Read a review here.
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Casting doubt on linking teacher evaluations to test scores
A new study out of USC and the University of Pennsylvania finds that value-added
measurements — a way of using student test scores to evaluate teacher performance —
aren't a very good way of judging teacher quality. This isn't the first study to cast doubt on
what has become a linchpin educational policy of the Obama administration but there's an interesting element that lends its findings extra weight: It was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a well-known supporter of using test scores in teacher evaluations.
In fact, researcher Morgan S. Polikoff, an assistant professor of education at USC, said the findings ran counter to what he had expected. Yet he was unflinching in his conclusion in a YouTube video on the research: "Value-added scores don't seem to be measuring the quality and content of the work that students are doing in the classroom."
what has become a linchpin educational policy of the Obama administration but there's an interesting element that lends its findings extra weight: It was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a well-known supporter of using test scores in teacher evaluations.
In fact, researcher Morgan S. Polikoff, an assistant professor of education at USC, said the findings ran counter to what he had expected. Yet he was unflinching in his conclusion in a YouTube video on the research: "Value-added scores don't seem to be measuring the quality and content of the work that students are doing in the classroom."
This shouldn't put the kibosh on all use of value-added, which many states have adopted (California
has not). Evidence continues to build on both sides of the issue, and many studies have found that
increases in test scores, though they might not correlate with teacher quality, do have important
ramifications for student success down the road.
If that's true, though, there are legitimate questions about what we consider to be teacher quality. The measures used in the latest study were widely accepted ones adopted for other research. Among them: Good use of classroom time. A nurturing and respectful classroom environment. Students who are asked challenging questions. If these don't lead to improved academic performance, though, maybe they're not as vital as everyone thought.
Another important issue is whether better tests would do a better job of measuring teacher quality. The new tests based on the Common Core standards were designed to do that; it remains to be seen whether they succeed.
What the new study should accomplish, though, is to persuade policy makers to press the pause button when it comes to high-stakes use of the test scores to judge whether a teacher deserves a pat on the back or a shove out the door. Polikoff suggests test results might be more useful as a qualitative measurement that enables schools to fine-tune their teacher training.
The problem is that, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Education, states have been rushing to set up rubrics for judging teachers based, to a significant degree, on rigid use of test scores. The Obama administration is pulling Washington State's waiver from No Child Left Behind requirements, solely because the state didn't follow through with this one aspect of its reform plan. Education policy is supposed to follow well-established research, not the other way around.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
If that's true, though, there are legitimate questions about what we consider to be teacher quality. The measures used in the latest study were widely accepted ones adopted for other research. Among them: Good use of classroom time. A nurturing and respectful classroom environment. Students who are asked challenging questions. If these don't lead to improved academic performance, though, maybe they're not as vital as everyone thought.
Another important issue is whether better tests would do a better job of measuring teacher quality. The new tests based on the Common Core standards were designed to do that; it remains to be seen whether they succeed.
What the new study should accomplish, though, is to persuade policy makers to press the pause button when it comes to high-stakes use of the test scores to judge whether a teacher deserves a pat on the back or a shove out the door. Polikoff suggests test results might be more useful as a qualitative measurement that enables schools to fine-tune their teacher training.
The problem is that, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Education, states have been rushing to set up rubrics for judging teachers based, to a significant degree, on rigid use of test scores. The Obama administration is pulling Washington State's waiver from No Child Left Behind requirements, solely because the state didn't follow through with this one aspect of its reform plan. Education policy is supposed to follow well-established research, not the other way around.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Raising a Moral Child
Raising a Moral Child
By ADAM GRANT APRIL 11, 2014
What does it take to be a good parent? We know some of the tricks for teaching kids to become high achievers. For example, research suggests that when parents praise effort rather than ability, children develop a stronger work ethic and become more motivated.
Yet although some parents live vicariously through their children’s accomplishments, success is not the No. 1 priority for most parents. We’re much more concerned about our children becoming kind, compassionate and helpful. Surveys reveal that in the United States, parents from European, Asian, Hispanic and African ethnic groups all place far greater importance on caring than achievement. These patterns hold around the world: When people in 50 countries were asked to report their guiding principles in life, the value that mattered most was not achievement, but caring.
Despite the significance that it holds in our lives, teaching children to care about others is no simple task. In an Israeli study of nearly 600 families, parents who valued kindness and compassion frequently failed to raise children who shared those values.
Are some children simply good-natured — or not? For the past decade, I’ve been studying the surprising success of people who frequently help others without any strings attached. As the father of two daughters and a son, I’ve become increasingly curious about how these generous tendencies develop.
Genetic twin studies suggest that anywhere from a quarter to more than half of our propensity to be giving and caring is inherited. That leaves a lot of room for nurture, and the evidence on how parents raise kind and compassionate children flies in the face of what many of even the most well-intentioned parents do in praising good behavior, responding to bad behavior, and communicating
By ADAM GRANT APRIL 11, 2014
What does it take to be a good parent? We know some of the tricks for teaching kids to become high achievers. For example, research suggests that when parents praise effort rather than ability, children develop a stronger work ethic and become more motivated.
Yet although some parents live vicariously through their children’s accomplishments, success is not the No. 1 priority for most parents. We’re much more concerned about our children becoming kind, compassionate and helpful. Surveys reveal that in the United States, parents from European, Asian, Hispanic and African ethnic groups all place far greater importance on caring than achievement. These patterns hold around the world: When people in 50 countries were asked to report their guiding principles in life, the value that mattered most was not achievement, but caring.
Despite the significance that it holds in our lives, teaching children to care about others is no simple task. In an Israeli study of nearly 600 families, parents who valued kindness and compassion frequently failed to raise children who shared those values.
Are some children simply good-natured — or not? For the past decade, I’ve been studying the surprising success of people who frequently help others without any strings attached. As the father of two daughters and a son, I’ve become increasingly curious about how these generous tendencies develop.
Genetic twin studies suggest that anywhere from a quarter to more than half of our propensity to be giving and caring is inherited. That leaves a lot of room for nurture, and the evidence on how parents raise kind and compassionate children flies in the face of what many of even the most well-intentioned parents do in praising good behavior, responding to bad behavior, and communicating
their values.
By age 2, children experience some moral emotions — feelings triggered by
right and wrong. To reinforce caring as the right behavior, research indicates, praise is more effective than rewards. Rewards run the risk of leading children to be kind only when a carrot is offered, whereas praise communicates that sharing is intrinsically worthwhile for its own sake. But what kind of praise should we give when our children show early signs of generosity?
Many parents believe it’s important to compliment the behavior, not the child — that way, the child learns to repeat the behavior. Indeed, I know one couple who are careful to say, “That was such a helpful thing to do,” instead of, “You’re a helpful person.”
But is that the right approach? In a clever experiment, the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler set out to investigate what happens when we commend generous behavior versus generous character. After 7- and 8-year-olds won marbles and donated some to poor children, the experimenter remarked, “Gee, you shared quite a bit.”
The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive different types of praise. For some of the children, they praised the action: “It was good that you gave some of your marbles to those poor children. Yes, that was a nice and helpful thing to do.” For others, they praised the character behind the action: “I guess you’re the kind of person who likes to help others whenever you can. Yes, you are a very nice and helpful person.”
A couple of weeks later, when faced with more opportunities to give and share, the children were much more generous after their character had been praised than after their actions had been. Praising their character helped them internalize it as part of their identities. The children learned who they were from observing their own actions: I am a helpful person. This dovetails with new research led by the psychologist Christopher J. Bryan, who finds that for moral behaviors, nouns work better than verbs. To get 3- to 6-year-olds to help with a task, rather than inviting them “to help,” it was 22 to 29 percent more effective to encourage them to “be a helper.” Cheating was cut in half when instead of, “Please don’t cheat,” participants were told, “Please don’t be a cheater.” When our actions become a reflection of our character, we lean more heavily toward the moral and generous choices. Over time it can become part of us.
By age 2, children experience some moral emotions — feelings triggered by
right and wrong. To reinforce caring as the right behavior, research indicates, praise is more effective than rewards. Rewards run the risk of leading children to be kind only when a carrot is offered, whereas praise communicates that sharing is intrinsically worthwhile for its own sake. But what kind of praise should we give when our children show early signs of generosity?
Many parents believe it’s important to compliment the behavior, not the child — that way, the child learns to repeat the behavior. Indeed, I know one couple who are careful to say, “That was such a helpful thing to do,” instead of, “You’re a helpful person.”
But is that the right approach? In a clever experiment, the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler set out to investigate what happens when we commend generous behavior versus generous character. After 7- and 8-year-olds won marbles and donated some to poor children, the experimenter remarked, “Gee, you shared quite a bit.”
The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive different types of praise. For some of the children, they praised the action: “It was good that you gave some of your marbles to those poor children. Yes, that was a nice and helpful thing to do.” For others, they praised the character behind the action: “I guess you’re the kind of person who likes to help others whenever you can. Yes, you are a very nice and helpful person.”
A couple of weeks later, when faced with more opportunities to give and share, the children were much more generous after their character had been praised than after their actions had been. Praising their character helped them internalize it as part of their identities. The children learned who they were from observing their own actions: I am a helpful person. This dovetails with new research led by the psychologist Christopher J. Bryan, who finds that for moral behaviors, nouns work better than verbs. To get 3- to 6-year-olds to help with a task, rather than inviting them “to help,” it was 22 to 29 percent more effective to encourage them to “be a helper.” Cheating was cut in half when instead of, “Please don’t cheat,” participants were told, “Please don’t be a cheater.” When our actions become a reflection of our character, we lean more heavily toward the moral and generous choices. Over time it can become part of us.
Praise appears to be particularly influential in the critical periods when
children develop a stronger sense of identity. When the researchers Joan E.
Grusec and Erica Redler praised the character of 5-year-olds, any benefits that
may have emerged didn’t have a lasting impact: They may have been too young
to internalize moral character as part of a stable sense of self. And by the time
children turned 10, the differences between praising character and praising
actions vanished: Both were effective. Tying generosity to character appears to
matter most around age 8, when children may be starting to crystallize notions
of identity.
Praise in response to good behavior may be half the battle, but our responses to bad behavior have consequences, too. When children cause harm, they typically feel one of two moral emotions: shame or guilt. Despite the common belief that these emotions are interchangeable, research led by the psychologist June Price Tangney reveals that they have very different causes and consequences.
Shame is the feeling that I am a bad person, whereas guilt is the feeling that I have done a bad thing. Shame is a negative judgment about the core self, which is devastating: Shame makes children feel small and worthless, and they respond either by lashing out at the target or escaping the situation altogether. In contrast, guilt is a negative judgment about an action, which can be repaired by good behavior. When children feel guilt, they tend to experience remorse and regret, empathize with the person they have harmed, and aim to make it right.
In one study spearheaded by the psychologist Karen Caplovitz Barrett, parents rated their toddlers’ tendencies to experience shame and guilt at home. The toddlers received a rag doll, and the leg fell off while they were playing with it alone. The shame-prone toddlers avoided the researcher and did not volunteer that they broke the doll. The guilt-prone toddlers were more likely to fix the doll, approach the experimenter, and explain what happened. The ashamed toddlers were avoiders; the guilty toddlers were amenders.
If we want our children to care about others, we need to teach them to feel guilt rather than shame when they misbehave. In a review of research on emotions and moral development, the psychologist Nancy Eisenberg suggests that shame emerges when parents express anger, withdraw their love, or try to assert their power through threats of punishment: Children may begin to believe that they are bad people. Fearing this effect, some parents fail to exercise discipline at all, which can hinder the development of strong moral standards.
Praise in response to good behavior may be half the battle, but our responses to bad behavior have consequences, too. When children cause harm, they typically feel one of two moral emotions: shame or guilt. Despite the common belief that these emotions are interchangeable, research led by the psychologist June Price Tangney reveals that they have very different causes and consequences.
Shame is the feeling that I am a bad person, whereas guilt is the feeling that I have done a bad thing. Shame is a negative judgment about the core self, which is devastating: Shame makes children feel small and worthless, and they respond either by lashing out at the target or escaping the situation altogether. In contrast, guilt is a negative judgment about an action, which can be repaired by good behavior. When children feel guilt, they tend to experience remorse and regret, empathize with the person they have harmed, and aim to make it right.
In one study spearheaded by the psychologist Karen Caplovitz Barrett, parents rated their toddlers’ tendencies to experience shame and guilt at home. The toddlers received a rag doll, and the leg fell off while they were playing with it alone. The shame-prone toddlers avoided the researcher and did not volunteer that they broke the doll. The guilt-prone toddlers were more likely to fix the doll, approach the experimenter, and explain what happened. The ashamed toddlers were avoiders; the guilty toddlers were amenders.
If we want our children to care about others, we need to teach them to feel guilt rather than shame when they misbehave. In a review of research on emotions and moral development, the psychologist Nancy Eisenberg suggests that shame emerges when parents express anger, withdraw their love, or try to assert their power through threats of punishment: Children may begin to believe that they are bad people. Fearing this effect, some parents fail to exercise discipline at all, which can hinder the development of strong moral standards.
The most effective response to bad behavior is to express disappointment.
According to independent reviews by Professor Eisenberg and David R. Shaffer,
parents raise caring children by expressing disappointment and explaining why
the behavior was wrong, how it affected others, and how they can rectify the
situation. This enables children to develop standards for judging their actions,
feelings of empathy and responsibility for others, and a sense of moral identity,
which are conducive to becoming a helpful person. The beauty of expressing
disappointment is that it communicates disapproval of the bad behavior, coupled
with high expectations and the potential for improvement: “You’re a good
person, even if you did a bad thing, and I know you can do better.”
As powerful as it is to criticize bad behavior and praise good character, raising a generous child involves more than waiting for opportunities to react to the actions of our children. As parents, we want to be proactive in communicating our values to our children. Yet many of us do this the wrong way.
In a classic experiment, the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton gave 140 elementary- and middle-school-age children tokens for winning a game, which they could keep entirely or donate some to a child in poverty. They first watched a teacher figure play the game either selfishly or generously, and then preach to them the value of taking, giving or neither. The adult’s influence was significant: Actions spoke louder than words. When the adult behaved selfishly, children followed suit. The words didn’t make much difference — children gave fewer tokens after observing the adult’s selfish actions, regardless of whether the adult verbally advocated selfishness or generosity. When the adult acted generously, students gave the same amount whether generosity was preached or not — they donated 85 percent more than the norm in both cases. When the adult preached selfishness, even after the adult acted generously, the students still gave 49 percent more than the norm. Children learn generosity not by listening to what their role models say, but by observing what they do.
To test whether these role-modeling effects persisted over time, two months later researchers observed the children playing the game again. Would the modeling or the preaching influence whether the children gave — and would they even remember it from two months earlier?
The most generous children were those who watched the teacher give but not say anything. Two months later, these children were 31 percent more generous than those who observed the same behavior but also heard it preached.
As powerful as it is to criticize bad behavior and praise good character, raising a generous child involves more than waiting for opportunities to react to the actions of our children. As parents, we want to be proactive in communicating our values to our children. Yet many of us do this the wrong way.
In a classic experiment, the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton gave 140 elementary- and middle-school-age children tokens for winning a game, which they could keep entirely or donate some to a child in poverty. They first watched a teacher figure play the game either selfishly or generously, and then preach to them the value of taking, giving or neither. The adult’s influence was significant: Actions spoke louder than words. When the adult behaved selfishly, children followed suit. The words didn’t make much difference — children gave fewer tokens after observing the adult’s selfish actions, regardless of whether the adult verbally advocated selfishness or generosity. When the adult acted generously, students gave the same amount whether generosity was preached or not — they donated 85 percent more than the norm in both cases. When the adult preached selfishness, even after the adult acted generously, the students still gave 49 percent more than the norm. Children learn generosity not by listening to what their role models say, but by observing what they do.
To test whether these role-modeling effects persisted over time, two months later researchers observed the children playing the game again. Would the modeling or the preaching influence whether the children gave — and would they even remember it from two months earlier?
The most generous children were those who watched the teacher give but not say anything. Two months later, these children were 31 percent more generous than those who observed the same behavior but also heard it preached.
The message from this research is loud and clear: If you don’t model generosity,
preaching it may not help in the short run, and in the long run, preaching is less
effective than giving while saying nothing at all.
People often believe that character causes action, but when it comes to producing moral children, we need to remember that action also shapes character. As the psychologist Karl Weick is fond of asking, “How can I know who I am until I see what I do? How can I know what I value until I see where I walk?”
Adam Grant is a professor of management and psychology at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success.”
People often believe that character causes action, but when it comes to producing moral children, we need to remember that action also shapes character. As the psychologist Karl Weick is fond of asking, “How can I know who I am until I see what I do? How can I know what I value until I see where I walk?”
Adam Grant is a professor of management and psychology at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success.”
Friday, December 6, 2013
Age of Distraction: Why It’s Crucial for Students to Learn to Focus
We all know the importance of focus!
If young students don’t build up the neural circuitry that focused attention requires, they could have problems controlling their emotions and being empathetic.
Daniel Goldman's book, Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence is the focus of this article.
If young students don’t build up the neural circuitry that focused attention requires, they could have problems controlling their emotions and being empathetic.
Daniel Goldman's book, Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence is the focus of this article.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Finnish Miracle
From Diane Ravitch's Blog:
It explains why Finnish schools succeed: Not because they want to be first in the world, but because they want “a great school for each and every child.” Their goal is equity, not excellence. While striving for equity, excellence is the by-product.
His comparison of the stale paradigm of the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), which features testing, competition, and choice, with the Finnish Way (collaboration, responsibility, trust, equity, and education as a human right) is stark and compelling.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Monday, August 27, 2012
Vigor Instead of Rigor
This was written by Joanne Yatvin, a veteran public school educator, author and past president of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Though my years in the classroom are long past, at heart I am still a cranky old English teacher who bristles at some of the neologisms that have crept into public language. I never tack “ly” onto ordinal number words, or say “myself” when I mean “I” or “me.” I won’t use “access” or “impact” as verbs because I consider them still to be only nouns.
Even so, I remain politely quiet when others commit such grammatical transgressions. But, there is one word I dislike so intensely when used in connection with education that I can’t remain silent under any circumstances. That word is “rigor.”
Part of my reaction is emotional, having so often heard “rigor” paired with “mortis.” The other part is logical, stemming from the literal meanings of rigor: harshness, severity, strictness, inflexibility and immobility. None of these things is what I want for students at any level. And, although I don’t believe that the politicians, scholars or media commentators who use the word so freely really want them, either, I still reproach them for using the wrong word and the wrong concept to characterize educational excellence.
Now, more than ever, “rigor” is being used to promote the idea that American students need advanced course work, complex texts, stricter grading, and longer school days and years in order to be ready for college or the workplace. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) already adopted by 45 states, were designed for rigor and will inexorably lead to it in all forms in almost all classrooms.
Since I believe it is time for a better word and a better concept to drive American education, I recommend “vigor.” Here my dictionary says, “active physical or mental force or strength, healthy growth; intensity, force or energy.” And my mental association is to all the Latin-based words related to life.
How much better our schools would be if they provided students with classes and activities throbbing with energy, growth and life. Although school buildings have walls, there should be no walls separating students from vigorous learning. No ceilings, either.
To learn vigorously, students need more than academic skills and knowledge, more than the generalities and hypotheticals found in textbooks and workbooks. By reading newspapers, magazines, graphic novels, even the daily comics and Internet articles; and by getting to know people of all ages, types of work, and cultural backgrounds they can learn about the real world they live in. Although it is not practical to send hordes of children and teen-agers out into that world to learn all the things they need to know, many more in-school classes and supplemental activities can be vigorous.
Instead of aiming for higher test scores like rigorous schools, a vigorous school would care about what students do with what they have been taught in classrooms. At all levels vigorous schools would foster activities that allow students to demonstrate their learning in real contexts, such as serving in the school lunchroom or assisting in the school library, communicating with students in other parts of the world, proposing changes in student rules to the school board, organizing playground games for younger children or reading to them, making items to sell in a school store, planning Jeopardy-like quiz shows, creating a school garden, painting murals in the halls, producing original plays or making videos, setting up a school art museum.
Vigorous schools would also encourage students to perform in musical groups, clean up the school grounds, adopt a road, publish a student newspaper or a parent newsletter, establish a school post office, run a school recycling program, write to newspapers or public figures, and work with adults on community projects.
As a result of all the vigor these activities exemplify, there would come the intellectual intensity, precision, critical alertness, expertise and integrity that critics of education are really calling for when they misuse the word “rigor.” These habits of mind, body and spirit are the true fruit of educational excellence. In the end, vigor in our schools is the evidence of life, while rigor is the sign of an early death.
Though my years in the classroom are long past, at heart I am still a cranky old English teacher who bristles at some of the neologisms that have crept into public language. I never tack “ly” onto ordinal number words, or say “myself” when I mean “I” or “me.” I won’t use “access” or “impact” as verbs because I consider them still to be only nouns.
Even so, I remain politely quiet when others commit such grammatical transgressions. But, there is one word I dislike so intensely when used in connection with education that I can’t remain silent under any circumstances. That word is “rigor.”
Part of my reaction is emotional, having so often heard “rigor” paired with “mortis.” The other part is logical, stemming from the literal meanings of rigor: harshness, severity, strictness, inflexibility and immobility. None of these things is what I want for students at any level. And, although I don’t believe that the politicians, scholars or media commentators who use the word so freely really want them, either, I still reproach them for using the wrong word and the wrong concept to characterize educational excellence.
Now, more than ever, “rigor” is being used to promote the idea that American students need advanced course work, complex texts, stricter grading, and longer school days and years in order to be ready for college or the workplace. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) already adopted by 45 states, were designed for rigor and will inexorably lead to it in all forms in almost all classrooms.
Since I believe it is time for a better word and a better concept to drive American education, I recommend “vigor.” Here my dictionary says, “active physical or mental force or strength, healthy growth; intensity, force or energy.” And my mental association is to all the Latin-based words related to life.
How much better our schools would be if they provided students with classes and activities throbbing with energy, growth and life. Although school buildings have walls, there should be no walls separating students from vigorous learning. No ceilings, either.
To learn vigorously, students need more than academic skills and knowledge, more than the generalities and hypotheticals found in textbooks and workbooks. By reading newspapers, magazines, graphic novels, even the daily comics and Internet articles; and by getting to know people of all ages, types of work, and cultural backgrounds they can learn about the real world they live in. Although it is not practical to send hordes of children and teen-agers out into that world to learn all the things they need to know, many more in-school classes and supplemental activities can be vigorous.
Instead of aiming for higher test scores like rigorous schools, a vigorous school would care about what students do with what they have been taught in classrooms. At all levels vigorous schools would foster activities that allow students to demonstrate their learning in real contexts, such as serving in the school lunchroom or assisting in the school library, communicating with students in other parts of the world, proposing changes in student rules to the school board, organizing playground games for younger children or reading to them, making items to sell in a school store, planning Jeopardy-like quiz shows, creating a school garden, painting murals in the halls, producing original plays or making videos, setting up a school art museum.
Vigorous schools would also encourage students to perform in musical groups, clean up the school grounds, adopt a road, publish a student newspaper or a parent newsletter, establish a school post office, run a school recycling program, write to newspapers or public figures, and work with adults on community projects.
As a result of all the vigor these activities exemplify, there would come the intellectual intensity, precision, critical alertness, expertise and integrity that critics of education are really calling for when they misuse the word “rigor.” These habits of mind, body and spirit are the true fruit of educational excellence. In the end, vigor in our schools is the evidence of life, while rigor is the sign of an early death.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Small Changes
"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." I believe we need look for small ways to improve instruction instead of trying to make major overhauls of our programs. This article explains how focusing on text while reading to emerging readers led to better literacy outcomes.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
What Makes a Good Teacher?
Monday, April 2, 2012
Are We Raising a Generation of Helpless Kids?
Except from article by Micky Goodman:
Parents have become obsessed with their children's safety in every aspect
of their lives. Instead of letting them go outside to play, parents have
filled their kid's spare time with organized activities, done their
homework for them, resolved their conflicts at school with both friends
and teachers, and handed out trophies for just showing up.
"These well-intentioned messages of 'you're special' have come back
to haunt us," Elmore says. "We are consumed with protecting them instead
of preparing them for the future. We haven't let them fall, fail and
fear. The problem is that if they don't take risks early on like
climbing the monkey bars and possibly falling off, they are fearful of
every new endeavor at age 29."
Psychologists and psychiatrists are seeing more and more young people
having a quarter-life crisis and more cases of clinical depression. The
reason? Young people tell them it's because they haven't yet made their
first million or found the perfect mate.
Teachers, coaches and executives complain that Gen Y kids have short
attention spans and rely on external, instead of internal motivation.
The goal of Growing Leaders is to reverse the trend and help young
people become more creative and self-motivated so they can rely on
themselves and don't need external motivation.
Family psychologist John Rosemond agrees. In a February 2 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution,
he points out that new research finds that rewards often backfire,
producing the opposite effect of that intended. When an aggressive child
is rewarded for not being aggressive for a short period of time, he is
likely to repeat the bad behavior to keep the rewards coming.
Where did we go wrong?
• We've told our kids to dream big - and now any small act seems
insignificant. In the great scheme of things, kids can't instantly
change the world. They have to take small, first steps - which seem like
no progress at all to them. Nothing short of instant fame is good
enough. "It's time we tell them that doing great things starts with
accomplishing small goals," he says.
• We've told our kids that they are special - for no reason, even
though they didn't display excellent character or skill, and now they
demand special treatment. The problem is that kids assumed they didn't
have to do anything special in order to be special.
• We gave our kids every comfort - and now they can't delay
gratification. And we heard the message loud and clear. We, too, pace in
front of the microwave, become angry when things don't go our way at
work, rage at traffic. "Now it's time to relay the importance of waiting
for the things we want, deferring to the wishes of others and
surrendering personal desires in the pursuit of something bigger than
'me,'" Elmore says.
• We made our kid's happiness a central goal - and now it's difficult
for them to generate happiness -- the by-product of living a meaningful
life. "It's time we tell them that our goal is to enable them to
discover their gifts, passions and purposes in life so they can help
others. Happiness comes as a result."
The uncomfortable solutions:
"We need to let our kids fail at 12 - which is far better than at
42," he says. "We need to tell them the truth (with grace) that the
notion of 'you can do anything you want' is not necessarily true."
Kids need to align their dreams with their gifts. Every girl with a
lovely voice won't sing at the Met; every Little League baseball star
won't play for the major leagues.
• Allow them to get into trouble and accept the consequences. It's
okay to make a "C-." Next time, they'll try harder to make an "A".
• Balance autonomy with responsibility. If your son borrows the car, he also has to re-fill the tank.
• Collaborate with the teacher, but don't do the work for your child. If he fails a test, let him take the consequences.
"We need to become velvet bricks," Elmore says, "soft on the outside
and hard on the inside and allow children to fail while they are young
in order to succeed when they are adults."
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sir Ken Robinson
Many of us were able to attend the lecture by Sir Ken Robinson at UCSB last week. If you weren't one of the lucky one, here are some videos that are sure to pique your interest. Thanks to my friend Dennis Naiman for providing the links! (Last two are on YouTube, so that can't be viewed at school.)
Monday, January 16, 2012
Groupthink - NYT Article
 |
Andy Rementer |
But there’s a problem with this view. Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption. And the most spectacularly creative people in many fields are often introverted.
Intrigued? Read the entire article here.
 |
Andy Rementer |
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)