaallll the time, while Maddie had stopped wanting to read on her own when she started feeling inadequate.
Here’s the really funny/annoying/crazy part of the story: both my own mom and my husband’s mom didn’t see anything wrong with suggesting that maybe Maddie could just find something else to be “good” at!!! I cried until I laughed, tore some hair out, and then sent them to mindset.org.
LikeLike
Wonderful response. I agree on the idea of growth mindset, which is definitely the attitude I brought to my classroom…although ,I confess, I never heard it expressed that way.
Your kids are so lucky. When I was raising my own boys, in the seventies, I did not know much about the philosophies that are prevalent today. Neither boy could read at age four, although one (presently a cardiologist) could read a few words. I never interfered with the literacy program in the local school, and discovered that my sons were reading in different series, because the teachers felt that there learning style was more compatible with those readers. (Ironically, his first child was reading at age 2, and could, like yours read on a third grade level by the time he was 3… and this because he just loved to read and got the practice…. but also because his brain had a language function that, continues to this day, to astonish everyone. He is 16, plays football and baseball , wrestles and is a fishing expert.
It is all so fascinating to me. I have four grandkids. Two (including him) in Newark Academy (expensive private school rated one of the best) and two who are home schooled, and involved in their mother’s theater group, which she created to involve the kids in language and has evolved to this (go there and be astonished).
I was essentially uninvolved with the school’s programs, trusted the teachers, and of course, made our home a place filled with books and reading for enjoyment. I did not check their homework or oversee their learning. I went to conferences, liked some teachers and disliked some others, but trusted that in the end, the boys would get what they needed from practicing LEARNING!
I look back and wonder why this was so, but in those days, no one questioned the professionals in the school. The system was an outstanding one in NY State and even though I was an educator, I did not presume to challenge the professionals.(now BTW the system is failing for the fifth year in row.) We sent our kids to the neighborhood school, did not have to endlessly apply, or examine standardized tests… the only tests I recall were the regents and the SATs.
Both of my sons were at the top of their high school class, and went to fine colleges (Cormell and Washington U in St Louis) graduated with honors, and the youngest is a CEO of his own internet security software company, in Austin.
What they did have was loving parents who always provided interesting activities to do together (we traveled a lot and camped with them… they never went to camp…we vacationed together.)
IN the end, looking at what they achieved, I see that it WAS the mind-set that made the difference. We supported them, knew who they were and cared about what they did with us, and the can-do attitude plus the love that enveloped them allowing their innate intelligence ( and genes) to do what it did best… promote an interest in everything, in learning why things are.
I enjoyed your response. Thanks for taking the time… it is responses like yours that make this site such a wonderful place for meaningful conversations.
LikeLike
My apologies, Susan. I typed out my previous reply on my cell phone, and besides making a bunch of typos I failed to give a proper link. Here’s a better one to the site for her “general audience” book on it: http://mindsetonline.com/howmindsetaffects/parentsteacherscoaches/index.html I read the book many years ago, then as a teacher I used a program with my students that had been developed based on the book, with Dweck’s help. http://www.mindsetworks.com/ (The videos are worth checking out, for sure.)
LikeLike
Susan,
Ah, what I was referring to was extrinsic rewards and you to intrinsic rewards. I agree with you about the intrinsic rewards part and still agree with Pink that extrinsic rewards don’t do very much to motivate people.
LikeLike
About 12 years ago, the Boston Globe featured a story in the Sunday magazine whose implicit moral was about grit, and how the “underclass” lacks it. The reporter shadowed a fifteen year old boy through a couple of weeks of his life. Sylvester lived with his grandmother; his mother had never been a part of his life and his father was dead, if I remember correctly. It was a complete revelation to the reporter that Sylvester had to get up at 5:30 AM to reach his school across the other side of the city in order to get there at the 7:20 start time. He had to take a bus to a train, then switch to another bus to school. At the time, the policy was that if students showed up past a certain cut-off time, students were denied entrance for the day because it was a huge disruption to have kids show up at all times of the day (the policy has been dropped). Many days, Sylvester was turned away from the school due to this policy.
Trying to help her grandson, the grandmother had signed up with a community agency which assigned Sylvester a mentor. The mentor would come to Sylvester’s house in the morning and kick his bed until Sylvester got up to get ready for school (which was approving written about by the reporter). The mentor didn’t drive Sylvester to school, or even to his bus stop. Someplace later in the article, the reporter, in a snide way, mentioned that Sylvester would get himself excused from class to visit the school nurse, who would sometimes feed Sylvester a bagel, as he often had not eaten before coming to school. Though there was a cold breakfast served at school, Sylvester missed it if he was late,
Interviewing Sylvester directly, the boy’s hope for his future was that he would make his grandmother proud of him if he graduated high school. That is, if he didn’t die before she did – a likely enough possibility, given that he had gang involved friends who had died.
Any middle class child would have been rightly referred for counseling to deal what was likely enough depression, but all Sylvester could expect was someone to kick his bed and the kindness of a school nurse with a bagel.
Too bad Sylvester didn’t have grit.
LikeLike
Consistent with the current school reform values that impose a free market, survival of the fittest, data driven, business model on to K-12 learning cultures, all things become commodities, including character. The development of character is regarded as a product that needs to be quantified and then scaled up. So I’m not surprised to hear Jeff Snyder’s critical response to Kipp’s use of “grit”.
How do we define and develop character? Isn’t that in part the mission of the Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts? Isn’t that also one chief benefit of all the extra curricula activities like sports teams, drama clubs, debate teams, school news papers etc. All these activities not only engage students by winning their hearts and minds, but it immerses them in a socializing context where (with adult support and guidance) they make mistakes, and make corrections, and develop socially.
It’s easy to imagine some “start up” curriculum software company (or the great god Pearson himself) developing and marketing a “Grit-Builder” character development software, which, while still expensive, is a lot cheaper than the above mentioned extra curricula activities. It also takes up less space, and has the added benefit of requiring schools to invest in more computers-which, as the top 1% are happy to report back to us, is good for the economy.
LikeLike
Implementing grit as a standard will create a huge legal battle. Pennsylvania parents have filed a grievance to the collection of this data on attitudes, social and emotional behavior, and positve behavior interventions and support. This agenda is being pushed through the ESEA Flex Waivers and the Reauthorization. Who is going to decide what the standard is for cooperation, ethical judgement, responsibility, honesty? How is it tested and scored? Are these graduation requirements? Everyone better be looking at the Reauthorization of ESEA because these psychological/ behavioral tracking, trafficking, and treatment of student attitudes, values, and behaviors are dispersed throughout the bill. Title I will be the vehicle to identify a student with a disability, (not meeting Common Core) and IDEA will be the interventions.
Read our Press Release:
http://abcsofdumbdown.blogspot.com/2014/11/pa-citizens-ask-gov-corbett-for-data.html
LikeLike
oops…here is the link…2008,
Click to access editors_note.pdf
Read it and weep, because this was 6 years ago, and the opposite has occurred: Another quote about PAR:
“…on page 12,Dal Lawrence (who created PAR through collective bargaining while president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers) and two teachers (who have firsthand experience with PAR) talk about what PAR means for professionalism and how combining assistance and evaluation—when done right—can make each more meaningful and powerful.
“There are right and wrong ways to address teacher evalu- ation. Unfortunately, some policymakers and admin- istrators across this country are ready to toss out both
peer assistance and review. What’s their alternative? Complex statistical models that rank teachers according to their ‘value-added.’ ”
AND IF THIS DOESN’T MAKE YOU WANT TO PULL YOUR HAIR OUT…. IT CONTINUES WITH THE VERY THINGS WE ARE TALK-TALK- TALKING ABOUT HERE IN 2014….
“Such models reduce teaching to nothing more than gains in students’ test scores. And, as if that weren’t bad enough, the models are far, far from perfect. Starting on page 18, Harvard University Professor Daniel Koretz discusses the benefits and limitations of value-added models, explaining that although they do offer some useful information, they should not be used to make any high-stakes decisions. In Koretz’s words, “Value-added- based rankings of teachers are highly error-prone.”
YA THINK?
It isn’t that we don’t know these things, folks, it is that dark money has purchased the national narrative, and we have lost control over our profession… and when you ask, “HOW could this happen.”You only have to look at Diane’s post here:
The truth is right in our faces : the administration can charge teachers with insubordination (or anything they want— as the debacle in LAUSD shows:
The evidence is there, in 2010
http://www.perdaily.com/2013/10/why-does-utla-continue-to-support-lausds-violation-of-california-teacher-dismissal-process.html
and in 2013
http://www.perdaily.com/2014/03/lausd-and-utla-collude-to-end-collective-bargaining-and-civil-rights-for-teachers-part-2.html
AND now
http://www.perdaily.com/2015/01/were-you-terminated-or-forced-to-retire-from-lausd-based-on-fabricated-charges.html
Now ask the right question… why can’t teachers take control of their profession?
Clue: it has something to do with the lack of a platform to redress civil rights violations?
http://www.speakingasateacher.com/SPEAKING_AS_A_TEACHER/No_Constitutional_Rights-_A_hidden_scandal_of_National_Proportion.html
Now ask the question that Dan Rather asked me, when I could not take control of my outstanding, famous practice: “Susan, where is the union.” I did not know the answer in 1998, blindsided as I was, but I know it now!
http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-nichols-and-robert-mcchesney-on-big-money-big-media/
Yup!
Without the law on our side, we cannot stand up against the dark money that controls the national conversation, as they take down public education in:
Dallas; http://inthesetimes.com/article/17110/dallas_home_rule_push_could_open_the_charter_floodgates
Nevada: //https://dianeravitch.net/2015/01/06/nevada-governor-appoints-education-reform-policy-committee-with-no-educators-on-it/, Colorado
Indiana: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/21/indiana-house-education-chair-forms-education-lobbying-firm/22104155/
Pa: https://dianeravitch.net/2015/01/21/pennsylvania-watching-public-education-die-in-delaware-county/
North Carolina https://dianeravitch.net/2014/12/05/north-carolina-plans-to-adopt-koch-funded-social-studies-curriculum/
South https://dianeravitch.net/2014/11/14/south-carolina-court-declares-school-funding-unconstitutional/
and on and on… WHO CONTROLS OUR PROFESSION because we PROFESSIONALS have no voice?
We know, and we know why Americans who just happen to be teachers have been silenced.
What will be done about the utter destruction in our wake, if we cannot get this conversation out in the public arena?
NOW THERE’S A QUESITION!
LikeLike
Bottom line here is that there is ZERO evidence that you can teach character, not only grit, but morality, honesty, fairness, trustworthiness, responsibility, courage, generosity, love, etc, etc. that Synder was concerned was being overlooked.
People evolved to be socially-cooperative. Trust it. It’s not the old nature vs. nurture question. It is much older: there is no original sin that needs to be exorcised.
LikeLike
I think that character can be taught only through direct experience in being of service to others. It isn’t really a theoretical thing. I often tire of the “if this, then that” mode of abstractly teaching character education. It involves focusing on the needs of someone, or some creature (dog, cat, pet) outside of one’s own self AND participating in ongoing actions to deliver care. I am not discounting “token” service, such as one helpful volunteer opportunity per year, like holiday soup kitchen work. Most of the modeling of a life of service happens within the family, and an educator who values teaching in and designing a caring classroom community can support the efforts of the family.
LikeLike
denise widen: food for thought.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread.
😎
LikeLike
“The current approach (to force feed Grit to students) , he writes, ‘unwittingly promotes an amoral and careerist looking out for number one’ point-of-view.”
Gee, am I imagining things or wasn’t this the same result the country ended up with when self-esteem went viral with far too many parents?
Wasn’t it becasue of the self esteem movement that the U.S. ended up with the majority of one entire generation being narcissist and/or sociopaths who ended up thinking highly of themselves but afraid to take chances because they might fail and they never failed growing up thanks to the viral efforts of parents who intervened at every opportunity to boost self-esteem by dumbing down the curriculum and forcing teachers/schools to inflate grades so children would feel more successful leading to more self-esteem.
I know that the corporate driven education reform movement loves to blame the self-esteem movement on teachers and the public schools but it didn’t start there. It started from the top down, spread like cancer among far too many parents and then landed on the schools like a sledge hammer. How do I know? Because I was in the classroom teaching during the plague of self esteem and was annually assaulted by administrators and parents when a child didn’t earn a high enough grade to help boost that precious artificial self esteem.
Now, it seems, self-esteem has fallen by the way side and grit has taken it’s place.
LikeLike
Exactly. Only now everything is delivered, tested and evaluated on a computer. The data is collected. Compliance is mandatory for teachers and students. There is no way out of this system. This system must be dismantled because it is harmful to all.
Suppressing access to information, knowledge, instruction in logic, discussions of the great fiction classics as well as total surveillance and data collection are totalitarian tactics unfitting for a freedom loving republic. What are we doing?
LikeLike
We aren’t doing it. They are, and we know who they are.
LikeLike
Excellent list. I would add Joel Klein, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken, Andrew Tisch, and Fethullah Gulen.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll add those names to the extended list. I also have Mike Madigan in Illinois to add to the list. Every vulture in America should be circling the Public Education Train by now waiting to swoop in and feed on the corpse.
LikeLike
I read Carol Dweck’s book titled Mindset, and I don’t recall her using the term “grit”. I don’t like the term, and never have. What I understand Dweck saying is children have more opportunities open to them if they see their learning through a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. I haven’t read her other written works; perhaps she does include grit. What I like about the growth mindset is that mistakes are seen by the individual as opportunities for learning, and to see oneself always learning. The learning never ends.
LikeLike
Grit/character/morality – are learned at home, taught by the family. This is also true for kids who grow up without learning to persevere, whose character is weak or whose morality is base or questionable. The notion that teachers can overcome the influence of the family is fundamentally absurd
LikeLike
Character is taught and learned by modeling.
LikeLike
Character isn’t taught. Strategies for getting ahead are learned, be it cooperation or competition. In all of us it is the best mixture for the situation. Behavior is situational, not static.
Everyone should be aware of the infamous prisoner and guards experiment.
For more, see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_education#Modern_scientific_approaches
LikeLike
There’s at least one study that found a causal link between a person’s exposure to the ethical implications of a situation (in a learning setting), and his subsequent behavior, characterized as ethical e.g. honesty, concern for effects on others, compliance with agreed-upon rules, etc.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkGdLUe8QS0
LikeLike
Granted, a term like “growth mindset” doesn’t rolloff the tongue with as much pizzazz as “grit,” but that’s all it really is, honestly, and Carol Dweck has been telling teachers, parents, and coaches how to encourage it for the last two decades. It so conflicts with what many people have learned themselves (that we’re all either just naturally good at something or we’re not, in which case we should simply find something else to be good”
LikeLike
Dang–I hit Post Comment by accident! I was just saying that people think we’re all just naturally talented or not at various things, and it’s simply not true.
When I posted by accident, though, it scrolled me down to the bottom of what turned out to be nearly 75 already-posted comments! Surely a dozen people must’ve already made my point…
Incidentally (if not already mentioned), Angela Duckworth mentioned Dweck’s mindset research in her TEDtalk, but didn’t go into any detail, which I thought was a shame. “Grit” can be taught. Even Daniel Tiger’s doing it.
LikeLike
In case anyone is confused about how Paul Tough and Stanford researcher Carol Dweck are connected:
In his book How Children Succeed, Tough has a whole chapter on KIPP entitled “How to Build Character” in which he devotes quite a bit of time to Angela Duckworth’s research, including her research/theories on so-called “grit”:
“And though [Duckworth] was certainly successful . . . her peripatetic early career was much less directed than that of, say, [KIPP founder] David Levin, who had found his life’s calling at twenty-two and had persisted at the same goal ever since, overcoming many obstacles and creating, with Michael Feinberg, a successful network of charter schools educating thousands of students. Duckworth felt that Levin, who was about her age, possessed some trait that she did not: a passionate commitment to a single mission and an unswerving dedication to achieving that mission. She decided she needed to name this quality, and she chose the word GRIT [caps mine].” (from p.74)
[Note that “grit” is NOT the same thing, in her mind, as “character”; it’s merely one aspect of her concept of “character”; “character” also includes–from page 76 of Tough’s book: self-control, zest, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism, and curiosity.]
Tough explains that Duckworth made a test for grit–12 statements for a respondent to evaluate him/herself on. Tough gives a few of the statements in example, including “Setbacks don’t discourage me’; “I am a hard worker”; and “I finish whatever I begin.” To me, these sound an awful lot like the statements a person with a growth mindset would make about themselves.
Tough dedicates a separate section entitled “Identity” to Carol Dweck’s research, but he doesn’t connect it with Duckworth’s concept of “grit.” He also later comments that KIPP believes that “Dweck’s notion that students do better when they think they can improve their intelligence applies to character as well.” (p.98) (So, basically, it was KIPP that decided Dweck’s research could be applied to character, not Dweck.)
But watch this short TED Talk Duckworth gave in April 2013
At minute 4:52, Duckworth says:
“So far, the best idea I’ve heard about building grit in kids is something called ‘growth mindset.’ This is an idea developed at Stanford University by Carol Dweck, and it is the belief that the ability to learn is not fixed, that it can change with your effort. Dr. Dweck has shown that when kids read and learn about the brain and how it changes and grows in response to challenge, they’re much more likely to persevere when they fail, because they don’t believe that failure is a permanent condition. So growth mindset is a great idea for building grit. But we need more. And that’s where I’m going to end my remarks, because that’s where we are. That’s the work that stands before us.”
I think Carol Dweck would argue that not enough teachers and parents have learned how to develop growth mindsets in their kids and students (and parents and teachers need to work together on this; otherwise, one undermines the others efforts), let alone HAVE growth mindsets, themselves, for anyone to declare it insufficient help for students.
Read a snippet from the web page for Dweck’s book Mindset (a “general audience” book):
—————–from the website————————————————
No parent thinks “I wonder what I can do today to undermine my children, subvert their effort, turn them off learning, and limit their achievement.” Of course not. They think “I would do anything, give anything, to make my children successful.” Yet many of the things they do boomerang. Their helpful judgments, their lessons, their motivating techniques often send the wrong message.
In fact, every word and action sends a message. It tells children – or students or athletes – how to think about themselves. It can be a fixed mindset message that says: “You have permanent traits and I’m judging them.” Or it can be a growth mindset message that says: “You are a developing person and I am interested in your development”…
Messages About Success
Listen for the messages in the following examples:
“You learned that so quickly! You’re so smart!”
“Look at that drawing. Martha, is he the next Picasso or what?”
“You’re so brilliant, you got an A without even studying!”
If you’re like most parents, you hear these as supportive, esteem-boosting messages. But listen more closely. See if you can hear another message. It’s the ones that children hear:
“If I don’t learn something quickly, I’m not smart.”
“I shouldn’t try drawing anything hard or they’ll see I’m no Picasso.”
“I’d better quit studying or they won’t think I’m brilliant.”
———————–end of text from website————————————————–
http://mindsetonline.com/howmindsetaffects/parentsteacherscoaches/index.html
Check out the page for her discussion of “Messages About Failure.”
I read the book many years ago, then as a teacher I used her Brainology program with my students. http://www.mindsetworks.com/ (The videos are worth checking out, for sure.) I think the program could be vastly improved, but that program doesn’t need to be implemented for a teacher to simply change his or her messages to students and talk with parents/guardians about also modifying their messages in the home. But it takes a lot of practice to break old habits if you’re a person who was also raised with a fixed mindset.
LikeLike
Goo one…good links… smart!
LikeLike
I don’t know if “character” and “grit” or “virtues”, etc. . . can be taught but one can read about virtues in an excellent book by Andre Comte-Sponville (A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues).
LikeLike
When I reviewed the research on grit, it was not conducted on low income students. It was on learners (adults and kids from varying socioeconomic areas) who encountered intellectually challenging material or programs but persevered. The problem is that KIPP latched onto it, and now the term and the research is quickly dismissed because it is being used by the charter school movement. Rather than dismissing research because of who quotes it, I believe we should move past the politicizing of research and look at the research. There are people who persevere despite trying circumstances in all walks of life, and that is worthy of study. Whether you use the term resolve, dedication, resilience, or grit, there is something worthy of study. I don’t think studying grit or resilience means that all people should aspire to the concept. Maybe, we need to better understand the barriers that require resilience and address those.
LikeLike
I thought I would add this piece by Nick Kristoff,
to this conversation, which in essence is discussing how do we introduce the merging minds of children to those beneficial character traits which have served humanity and society well. One again, let me begin by removing the word “teach’ and substituting LEARN, because we cannot teach grit or empathy.
From the article (which embeds links do go to it) : “Dacher Keltner, who runs the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California at Berkeley, says that having people think about suffering activates the vagus nerve, which is linked to compassion. He also cites evidence that uplifting stories about sacrifice boost empathy, as do various kinds of contemplation — prayer, meditation, yoga.”
Exactly…having kids think about the traits of charters that they read about in our classes.
Otherwise, they ‘think’ about the character they hear, day in and dozy out, on Criminal Minds, and CSI and all those cop shows which begin with MURDER, RAPE OR MAYHEM.
Kristoff continues (with links): “Professor Pinker, in his superb book “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” explores whether the spread of affordable fiction and journalism beginning in the 18th century expanded empathy by making it easier for people to imagine themselves in the shoes of others. Researchers have found that reading literary fiction by the likes of Don DeLillo or Alice Munro — but not beach fiction or nonfiction — can promote empathy.”
In the shoes of others… imagine being in the shoes of ‘Stalker’ the latest addition to the CBS line-up to ‘teach’ our kids grit or whatever!
We don’t teach anything… we mentors present what we know to our children so they can learn what it means to be an adult human.
The Koch Brothers know this… and right here on Diane’s blog we had this reminder that they know how to present kids with lessons that that “teach’, or rather take-aways that can be learned:
For example, in one “click-and-explore” activity at the the Bill of Rights Institute website, showing the many ways that government can oppress individuals—”Life Without the Bill of Rights?”—a cartoon character pops up with a dialogue bubble reading, “The gov’t took my home!” An illustration shows his home demolished.”
Children learn to ’empathize’ with what????
the Koch brothers.“In its materials for teachers and students, the Bill of Rights Institute cherry-picks the Constitution, history, and current events to hammer home its libertarian message that the owners of private property should be free to manage their wealth as they see fit. one Bill of Rights lesson insists, “The Founders considered industry and property rights critical to the happiness of society.” This message that individual owners of property are the source of social good, their property sacred, and government the source of danger weaves through the entire Koch curriculum, sometimes with sophistication, other times in caricature. ”
If we teachers do not get control of our profession and our practice, soon, it will be over.
Click to access editors_note.pdf
Because it is the shared knowledge that makes democracy possible, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter2009/hirsch.pdf
and the billionaires are cherry-picking the knowledge, twisting it and presenting to our kids their definitions of grit and empathy, and of character.
Why Teacher Voice Matters Richard D. Kahlenberg, Halley Potter (not Harry)
: http://www.aft.org/our-news/periodicals/american-educator#sthash.h3sl30rg.dpuf
LikeLike
Angela Duckworth – the Psychologist who has made “grit” popular, and whose work Tough also discusses in the book, admits herself that we still don’t clearly know how to teach “Grit” (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit).
But in reality, I think we do. The challenge we have on the academic side of things is marrying multiple lines of research that overlap: research on “grit,” research on the development of executive function and self regulation, and research on the social-emotional aspects of learning. There’s good reason to believe that the behaviors Duckworth describes as “gritty” are an illustration of the power of well developed self-regulation. Bringing alignment Duckworth’s “marco” work with the “micro” work of the likes of Adele Diamond and Micheal Posner & Mary Rothbart, and perhaps alos throwing in for good measure Carol Dweck’s achievement motivation research is the way to go, to figure this stuff out. And that work is happening, but as with all things in academia, progress is slow. Slow, but promising.
LikeLike
If we want to teach Grit, we should be teaching kids to learn that failure leads to success as long as they learn to get up every time they fall. We should also be doing all we can starting as young as age two to instill a love of reading books in as many children as possible in every state from every socioeconomic level.
Because through reading books, children will learn through the stories they read that life is full of failures and by learning from those failures, the odds of success later for those who refuse to surrender to failure go up.
But Common Core and its Bill Gates driven rank and fail, fire or close agenda only sets children up for repeated, manipulated failure. When the cut score for Common Core driven standardized tests is designed to fail 70% of the children with an agenda that leads to closing public schools and firing teachers to break the teachers’ union, the oligarchs are not concerned with teaching children grit or learning how failure is a learning experience that might lead to success. They are only interested in achieving their own narcissistic, sociopath, psychopath goals.
There should be no testing that ranks students, teachers and schools and then punishes those who fall below the programed 70% fail rate. There should be no cut score for any tests. Tests should only be used as a diagnostic tool by teachers to help guide teachers so that teachers may improve the lessons they teach to target areas children are having the most difficult learning.
LikeLike