Teaching children
“virtue” is the key to solving poverty, insists a reader and regular critic.
That’s how we break the “cycle of dependency,” he said.
To do this, he argues,
we must “indoctrinate our children from the early years with a sense of virtue
through education.”
Well, “indoctrinate”
threw me off. Reminded me of the old Soviet Union brainwashing children as well
as my delightful time in boot camp. So, I thought, while it may be permissible
for parents to indoctrinate children, that’s hardly the role for schools.
Then, another reader
sent me a public policy article published by Wharton University. In it the
author wrote about a “set of skills sometimes called non-cognitive skills,
sometimes called character strengths, things like grit and curiosity,
conscientiousness, perseverance, self-control.”
Hmmm.
These sound a lot like
traditional the “cardinal virtues” of justice, prudence, temperance, and
fortitude.
“I remain convinced that
these are important capacities for kids to have,” said Paul Tough, author of Helping Children Succeed.
The bestselling writer
goes on to say that these virtues are not “the kind of skills that you can
teach in school the way you teach math or reading or geography or anything
else.” Rather, he says, research suggests “they are more the product of a
child’s environment.”
Hmmm.
In the early 1950s, C.S.
Lewis postulated that people are born with an innate sense of right from wrong.
These days, apparently, that sense must be resuscitated to function in many
children.
Parents have the primary
responsibility to create environments that instill virtue in children, Tough
says, but schools, particularly in high-poverty areas, must take responsibility
too.
In his epochal Book of Virtues, William Bennett equates
virtue with morality. In the introduction he wrote: “For children to take
morality seriously they must be in the presence of adults who take morality
seriously.”
Tough said adults can
create an environment in the classroom that “makes kids able to persevere, to
exercise self-control, to behave in all of the ways that are going to maximize
their future opportunities.”
In his book, Tough tells
of schools in high poverty areas with innovative programs that motivate
children and give them a “real sense of community and connection.” He cites
others that give kids “work that is more challenging, more rigorous and more
meaningful” which changes their level of motivation. He said some charter
schools are able to create “environments for kids that make them feel that
sense of connection, feel that sense of challenge.”
Hmmm.
He’s talking about
positive motivation. That’s different from the negative motivation “indoctrination”
makes me think of. Looks like my perception of indoctrination is too narrow.
So, thanks to my readers for
indoctrinating me.
Still and all, it will not be enough
for the occasional classroom to create virtuous environments. Research shows
children, particularly those for whom virtue is not modeled at home, must be
consistently exposed to and expected to exhibit virtuous behavior. Virtuous
environments must become whole school endeavors.
13 comments:
This is very well said. But schools can only reinforce what's taught at home by word and by example. No amount of exposure at school to virtuous living would have changed the hate in the thugs from Rankin County who sadistically murdered James Craig Anderson in Jackson and laughed about it. Those kids weren't born haters - they were taught to hate.
Taught by whom, Bill? Their parents? Since that incident, there have been over 250 murders in Jackson, none of which has garnered a lick of national attention. Who taught those individuals to hate? Their parents? Or is it only the one "civil rights" style murder in over five years we should worry about while ignoring the other ones?
It's asinine to suggest that schools cannot 'teach' the directional points to be found on a moral compass. Of course they can.
While we all have moaned for decades that "It's the role of parents", that moaning has earned us nothing more than more misery. While such things are ideally 'learned' at home, maybe the best we can do is start teaching them at an age when they're already wayward.
Isn't this one of the responsibilities and ethical principle paths of programs like Head-start? If so, that organization fails miserably. Don't they start at Head-start at about age 3 or 4? And they spend more than 50% of their waking hours there.
I learned more in college than I ever did at home when taking such courses as philosophy, marriage and family relations, sociology and ethics.
And to further counter the idiotic post of Bill Dees (AKA Jerry Mitchell II), thousands of daughters and sons of members of the clergy have gotten off in the ditch of bad behavior while being raised in pristine, orderly and well-structured home environments. So, who knows where these 'Thugs From Rankin' learned that behavior?
In the late 1990s the Mississippi Economic Council assembled a group of distinguished Mississippi teachers and for two years they worked on a project to teach virtue and build character in our schools. Columbus businessman William E. McClure funded the project and said; "Moral character and development can not be limited only to home and church. Sadly, too many children receive inadequate training from parents and religious institutions, for various reasons; and if our schools do not teach the basic differences between right and wrong, society will suffer."
In 1997 the project was complete and the teachers delivered a complete package for the classroom teacher to use. It was called "Imagine u .. The Quest for Character." Lesson plans, activities, teaching tools, it was all there. Every teacher received all of this plus a copy of William Bennett's "The Book of Virtues." The problem: It didn't fit the mindset of teaching to the standardized tests, a concept which was beginning to take hold.
USM president Aubrey Lucus wrote in a forward: "Our schools are asked to perform many tasks, all of which are intended to prepare our young people with those skills an learnings which will enable them to make a living as well as a life. If this schooling is to be complete, i tmus tinclude teaching priniples which help students make moral choices; otherwise, we will provide a deficient education that will endanger the peace and security of society."
Sad.
@11:18 Sure, the parents in the case of the Rankin County thugs. That was a hate crime pure and simple. It's my impression (though I have no way of knowing) that most of the Jackson murders aren't hate crimes. Many, if not most, appear to be crimes of passion or gang-related crimes. There are rare cases of robberies gone wrong (as in the case of my high school classmate and friend, Carolyn Temple) but those seem to be few in number. I don't know anything about the sociology of gangs, so I won't speculate on why there is such apparent compulsion to join one, black or white, here in Mississippi.
8,760 hours in a year, less 3,300 hours sleeping. That leaves 5,460 waking hours. The average school age child spends 1,000 hours at school each year, leaving 4,460 waking hours under the "care" of a parent or guardian. I honestly cannot imagine what your typical inner city child is exposed to outside of school. There's no way you can undo all of that in 1,000 hours.
Hate crime death = bad, the worst of all, taught, parents are complicit
All other crime death = not as bad, unexplainable, not taught to kill others by parents
I have a friend who teaches in JPS. Junior high kids. She had to call some parents because of bad behavior and the next day, the kids she called on deliberately shoved her in the hallway. She went to administration and they gave one of the kids in school suspension for two days.
She has to worry about what this kid may try to do to her for the rest of the year.
Lots of kids have zero respect for authority.
No matter the question, if your proposed solution is "the government needs to change people's basic character traits," you need to head back to the drawing board.
JPS is a lost cause, nothing but lackadaisical teachers collecting a paycheck, does anyone really think that you can make the teachers give any more of a shit than the parents? All public schools reflect what happens when you let of bunch of politically correct humanist pantywaists get in charge. No corporal punishment, no child left behind, common core, nonsense. We are fucked, pray that we have a revolution and overthrow the commies running our country...
Schools cannot completely take the place of parents. For many years that has been the idea. Both the govt. and the parents decided that it is the best thing for the kids. The govt. because they like to control everything. The parents because it puts the responsibility and care of the kids on someone else.
Neither the schools or the parents are doing their job.
Some arguments are just stupid.
Yes parents influence their children. That includes teaching them to hate others.
Yes a school can define boundaries of acceptable behavior and let students know how they expect them to treat one another.
And, I would remind all of you that etiquette can not only be taught but there are books available. I would remind all of you that etiquette is about behaving in a civilized manner.
And, I would also remind some of you that the inability to make a point or defend a position without resorting to name calling , profanity or insult is the indicator of ignorance and/or stupidity!
8:13, not many pre school kids can read the books on etiquette. Hell, a lot of the parents can't read either. That is one of the biggest problems.
Post a Comment