Re-Inventing the Wheel in the Study of Human Character

by Howard Gardner and colleagues

James Heckman, Nobel Prize winning economist, has just published a 435 page collection called The Myth of Achievement Tests.  On the surface it is a well-documented critique of the GED (General Educational Development) examination. But as one leafs through the volume, it turns out to be a 400+  page hymn-of-praise to character education. Heckman and his three co-editors see the development of character as at least as important as IQ/SAT measures, if not more so.   

As a psychologist who has worked for decades in the area of human development and education, I was stunned by a striking omission in the book.  Nowhere in the book does one find a substantive discussion of the areas of moral development, character development, moral and character education—areas initially investigated by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, and studied in more recent times by many outstanding scholars , such as  James Arthur, Marvin Berkowitz, Anne Colby, William Damon, Carol Gilligan,  Helen Haste,  Thomas Lickona,  Elliot Turiel, Richard Weissbourd, just to name a few known to me personally. (Angela Duckworth, a younger researcher, is mentioned; I note that she has been a collaborator of Heckman’s)

I wrote to several of my colleagues in psychology, and one economist, to see if they had an explanation for what struck me as an inexplicable lacuna. Here, slightly edited, anonymous, and in italics, are their responses:

The world view of economists

Economists live on a quite different planet in another universe called The Rational Way (rather than the Milky Way) but just occasionally, as they get older, or become grandparents, they ‘discover’ humanity, virtue, etc. But as their planet doesn’t have suitable libraries, they usually ‘remember’ their childhood experiences with teachers, nuns, parents, pop TV, etc. and the kinds of films that John Wayne starred in. Maybe a small dash of dilute Aristotle, filtered through pre-adolescent Christian or Jewish religious classes, or maybe Scouts….

Disciplinary silos

Economists aren’t the only ones to stick to their own disciplines — or even sub disciplines (e.g. Social psychologists).

The self-satisfaction of celebrity scholars

People who have been highly celebrated often think they can solve a problem without paying attention to what others have tried to do about it. Zillions of successful businessmen and celebrities do this in education all the time. I mentioned an outstanding program of character development to a well known social entrepreneur when he was starting a similar program, and he showed absolutely no interest in the earlier work.

Remember the dreadful William Shockley, a Nobel prize winner in electronic engineering, who set himself up as an ‘expert’ in race and IQ? And who, when he was challenged on this (and other social) issues, fished his Nobel Prize out of his pocket and said, ‘ When you have one of these, you can criticize me.’

Problems with the field itself 

Moral and character education in particular is a field divided into an infinity of approaches, many of which actually are antagonistic to one another, so people often don’t even want to know what others are doing because they assume it’s probably worthless.
Different methods

I went to a conference where economists had simply replicated work done in psychology forty  years ago. When one of the conference hosts pointed that out, the economists showed no interest. In fairness to them, they no doubt would reject the methods I used, and the feeling is mutual, which is kind of the point.

A different focus

Heckman is primarily focused on performance character, not moral character. And I’m very concerned in general not only by the fact that much recent work on character is ignored but by the degree to which moral character in particular is evaporating in conversation about teaching and raising kids. Grit and other performance characteristics are, of course, the rage right now, and too often I have conversations with educators where “character” has been equated with just performance character. Even empathy is often discussed only instrumentally, as a way of increasing one’s own achievement and well-being. 

It would be interesting to know how students and teachers interpret the KIPP motto to ‘be nice.’ My guess is that Bernie Madoff was very nice, that is how he charmed people. I doubt that anyone would say President Lyndon Johnson was ‘nice,’ but he accomplished a great deal against the odds.

I was just a discussant on moral “performance” and civic character strengths. One reason I think that rather arbitrary classification is useful is that it reminds people that the instrumental ones aren’t the only ones that are important and that positive outcomes in advancing the individual aren’t the only reasons character strengths are important.

To hell with them

My reaction in these cases is the same advice Virgil gave Dante as they were walking in one of the bottom circles of Hell, where the damned were doing some gruesome things to each other that attracted Dante’s attention: “Non ti curar di lor,” Virgil tells him, “ma guarda e passa.” In other words, Do not bother with them, just look and keep walking . . .

And from an economist of my acquaintance:

I too find it unsettling that the new wave of researchers on “character” seems blissfully and maybe willfully ignorant of their predecessors in these interests. There is a certain amount of brand creation going on here. And a certain amount of “scientism” as well. In Heckman’s’s case, that may be less the concern than that he shares the familiar economist’s vice that if an economist didn’t say it, it was never really said. Fortunately there are exceptions to that rule!

Closing comment: 

I think that this range of responses covers the likely possibilities for this striking omission. I might add that the phrases ‘moral’ and ‘character education’ have sometimes had a moralistic or religious connotation and  that had scared off parts of the scholarly community. Of course, if readers can think of other possible explanations, I hope that they will respond to this blog.

As a scholar, I have lingering questions: 

1) How can a book by a major scholar, with a major press, go to press without anyone noticing, and in some fashion addressing, this glaring hole? What’s the responsibility of reviewers and editors to correct omissions?

2) In this era of powerful search engines, what can we as scholars do to minimize our ignorance of significant work on a topic of interest in related fields?  What should we do?  What mechanisms ought to be created to blow up the silos manifest throughout the Heckman volume…. And no doubt in many other volumes coming from scholars in many other fields?

Indian Values in an Era of Change: Can the Good Project have an Influence?

by Paromita De

Apeejay teacher Ritesh Sharma discusses a “Good Work Approach to Sustainability” with her high school Biology students.

“As you are of Indian origin, I think we can vouch for the values. We  already have a very good value system and if we preserve that, I think we will go a long way.” A teacher relayed me this conviction before my fourteenth trip to India. Each trip means seeing Kolkata’s city lights and making merry with relatives (read: teasing each other), but this visit gave me a unique opportunity: to meet teachers who earned Good Work certification from the Good Project and tGELF two years earlier. In response, the person of Indian origin in me nodded, acknowledging understanding of this “value system”. Upon conversation’s end, however, the researcher in me sought details. I set off for school visits in Delhi/Gurgaon with a question in mind: what are “Indian values”?

“Indian values” are contoured by the 21st century’s sweeping changes. The middle-class India my dad left 43 years ago knew only job shortages, street bazaars, and food ration cards, and couldn’t foreshadow its present economic boom, megamalls, and even microwaves.

India is reaping prosperity’s fruits, but increasing competitiveness presents challenges. Does one choose consumerism over thrift? How does one balance work/life? Should one overlook corruption?

If Indian society’s transformation is akin to a storm, then at its eye is India’s youth. They will inherit India’s growth, yet are lost in a results-driven frenzy. How do we teach youth to confront today’s issues?

Enter the Good Project: it has come when Indian schools want to embrace ethical thinking. I will describe Good Project initiatives of four schools and how they shape student’s identities.

Although I didn’t visit Delhi Public School – Sector 45 (DPS), through interviews I learned of ways in which educator Archana Singh and her students engage with society. We may liken engagement to individual passion, but factor in the other two E’s – excellence and ethics – and we see how full engagement in one’s work is cognizant of its societal influence. The DPS students fulfill both individual and social connotations of engagement. Singh is a Chemistry teacher, but she still manages to incorporate the Good Work Toolkit materials into class. Singh always encourages students to examine multiple perspectives and appreciate collaboration. Students find relevance in the Toolkit’s narratives and remark that the dilemmas they read about are actual issues that have come up for them as well.

Singh also founded DPS’ Good Work Club. The club consists of leaders from different service groups, whose projects include tutoring in villages, designing art with Cancer patients, and promoting school health. Members share lessons learned in leadership and team up on school-wide social initiatives, such as a street play on littering. When it comes to enhancing community service, the Good Work Club looks no further than the 3 E’s. One student said that she is “happy to be a part of the initiative, as it is suited to how I think.”

At Apeejay School, teacher Ritesh Sharma weaves Good Work into her Biology lessons and student leadership initiatives. For a natural resources lesson, Sharma incorporated Good Work-inspired activities, such as comparing materials needed for class to the waste in a class’ trash (the answer is that they are one in the same) and asking students about tradeoffs (like buying an organic or cheap product). These activities motivated Sharma’s students to consider what the implications are of the resource usage and what responsibilities they have for future generations.

Outside of the classroom, Sharma continues to use Good Work to foster caring attitudes.  The Buddy Project, for instance, pairs high-achieving students with students in need of academic support. They provide homework assistance and serve as confidantes on tough issues. This project evokes the concept of mentors, who guide mentees’ progress in a field. One certainty is that mentors will learn much as well. As one student said, “Good Work has helped… to improve myself and become less self-centered…. I have become more sensitive than selfish.”

Geeta Bedi, a mathematics teacher at Scottish High International School, has been a tremendous influence in sharing Good Work with colleagues across all grade levels. Pre-K pupils have already proven themselves capable of designing their own “class rules” to promote mutual respect. Pre-K -8 students also discuss how the 3 E’s can be used to tackle social issues and how one can analyze value alignment.

9-12 graders at Scottish High have taken Good Work to the streets, literally, through plays. The performers enact scenarios of trials that a young person may face: lack of parental attention, drugs, academic pressures, and bullying to name a few. Between the scenarios the performers would break out into song, asking “What are we doing, who will we be?” One student took on the character of a humorous devil, who revels in a teenager’s decision-making confusion. In the street plays, I found a connection with an idea that catalyzed development of the Good Work Toolkit: individuals will be more comfortable reflecting on their own ethical dilemmas after they first discuss another person’s similar dilemma. By showcasing these scenarios, the students inform their peers that they are not alone in their concerns and prompt them to reflect on what actions the protagonist and/or they would take.

I visited mathematics teacher Ishita Mukherjee and her LGBTQI rights student group at Tagore International School only a week after Section 377 – which bans homosexuality – was reinstated by the Indian Supreme Court. A student summed up the disappointment by saying “One day we are getting an award for something (referring to a prize from November 2013’s tGELF competition), the next day it gets criminalized!” The group, modeled after the certification course’s collaboration project, educates peers on sexuality and advocates for LGBTQI rights – no easy task, given its taboo status. Mukherjee is proud of her students’ poise when faced with incessant questions. For instance, when asked if they themselves are gay, the students respond, “It’s not only about me, we have this LGBTQI community and…we have to work for them, because they’re being mistreated.” To me, these students’ resolve exemplifies responsibility: regardless of sexual orientation, these students view themselves as members of a greater society and feel obligated to protect its fellow citizen’s rights.

Returning to the question, “What are Indian values?”, a common theme in these Good Project initiatives reminded me of an Indian tradition: the “Namaste” greeting. This act recognizes that oneself and the other person are worthy of respect. Whether it is a classmate or a person they’ve never met before, Good Project students want their actions to accord respect for themselves and others. The kinds of discussions and reflections that these students are having through the Good Project are allowing them to draw attention to issues of national importance – pollution, corruption, discrimination, etc. – and figure out which solutions will align with the vision they have for their country. If we continue to cultivate this awareness of and attention to action in young people, I can agree with that teacher in believing they will go a long way.

Follow Paromita De on Twitter @ParomitaDe

Success vs. Meaning

by Tom Olverson

Tom Olverson is head of The Rivers School in Weston, MA. This blog post was originally published on Tom Olverson’s blog “Inside the Head’s Head” and it has been reposted here with his permission. See the original link here.

I was talking last week to a 2013 Rivers graduate who is doing a gap year before she attends an Ivy League college.  She spent two months in Tanzania, working in a clinic that delivers babies.  She actually delivered four babies herself.  Her experience was transforming.  She now realizes that she can make decisions about her life, that she does not have to follow a prescribed path that leads to “success.”  She may, indeed, end up being “successful” but not at the expense of finding meaning in her life.  We talked and rejoiced at her new-found discovery.

As I listened to her story and the epiphany she realized, I could not help but think about the purposes that different independent schools have.  Beyond those schools that have very specific missions like addressing learning issues, it seems to me that most schools fall into one of two categories.  There are those schools that will almost exclusively teach students how to attain success- success as it is traditionally defined- great job, lots of money, financial security.  This is their sole purpose- to teach students how to compete, how to win, how to work harder and smarter than the others.  For these schools, adolescence is a training ground, a sort of boot camp to prepare students for the inevitable struggle that lies before them.

There are a lot of New England prep schools and independent schools in major cities throughout the country that fall into this category.  They are littered with parents who see their child’s success as yet another emblem of their successful lives.  I’m not convinced that these schools chose this path, but saddled with a parent and alumni body that demand the markers of success, they have clearly drunk from the “excellence or else” kool-aid and cannot turn back.

There are other independent schools, like Rivers, that teach a different value.  It’s true that that they want their students to strive for excellence; it’s true that they celebrate the excellence that their students achieve.  But the pursuit of excellence at these schools has a different, broader purpose- to find meaning in life.  It’s not that success and meaning are viewed as necessarily antithetical in these schools.  Rather, it’s just that the pursuit of a meaningful life has equal footing with the pursuit of a “successful” life.  At these schools excellence is not just an end; it is a means for finding a meaningful life, a life well-lived, to use Aristotle’s words.

Prospective parents ask me frequently how is Rivers different from the other independent schools in the Boston area.  In many respects it is very similar- similar programs, similar kinds of students, etc.  But its purpose is very different from that of many other schools.  At Rivers the pursuit of excellence is designed to strengthen a student’s character, not have him or her compete for the most prestigious jobs.  At Rivers the pursuit of excellence is designed to help students find meaning in life, not just the “good life.”  To help students find meaning, Rivers’ teachers and coaches know and value each student- not just the student taking four AP classes but also the one who demonstrates real leadership skills or a creative approach to solving problems.  The unique attributes of each of our students, we believe, are critical to their finding meaning in life, not just success.

Q & A with Eric Liu, Founder of Citizen University and Civic Collaboratory

Interview with Eric Liu, Founder of Citizen University and the Civic Collaboratory

 Eric Liu is a former speechwriter for President Clinton and the Founder of Citizen University and the Civic Collaboratory. Lynn Barendsen had the opportunity to talk with the civic entrepreneur recently, who shared some of his thoughts about collaboration. What follows is a brief excerpt from this interview. For the full interview  click here.

What was the inspiration behind the Civic Collaboratory?  Did you have models or mentors in its formation?

The inspiration was really organic.  I had for years been organizing an annual national conference – now Citizen University – and the larger the community became, the more appetite there was to sustain the engagement beyond once a year. I had a desire to build a structure for that sustained engagement.

It was Bill Gates, Sr. who initially suggested we conduct more frequent and focused gatherings the rest of the year, so that the leaders and innovators who came to the conference could stay connected.

Around the same time, in Seattle, my friend and colleague Nick Hanauer and I had created something that ended up being a bit of a prototype for the Collaboratory. It was called the Civic Innovators Club (CIC).  Our goal was to get leaders and innovators from the Seattle/Puget Sound area (in and around western Washington state) together for dinners and discussions once every few months.  We were trying to build a community that would be a constituency for more civic ambition in our city and state. This was in some ways a nice dry run for what would become the Civic Collaboratory.

So I took the prompt by Bill Sr. and the model of the CIC and that led me and my team to design what would become the Civic Collaboratory, a leadership network dedicated to building a movement of strong citizenship in America. Bill Sr. and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor actually helped kick off the first meeting of the Collaboratory, at the Gates Foundation offices in July 2011.

What are your specific goals for this work in the short term (6 mo – 1 year)?  In the long term (5 – 10 years)?

In the short term: create a strong and durable leadership network that can help foster a culture of strong engaged citizenship in the US. People have invested in the Collaboratory – not just time or expense, but they’ve taken ownership, wanting to participate and wanting to host.  I feel like the flywheel is starting to turn, but not yet turning at peak speed, and want to get it humming so that the culture is humming.  So that it has energy on its own.

In the long term:  Our goal ultimately is a culture, from popular culture to a culture of schooling and learning or of business or of political life, where there’s a higher emphasis and premium on the ethics and acts of great citizenship.

I see us as the germ of a movement about citizenship – in religious terms, a movement of spirit as well as of project.  Movements like this have to be authentic but also require catalytic leadership, across sectors, across lines of division.

We’re going deeper, too.  One aim in the coming year:  every time we get together as a group, we’ll be meeting with other leaders from the host city. The idea is to both deepen, for national leaders to connect with people in that particular city; but also for people of the city to be able to engage on a national scale.  But also in a Johnny Appleseed way, seed the same kind of intentional movement and leadership that we can do on a local level.

What are the beliefs and values that guide you in this work?

Responsibility. Reciprocity. Participation. Inclusion. Practice.  Unpacking each of them – whether it’s how I was raised, or how I’m wired, but responsibility is crucial to me.  Americans spend far too much time thinking about rights, not enough about responsibilities.  And I think Americans are far too prone to believe that we’re isolated individuals rather than part of a web of relationships.  I really believe that every aspect of citizenship and self-government begins with a choice to take responsibility.  That may sound conservative, but that’s fine.  I’m a progressive by almost every political policy measure, but any healthy society begins with shared responsibility.

Reciprocity is connected to that. We have to understand and appreciate the ways in which in a diverse large democracy, trust is everything and doesn’t’ come automatically, has to be earned, built and increased.  It is built by reciprocity – understanding that our fates our bound together.

Participation: I always quote Bill Gates Sr., about showing up for life.  I am the son of immigrants:  I’m conscious of every opportunity involving obligation to participate, to get involved, not to take for granted anything that I had the dumb luck to inherit.  I had the luck to be born here, have the advantages of safety, advantages of support – that means I’m obligated to participate in the substance of that ecosystem.

Inclusion means not just to respect diverse view points but also in the sense that our diversity is only as good as what we make of it. It’s paper diversity if you don’t actively seek to bring people together and make something out of their difference.  Active inclusion.

Practice is a very American thing.  A “more perfect union” means we are never perfect, practice will be our charge forever as a country.  Every generation seems to live up more to our ideals, but there are still great gaps between actual ideas and inclusion.

The meta value is true patriotism.  I believe America is exceptional, but because it is we have an exceptional responsibility to keep it up, to earn it.  That’s the overarching value that we hold.  It’s not complacent – it’s a consideration of all of the above, earning it.

Eric Liu is the founder and CEO of Citizen University, which promotes and teaches the art of great citizenship (www.citizenuniversity.us). His books include national bestsellers The Gardens of Democracy and The True Patriot, both co-authored with Nick Hanauer; The Accidental Asian, a New York Times Notable Book; and Guiding Lights, the Official Book of National Mentoring Month. Liu served as a White House speechwriter and deputy domestic policy adviser to President Clinton. He now lives in Seattle, where he teaches civic leadership at the University of Washington. A regular columnist for CNN.com and correspondent for TheAtlantic.com, Liu can be found on Twitter @ericpliu.

The 3 E’s of Leadership

by Reha Bublani, Head – Training, The Global Education & Leadership Foundation

Leadership is a broad concept, with several dimensions and perspectives. No single theory or example can explain its depth or intensity, and no single leader can exemplify all qualities of leadership.

Working on instilling leadership skills in youth, our foundation found communicating what is at the essence of leadership to be a big challenge. Who is a leader? What makes him/her a leader? What can  one do to nurture one’s own leadership potential? These are some common questions that The Global Education & Leadership Foundation, based out of Gurgaon, India, has frequently faced. We explored possible solutions to this puzzle and found something we fell in love with: The GoodWork Toolkit.

We were delighted to share and present our work at the Project Zero Conference in London, held in October 2013. Attended by educators from across the globe, the workshop fostered intense discussions and sharing of experiences as the participants tried to reflect on their own leadership potential. Before discussing this workshop, we would like to present some background on our involvement with the Good Work Project.

Lynn Barendsen and Wendy Fischman, from the Project Zero Team, introduced the GoodWork Toolkit to us as part of the GoodWork Toolkit Certification course conducted for 35 partner schools across India. What started as an endeavor to encourage passionate, introspective discussions in the classroom soon turned into a movement aimed at promoting “good work culture” in schools.  Our students saw themselves in the vignettes, rattled their brains through the ‘value sort’ and above all related their real life decisions to the values they chose as most important. Through these activities, discovery and learning –  some expected, some surprising –  was taking place. In due course, the students gained clarity on leadership. As teachers and students came to comprehend the depth of the 3 E’s (Ethics, Excellence and Engagement), they drew connections to global leaders we had spoken about – Gandhi, Mandela, and Mother Teresa. That is when, together, we created a new definition of leadership:

Leadership = Ethics (Values) + Excellence (Being good at what you do) + Engagement (Working with others)

While this is in no way the ultimate leadership formula, we believe it is a strong starting point for students. It helps them understand the relationship between each of the 3 E’s  to leadership, and how the absence of one can lead to the possibility of weak leadership.

At the Project Zero conference, our audience was willing to engage in the same kind of reflection we had participated in on the road to learning about good work.  We explored each “E” in terms of leadership, understanding, and experiences facilitated by use of activities in the classroom.

Ethics, defined as values in action, was the anchor for a meaningful discussion as we saw participants exploring their own important values using the value sort. Further, the difference between espousing a value and living a value was highlighted, using stories and leadership examples. A key question we posed, “We all believe in honesty, but do we live out that value?”,  encouraged participants to explore their own value-behavior gaps.

Excellence, defined as “being good at what you do”, formed the second ingredient of leadership. In our discussions, participants stressed that there is no substitute for excellence and a leader needs to be good at what he/she does. Sharing their own moments of excellence helped participants solidify their success stories and plan paths ahead. It also inspired participants to consider how they can walk the “extra mile” towards achieving excellence in professional and personal realms.

Finally, Engagement, as constructed by us to mean “working with others”, was brought forward with groups forming “human machines”. This not only reinforced the importance of teamwork but also highlighted its role in leadership.

The participants felt that the activities and games conducted during the workshop could help students back in the classroom to understand their leadership potential. They also felt that it was a good starting point for facilitators and educators to conduct discussions relating to leadership and life skills.

As The Global Education & Leadership Foundation grows in its journey to create change-makers of tomorrow, Project Zero and The GoodWork Toolkit have added incredible value, bringing a variety of flavors to the delicacy called “Leadership.”