Information and resources on topics of current interest
Ongoing Hot Issues
Analysis briefs delineating ongoing issues relevant to MH in schools and addressing barriers to learning and teaching
Test Scores Plateauing? Here’s What’s Missing in School Improvement Efforts
School Reform is Failing to Address Barriers to Learning
Excerpts from a New York Times Opinion piece by Angela Duckworth (3/26/16)
Don’t Grade Schools on Grit
... Over the past few years, I’ve seen a groundswell of popular interest in character development.
As a social scientist researching the importance of character, I was heartened. It seemed that the narrow focus on standardized achievement test scores from the years I taught in public schools was giving way to a broader, more enlightened perspective.
These days, however, I worry I’ve contributed, inadvertently, to an idea I vigorously oppose: high-stakes character assessment. New federal legislation can be interpreted as encouraging states and schools to incorporate measures of character into their accountability systems. This year, nine California school districts will begin doing this.
. . .
Scientists and educators are working together to discover more effective ways of cultivating character. For example, research has shown that we can teach children the self-control strategy of setting goals and making plans, with measurable benefits for academic achievement. It’s also possible to help children manage their emotions and to develop a “growth mind-set” about learning (that is, believing that their abilities are malleable rather than fixed).
This is exciting progress. A 2011 meta-analysis of more than 200 school-based programs found that teaching social and emotional skills can improve behavior and raise academic achievement, strong evidence that school is an important arena for the development of character.
But we’re nowhere near ready — and perhaps never will be — to use feedback on character as a metric for judging the effectiveness of teachers and schools. We shouldn’t be rewarding or punishing schools for how students perform on these measures.
MY concerns stem from intimate acquaintance with the limitations of the measures themselves.
One problem is reference bias: A judgment about whether you “came to class prepared” depends on your frame of reference. If you consider being prepared arriving before the bell rings, with your notebook open, last night’s homework complete, and your full attention turned toward the day’s lesson, you might rate yourself lower than a less prepared student with more lax standards.
For instance, in a study of self-reported conscientiousness in 56 countries, it was the Japanese, Chinese and Korean respondents who rated themselves lowest. The authors of the study speculated that this reflected differences in cultural norms, rather than in actual behavior.
Comparisons between American schools often produce similarly paradoxical findings. In a study colleagues and I published last year, we found that eighth graders at high-performing charter schools gave themselves lower scores on conscientiousness, self-control and grit than their counterparts at district schools. This was perhaps because students at these charter schools held themselves to higher standards.
I also worry that tying external rewards and punishments to character assessment will create incentives for cheating. Policy makers who assume that giving educators and students more reasons to care about character can be only a good thing should take heed of research suggesting that extrinsic motivation can, in fact, displace intrinsic motivation. While carrots and sticks can bring about short-term changes in behavior, they often undermine interest in and responsibility for the behavior itself.
A couple of weeks ago, a colleague told me that she’d heard from a teacher in one of the California school districts adopting the new character test. The teacher was unsettled that questionnaires her students filled out about their grit and growth mind-set would contribute to an evaluation of her school’s quality. I felt queasy. This was not at all my intent, and this is not at all a good idea.
Does character matter, and can character be developed? Science and experience unequivocally say yes. Can the practice of giving feedback to students on character be improved? Absolutely. Can scientists and educators work together to cultivate students’ character? Without question.
Should we turn measures of character intended for research and self-discovery into high-stakes metrics for accountability? In my view, no.
Angela Duckworth is the founder and scientific director of the Character Lab, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of the forthcoming book “Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance.”
As you share your thoughts about all this, we will share them in ways that perhaps can help end the marginalization of efforts to transform student and learning supports.
We look forward to receiving your comments.
Send them toLtaylor@ucla.edu for posting.
Continue on to our
Ongoing Hot Issue
Previous Hot Topics:
Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child – The Implementation Problem
About Integrating Student and Learning Supports: Integrating is Not the Main Point
CHALLENGE FOR 2012: Expanding the 2012 School Improvement Agenda
to Encompass Development of a Unified and Comprehensive System of
Education Blueprints for School Improvement, Addressing Barriers to Learning,
& a Comprehensive System of Learning Supports: It's About Much More than
Full Service Community Schools and Wraparound Services
Using "Down-Time" to Plan Better Ways to Address Psychosocial-Educational
and Mental Health Concerns at School
Want more information?
Want to connect?
Want to be on our mailing list?
Click here to sign up.
WebMaster: Perry Nelson (firstname.lastname@example.org)