by Con
I don’t know much about this Program and so am giving benefit of the doubt by the ideal suggested by it’s title - and I don’t understand objections to a program like this. What could be more important for young people to learn, develop, acquire, etc., than Character?
Tax says that “this sounds like a program to make us all “feel good”- one that has very good intentions but has no scientific basis, no clear objectives, no clear path for monitoring outcomes.”
That list is merely one (narrow) method to approach any program when there are numerous criteria which don’t fit neatly into such a list - even assuming the statement/list is true (how do we know?) that does not mean the program is good or bad, it means the measurement approach is flawed. I mean, we are talking about a deeply ingrained, ineffable personal quality - Character - which we can all agree is highly desirable, yet often incredibly difficult to detect, measure, ‘grade’, etc. Traditional methodology seems inadequate and inappropriate (is there a Standardized Test to determine if someone is a ‘Good Person?’).
‘No clear objectives…’? What about “doing our best to help young people develop Character”? This is not Algebra and the very paradigm for measuring anything about it - ’success’, progress, etc. - is completely different from most anything else. That ought not be reason to shoot it down, but instead to change our thinking about it all.
And because young people spend about 1/2 of their waking life in school, it seems a very good idea to work on Character during that time - especially considering their activities (and lack of concentration or opportunity for learning) during other waking hours. They deserve it.
Ideals are not the norm regarding who ’should’ be doing this job - each and every young person does not have both parents and a full extended family, all of the highest character (almost perfect) AND with excellent resources, with plenty of time and a real grasp of ‘Character’ and how to ensure that young people acquire it.
Offering a program like this in school represents a democratic approach whereby VALUE is made available to all persons on an equal basis - those with perfect families, those with imperfect (and even ‘bad’) families and those with no families. Personal Responsibility, Choice and Judgement are part of what makes up Character - by definition, most young people have not fully developed these traits/skills. Their very physiology is under development and is much different than an Adult. The same analysis regarding these traits and how the mind processes experiences, value, good, bad, choice, etc. is quite different than would apply to, say, a group of 40-year olds.
Con,
Thank you. I appreciate your input. However, without a clearly communicated set of objectives, without a clear methodical curriculum, without a clearly communicated process for evaluating outcomes, and without proper teacher training, the good intentions of any program, no matter how meritous, cannot rise to the level of efficacy that we should expect in a professional environment.
Your premise is correct if we are talking about church groups and Boy Scout troops, but this program is being foisted upon a publically funded school-and regardless of good intentions-the teachers, the parents, and the students deserve a program that has in place a well communicated and a well defined set professional standards and guidlelines. Character Counts does not. Because it doesn’t and because the BOE has allowed it to progress, we not only risk subverting professional credibility, but more importantly we risk wasting time that could be spent on academics.
Con,
My position on Character Counts is slightly different than Tax’s. I’m not convinced it’s 100% worthless but I think its success could go either way depending on how the program is presented. TPV and I had an earlier exchange about this. Character, or six essential “pillars” of “good” character (whatever terminology one wishes to use here) cannot be taught solely in school. I mean, they CAN be taught that way, but they will undoubtedly meet with limited success. I think parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. To that end, I think that some of these activities should not be so student-directed. I would prefer to see a mix of some student-directed activities and some program-directed or Admin-directed activities that involve discussions at home. Or maybe someone else has a better idea than that but my point is that this program needs to come up with a creative way to engage the parents/caregivers or it’s success will be limited in my opinion.
We’ve had this program for 3 years now and still…ask some of our kids what life is like on their school bus. Some buses seem to have a reputation as having a rougher passenger “clientele” than others. Some of the bullying (verbally) that goes on happens on the bus from what I’ve heard from some of the kids. Could this be because Character Counts is left behind in the school building when the day is done? How many kids are interiorizing these lessons and bringing them home or bringing them into their community in rec leagues, on the bus, etc.? The straight A’s who are well behaved and disciplined to begin with? I think in general we have a pretty nice majority of “good” families with “good” kids to begin with in Woodstock. Even “good” kids can have their moments though and verbal altercations can and do arise from time to time. Having been recognized before the student body as a caring person doesn’t mean that a caring young person can’t and won’t get angry and lash out. It seems to me that it’s conflict resolution that’s more needed in this age group. But whatever we need, and whatever is presented in school, if there’s no follow-up at home, its success will be limited.
Add to that there hasn’t been much explanation about this program to parents in my opinion. The article here at the Cafe from the BOE that discusses this program seems vague to me as well so I have to agree with Tax on that. By that I mean it comes across to me as being written in very general terms when I feel that specifics and more detail about the curriculum of Character Counts should be provided to parents. I know what the 6 pillars are, but I’d like more info about how these student-directed/teacher-facilitated activities are supposed to teach the pillars (ie. how does the curriculum attempt to teach good character). I understand community service and I value it as an expression of the Golden Rule in my own family. But I’d like to see more details about how this CC program makes that connection for the students. Does this program seek to facilitate the student body bonding as an entire body, or does it seek to teach and reinforce individual characteristics that some kids already have, some kids will learn and interiorize, and some kids will have little interest in and benefit less from? What are we going for here? Are we looking to have each individual possess good character so that they will not bully? Are we looking to bond them as a school community so that they will look down on bullying of a fellow school family member? Both? How is this curriculum supposed to get us there?
Maybe my concerns are for naught but I don’t know that, because as a parent, I haven’t received anything specific about this program. Hopefully, that will change in the near future.
So, Becki, what do you think about school bus bullying? It wasn’t a new problem when I rode a school bus 40 years ago. Has anything changed? What do drivers do about it? Ignore and hope the kids get off soon…?
Newcomer,
I have contacted the new board chair and let him know that some people are eager for more information on this program and how it is being implemented.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Thanks, Kevin.
Tax,
How can you ” appreciate” my input, when it seems that you did not truly appreciate what I said about your input. We have vastly different embedded assumptions - and we must fully challenge your assumptions or this discussion will be identical to others…
You see - YOU (and your thinking) are the one who needs to change here, not the Program. You’ve dug in your heels and refuse to budge, seemingly because the Program (in your OPINION) does not have “a clearly communicated set of objectives… a clear methodical curriculum… a clearly communicated process for evaluating outcomes, and…proper teacher training ( BTW - HOW could you possibly know about the sufficiency of Teacher Training? I reckon that even other teachers may not be qualified to Judge other teachers…).
Quick aside - paying Taxes does NOT make you or me anyone’s Boss; we rely on experts to build our Bridges and we don’t second guess those engineers paid by tax dollars - this is the Same Thing. You must accept that or you’ll be stuck driving in circles telling Professionals/Experts how to do their job and that they are accountable to you DIRECTLY, when it is simply not so.
Now - you state that “efficacy” is what should be expected by a Program? Taken together, your language from start to finish betrays a scientific approach to a wholly Non-scientific concept and there is NO FIT. How can we measure the efficacy of someone’s Character? Will you allow someone to measure yours?
That concept does not fit. Your criteria for determining whether the Program ought to be supported does not fit. Again, you are stuck in a whole other world/paradigm. What if, for a challenging exercise, you dropped those means of ‘measurement’, abandoned entirely your manner of speaking about and method of evaluating this Program.
You would then need to find a new language for even talking about the Program - THAT is where you need to commence. Your current language is not up to the task and merely bogs you down in notions which are suited to Algebra, but not Art - yet BOTH are taught at School. Can you Judge the ‘efficacy’ of an Art Program? Can you determine whether an Art Teacher is properly trained?
Can you see that Art has been part of school curriculum for a very long time, yet cannot be forced to fit your narrow means of evaluating, etc. contained in that paragraph. Consider, then, the relationship between Art and Character… That kind of complexity and highly different manner of thinking is PART of what’s involved with this Program.
First of all, Art is State mandated; CC is not. Also, there are quantative measures determined by the Art teacher, therefore students recieve a grade. CC does not get graded. In outward appearances CC seems to be a school- wide club, much like chess club or engineering club.
As parents, we are able to see how our child is doing in art. Some may not value it as much as math, SS or LA, some do. Art is a way for students to explore creative and critical thinking. Teachers have training to become art teachers. The art teacher at the elem school DOES a lot of professional development for the Art program and does an incredible job.
Are the teachers certified to teach CC? Do they get professional development for CC? I don’t think so. Now that ALL teachers are required to teach CC, is that a part of thier evaluation criteria when job performance is evaluated?
While paying taxes does not make anyone the boss, it does allow for a person to ask hard questions. I do agree with the CC program in theory however, there are no pre-set standards. So when I ask what my child will be learning about specifically, no one can give me a straightforward answer. Since there is no format, I would rather my child have SSR time or maybe an extra Art class.
Con,
I believe that we can appreciate each other’s opinions even if we don’t agree with them.
If you scroll back a few pages on the Cafe, I believe to December 5, there is an article posted from the BOE regarding the Character Counts program. In the first paragraph, the following statement is made:
“In the last 30 years, a growing body of research has confirmed the importance of the learning climate for students. Compelling empirical research shows that a positive and sustained school climate promotes academic achievement and healthy development.”
If you trust this, as I do, you will recognize that a scientific (empirical) process HAS been applied to the study of school climate and, through scientific research, conclusions have been made about the effects of a positive climate on academic achievement.
Now according to your assumptions, the study of character and of school climate are “wholly non-scientific concepts” which do not “fit” into a model of scientific evaluation or ‘measurements’. So who’s the expert here, you or the BOE? On what basis do you draw your conclusions from and if you truly believe what you say, are you willing to dismiss a “growing body of research’ on school climate?
Fair enough to say that I have not seen that research and so I cannot comment its quality, however, it is also fair to say that even the most basic kind of research involves data collection and analysis-key components to a scientific process.
Certainly the research and evaluation of character is different then the study and research of something more tangible such as the cardiovascular effects of psychotropic drugs, however, the process remains the same.
So too, when a program is initiated that is rooted in scientific principles, whether it be Character Counts or treatment for psychosis, the expectation is that these programs, when administered by professionals, maintain a level of professional integrity- that is, an ongoing evaluative scientific process to monitor and measure their efficacy. In the school setting, this scientific process is guided by a curriculum which is also scientifically based.
You seem to strongly believe that these premises are of a wrong ‘paradigm’, that the application of scientific principles to something “non-scientific” is not possible, that it not the right “fit”. I disagree. I support a paradigm that believes the scientific process can and must be applied to all professional level activities. This ensures accountablity because it is based on research and not simply on the old paradigm of “we always do it this way”.
The next key component for appreciating how the scientific process can be applied to programs such as CC led me to my next premise: Greater training and support for teachers is necessary to ensure that a program, such as Character Counts, is run effectively and with with optimal outcomes. An important part of this training should include the application of the scientific process, particularly the means for evaluating such a program. Clearly, as you rightly suggest, this is not going to be the same as evaluating an algebra class. This is why training is necessary. Evaluating student behaviors, attitudes, participation, interaction, ability to role reverse, role play, draw meaningful conclusions, and develop critical thinking can all be part of a training program and are all components that can be measured with a series of objectives that address these particulars.
That is all I am asking for-and I ask for this not only to make the program more substantiative but to provide teachers with the professional support they deserve so that they are not placed in a position of feeling inadequate. This isn’t a church group or a Boy Scout troop after all. This is a professional environment that carries with it professional expectations.
AS to your statement, “paying Taxes does NOT make you or me anyone’s Boss; we rely on experts to build our Bridges and we don’t second guess those engineers paid by tax dollars - this is the Same Thing. You must accept that or you’ll be stuck driving in circles telling Professionals/Experts how to do their job and that they are accountable to you DIRECTLY, when it is simply not so.”
Again, I respect your right to make assumptions about me. But ironically, I also agree with another statement you made: that we have “vastly different embedded assumptions”
While you believe that my comments, opinions, and suggestions suggest that I want to be someone’s boss and that anyone who makes comments, opinions, and suggestions “will be driving in circles”, I believe that the role of the parent is essential and that as A Taxpayer we not only have a right but a responsibility to be partners with the schools.
In fact, the BOE seems to support my belief. Again, in the Dec.5th article(4th paragraph) they state “effective school- family- community partnerships are critical to supporting students’ achievement, developing positive character traits, and enhancing the school climate.”
Like your other false assumptions, you might want to re-think that one as well. Best regards.
A Taxpayer.
The following is an excerpt from the Common Core of Teaching. It is provided by the state of CT and states the following goal:
The Common Core of Teaching (CCT) articulates the knowledge, skills and qualities that
Connecticut teachers need in order to prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Domain 2. Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning
Teachers promote student engagement, independence and interdependence in learning by
facilitating a positive learning community by:
2.1 Creating a class climate that is responsive to and respectful of the learning needs of students2 with
diverse backgrounds, interests and performance levels;
2.2 Promoting engagement in and shared responsibility for the learning process and providing
opportunities for students to initiate their own questions and inquiries;
2.3 Providing explicit instruction about social skills to develop students’ social competence3 and
responsible and ethical behavior by using a continuum of proactive strategies4 that may be
individualized to student needs;
2.4 Fostering appropriate standards of behavior that support a productive learning environment for all
students; and
2.5 Maximizing the amount of time spent on learning by effectively managing routines and
transitions5.
We have been thoroughly trained in all mentioned above. You assume that just because we haven’t been officially trained in this particular form of character development, that we are completely incapable of teaching the CC concepts. I have news for you all…. we’ve been dealing with character issues our entire careers. We’ve been thoroughly trained in this area. CC is just a name to that which we’ve been teaching all along. I think it’s time to get off the “but they’re not trained” argument…
So, is CC mandated as a program? No. Does the state demand that schools and teachers provide instruction based on character and social skills? Absolutely.
When I have a question about what my children are doing in school I contact their teacher(s). …(see JK’s new article. Admin).
TPV,
What do you think about this Character Counts program? Do you feel it’s helping you meet the State CCT standards any better than you were already doing on your own (prior to three years ago when CC came in)? Are you seeing an appreciable difference in the children’s behavior as a result of Character Counts?
There has been acceptable and unacceptable classroom behavior since I was a student (back in the days of Moses). Teachers never needed a program like CC before. What has changed nowadays and do you feel that whatever it is that has changed, CC thoroughly addresses it?
The way I’m reading the CCT that you presented seems to me to address acceptable classroom behavior. Bullying is also a behavior. Character traits are a bit of a different animal. The underlying premise seems to be that “people of good, solid character do not act out or misbehave”. I believe that to be a flase premise though. Plenty of “good” kids, teens, and even adults make poor choices from time to time and behave in ways that do not represent their good moral character. That’s why I have so many questions (such as those in my post #2 above) specific to this CC program. If one key reason for introducing this program is to curb a bullying problem, how does this program attempt to do that?
As I read through the CCT that you presented (and thank you for presenting it, by the way) I’m seeing goals for classroom BEHAVIOR. Here’s how I read it:
2.1 Kids from every kind of background should be respected and their background accomodated in the classroom. (This one’s for the teacher’s. I don’t think teachers need to be told this, but that’s just me).
2.2 We can’t learn FOR them; students need to be responsible for the work that is expected of them and they must become active participants in their own learning process. Each student should be given equal opportunities to become proactive in their education.
2.3 Here, we come to the meat of this discussion: “explicit instruction about social skills to develop…social competence and responsible and ethical BEHAVIOR”. These are the key components. All that I have been asking for is more information about how the Character Counts program in particular specifically teaches our children to develop these behaviors? How does it get the kids from point “A” (a VALUE, such as Trustworthiness) to Point “B” (a BEHAVIOR, such as not interrupting another student when they are speaking; waiting until you are called on by the teacher to ask your question, not making fun of another student’s question or their answer to a question, etc.) And more importantly, does the CC program do this in some magical way that you were not able to do yourself in your classroom before? Do you feel this program is bridging some gap or assisting you in some outstanding way that you weren’t already doing? Is there an anonymous teacher survey or teacher evaluation of this program? If not, after 3 years, I think there should be.
2.4 Standards of BEHAVIOR that support a productive learning environment for all: self-explanatory to me and again centered around behavior.
2.5 Also, I feel this is common sense to you as a teacher and self-explanatory. Obviously the easier and smoother your transitions are from activity to activity or activity to lunch/recess, the less time you’ll have to spend settling down the class and that will leave a little more time for classroom instruction. Same goes for establishing a classroom routine. If the kids know what’s coming and when to expect it, you’ll have an easier time of it. As a parent, we keep to routines at home as well (although moreso when they are younger) and build in autonomy gradually as they mature with age. This last bullet point (2.5) is common sense to me.
If Character Counts is just a name and curriculum for something that you’ve been teaching your classes all along, then what do you think? Does it take up more time than it’s worth if it teaches values that you emphasize in your classroom anyway? You don’t have to answer me directly or publicly on that. It’s not my intention to put you on the spot here. But I think it’s a question that the school Admin should be asking all of their teachers after 3 years of implementing this program. Are the teachers seeing success with this program? Is it more trouble than it’s worth? Is it worth tweeking and sticking with it?
If it’s working and everyone’s happy - great! But if we survey the kids and they still feel there’s a bullying problem, and we survey the teachers and they aren’t convinced yet about CC, then we can explore other options that might better target the District’s identified areas needing improvement (such as bullying).
Not that anyone’s asking me, but I still say that teacheing kids how to resolve their conflicts by talking their way through them would be a better use of time. Conflict resolution is a measureable skill that can be taught and will have a direct effect on behavior. In elementary aged kids especially, you know as well as I do that you’re working with an age group that grasps concrete concepts much easier and quicker than they grasp abstract concepts. To me a concrete skill that can be role-played would be easier to teach than a value such as “respect” or “caring”. Such values can be more subjective and even though kids will “get” what they mean, putting it into action requires a few more behavioral steps.
Say two kids are having a veral disagreement and it’s escalating emotionally. Would it be easier for the kid to take a step back at that point and employ direct strategies that have been taught? If the child has practiced things to say and how to say them to de-escalate the situation, those are direct skills and practice that give the child confidence that he/she can talk themselves out of something, or at least talk the other person down so it doesn’t turn into a physical fight. It’s a little tougher when there’s a verbal disagreement that’s becoming an angry verbal fight for a kid to step back and say to themself, “gee, I’m not really acting respectfully right now and the other guy sure isn’t respecting me”…
I know this is a huge post. But am I making any sense here or am I on my own with this line of thinking? Anyone?
“What do you think about this Character Counts program? … (see Teacher’s new article. Admin).