Caring and compassionate youth?

I know in some of my later blogs I have been concentrating on the Adam 1 (materialistic, ambitious) and Adam 2 (moral, altruistic) philosophy described in "The Road to Character" by David Brooks. I found it an interesting read, and in general some thought provoking ideas came to might as I reflected whilst taking in his point of view. I think the most obvious thing I got was I suppose at a young age we are all to absorbed with ourselves to see anything but the need to self promote and accumulate personal gain - not too surprising when you consider the capitalistic society we belong to. Obviously it is an area of schooling and society in general that perhaps needs a closer inspection.

From: Volunteering in Hong Kong blog

But then as we become older, and as he put it feel an emptiness and wanting inside us, we find the time to reflect and think of the answer. I suppose we could refer to this as the luxury of age, thinking about others a little more as we progress. The number of cases of philanthropists who develop the strong Adam 2 philosophy (you could almost say compunction or passion) at "middle age" must make their peers and friends wonder if it really is a 'mid-life crisis'.  In some ways I think they could be right! Lets consider just one case here - John Wood the founder of Room to Read. (picture from Volunteering in Hong Kong blog) If you glance at his bio, you find that he was an executive of Microsoft - obviously a strong example of Adam 1 personality. You could not achieve the level of success without it. He found himself at a crossroad and chose the service option to move forward with in his life. But is it the case that Adam 2 is only for the mature and older members of our society?

But just because we tend to here of this more in the mature adult group, does in no way mean that our teenagers are self-absorbed egotists. I was at a meeting recently discussing better options that we could adopt to encourage our students to engage in meaningful, local and lasting programs of service. One of our guest speakers was indeed approaching societies version of middle age and involved with a non-government organisation operating in Hong Kong. I think that many present (including myself) considered him to be model of the late bloomer Adam 2. But we soon found out, this was definitely not the case as he had been involved in meaningful service programs continuously since graduating from college, and indeed extending back into his time at school. So it seems that we can have youth show fantastic examples of Adam 2 behaviours and continue them into and even throughout their adult lives.

So maybe them the original premise that we are all too self-absorbed during our formative years needs a closer look, and perhaps a re-think. Part of the International Baccalaureate program that operates in schools is the compulsory CAS (or Creativity, Activity and Service) component. I applaud the notion of a program that instills the ethos of service into school age students, but found that the application and "selling" of the program to be more than a little problematic. I noted with some amazement the battle that raged in some of my students between the materialistic, ambitious side in competition with the moral, altruistic side. It became abundantly clear that the materialistic and ambitious side was so well entrenched that altruism was not going to have much of an opportunity to win, or even participate. In some cases the white flag of defeat was raised before the battle commenced and it ended up taking on the role of a competition with many to ensure that it was completed to a suitable and meaningful level. I had foolishly thought that the positive reward of having examples of altruism on a college application would have spurred the willingness and application at least to some level. However, I was amazed at the gusto and genuine manner in which some of the other students pursued this component of the course. They freely gave that most important part of service, time, to ensure that an ethical and moral component was clearly evident in their program. So in a nutshell, the Jury is still out and I cannot make an all encompassing conclusion.

I suppose now I really have to wonder:

• if the push to be materialistic is so strong, why don't all youth suffer
• why some youth have such a well developed sense of morality and altruism while others do not?
• if altriuism and morality is really a province solely of the aged?
• if I have indeed contributed to the moral growth of my students and children?

Learning to win

It's a really strange fact in life that we will be both winner and loser at some point(s) in life. The truth is no-one is good at everything, so I suppose it helps us keep a balance. The concept of resilience helps us understand this a bit more.

I tend to equate our move through school/life much like progressing through a computer game. School (and life for that matter) is like a game and has different skills to master on each level we encounter before we can really successfully progress and conquer the challenges of the next level. The levels start easy and the complexity and difficulty gradually increases. The most important difference existing in this analogy is the that levels in life go on forever, we never seem to reach a point where we have total mastery. So I suppose the important thing is to continue progressing, and that means we must see the progress for what it is - a movement towards an end but never quite reaching it. 

Attaining mastery each at each level doesn't equate to being a winner. Moving onto the challenges of the next level is probably a more accurate and better indicator! So the greater the degree of resilience, the more likely that you will have a better 'win-loss' record, and the more levels you will show mastery of.

Our role as a guide becomes critical at this time for if we are to help our children (or students) become winners, we must first help them develop resilience. But they must learn from each and every win AND loss along the way, as that will be their source of resilience. Our role is the help them cope effectively with every win and loss. The language we use from an early age must instil confidence without promoting the notion of a finish line. We must be genuine with rewards and constructive with our criticism & advice. Wins must be recognised and loses never ignored. Educationalists refer to this as creating a growth mindset.

If we instil the right sort of attitude in our children they will continue moving and gaining the skills that will make life a little more manageable. This will allow them to face the challenges that come along and realise that they have the skills to conquer many of them. A blog article by Evoke Learning will help you better understand resilience in a school context and offer a few strategies too.

I suppose that we need to ask ourselves

• Am I assisting my child in gaining resilience?
• Am I acknowledging their success in a positive way?
• Am I assisting them with their learning from their losses?

The moral dimension

I recall watching a Television show that was part of the British comedy series 'Yes Minister' (or it could have been 'Yes Prime Minister') with this rather catchy title for one of the episodes. After laughing at the antics of the minister and his entourage as they muddled their way through another of life's challenges, I noted that in the end they accidentally made a decision based upon moral considerations. I think that in the life of many of my students that is also the case, with moral decisions being made by accident rather than through purpose. How art imitates life! It almost appears that we and thus they are beginning to lose their moral compass.

In the last blog, I outlined the push to self-promote that permeates our society. It seems that we are surrounded by people trumpeting their successes at even the simplest of tasks and expecting excessive congratulations and applause. With examples everywhere, and constantly in front of them, is it any wonder that our children adopt these habits and behaviours? I think that, at times, we have forgotten that we don't have to make everything a contest and prove that we are "fantastic". The most disturbing factor is perhaps overlooked - the fact that once it is on public display it is there and remains for all to see. With the constant push to out do others, risks and other factors are forgotten in the rush to self-promote. Winners can become losers quite quickly as fads and fashions change.

The pitfalls that accompany the rush to self-promote can be rather spectacular. Self belief and self-worth are different things and at times the lines become blurred. This is especially true for adolescents who are still engaged in learning the game called adulthood. The impetuous push towards gaining the fame and adoration they think is theirs can quickly lead to risky situations being part of their "plan". Being constantly told that you are 'special' now has its costs - you have to "put up or shut up". This can be a very trying time as failure leads to all sorts of self-doubts. With some sort of moral support internally, then any "fall from grace" might be a little more manageable. But the long hard look at themself that results, is one that can lead to a real moral crisis situation. Suddenly losing their super status can have a disastrous effect on self-esteem that we as a society have long built up.

I know that adolescents overall have a good understanding of what is morally and ethically acceptable, but at times this get lost in the push for 'fame'. So in many cases the things that should be done for moral reasons are done by accident. We used to talk about the moral growth of our students and children. Unfortunately, we seem to have quantified it like all things in life in terms of 2 hours of charity or raising so much money. This has changed the whole way our society thinks about the moral growth of our youth. College applications all seem to value the moral and service which is commendable. However, that has soon become changed into a competition to provide the most or best examples of service. But by changing service into a competition, it has lost its humanity! The movement away from real service to "lip service" came quickly and continues unabated. To a generation of our youth this has become the real meaning of service, compassion and morality. So much for the moral dimension.

The moral dimension is so much more - and will allow your character to "deepen" from the shallowness that usually accompanies the selfishness of the self promoted. Some refer to this as being "grounded" - in terms of attitude. The inner strength that comes from the reflection allows greater resilience for times of moral crisis. So I suppose I am in a dilemma about why its value is

The idea of moral growth is highlighted by when a crisis occurs. I think that Brooks sums it up really well and tells us that we really aren't preparing them well by simply doing this. The true moral test comes when there is a dilemma that means we have to "stand up and be counted". It may well go against the push for self-promotion and require some real thought. The easy option will always be a favoured option - to go for social acceptance and be seen to "win" is much more cool that doing something that is morally right. This is why it is a moral dilemma and in most instances, I'm afraid to say that morals will finish second.

I wonder:

• why as a society we don't value the inner moral aspect of our character?
• why it is so important to over emphasise the self promotion?
• why self promotions is held in higher esteem by societies than showing moral strength?

Are winners really grinners?

I suppose I had to come back to this point at some stage in the blog. I've skirted around the idea of what parents want and what kind of young adult we were "producing". So maybe we needed to think a little more about what we really wanted. It wasn't until I started reading "The Road to Character" by David Brooks that things started again to clarify and solidify in my mind.

I liked that Brooks sees us all as a duality of materialistic, ambitious side in competition with the moral, altruistic side. He refers to the materialistic side as "Adam 1" and your altruistic side as "Adam 2". As I was turning the pages I found this mirrored the observations that had initially made me start this blog. The emphasis (by parents, some teachers and schools) on the materialistic, ambitious side of a students behaviour is pushed during their time at school. This is the mechanism that creates the so-called winners. We already have adolescents that have a unique view of the world and way of thinking, and then push them towards gaining materialistic goals. Everything they do at school and at home is all about self-promotion. But are we perhaps being a little short sighted? At present we end up creating huge egos that can and often are self-indulgent and entitled. We praise all gains and glorifying them regardless of importance, and then wonder why we have students who consider themselves "8 foot tall and bulletproof". This is an expression I have often heard which relates to the extreme risk-taking version of students/adolescents that embrace this narcissistic attitude and lifestyle.

The funny thing is society rewards the "Adam 1's" of the world, but seems to look disappointingly at the "Adam 2's". It seems that the economic side has gained much more ground than the moralistic. I do not deny in any way that there has to be part of you which embraces your "Adam 1", but reading any social or printed media seems to strongly suggest that as a society we have given a little too much import to them and increasing the number of our youth aspiring to emulate. Brooks also tells us that a study of middle school girls showed that the vast majority would rather be a celebrity's assistant than be president of a prestigious institution like Harvard.  

To me it shows how short-sighted we have become in thinking about what is best and what we want our children to be like in the future. If we again consider the happy, well-adjusted and successful version that many parents want, then surely a more long term plan needs some serious thought. It seems that we "train" or children from an early age to be self-promoting and self-absorbed so that they have material success. So from where I am sitting, the materialistic and ambitious side is winning the battle (if not the war).

I now wonder:

• sort of message I am sending to what my children and my students?
• why we place soo much emphasis on fame?
• if famous now equates to famous later in life?
• what happens to our youth after fame disappears?

The Importance of Positive Feedback

Feedback, I suppose that has been the bane of my existence as a teacher. I don't recall how many different ways I have explored to try to make my feedback as meaningful as possible to both my students and their parents. It all changed a couple of years ago when I was fortunate enough to be able to go to Project Zero at Harvard University. At the conference I was asked my reasons for attending and the one I mentioned was feedback. During one of the sessions during the week, I listed to a speaker tell us about a "ladder of feedback". It was really quite simple and made sense to me and also seemed to fit the positive psychology initiative at my school. I have now been using this with my students and been most pleased with their response.

A modified version of the ladder of feedback

Simply put, the method centres around four basic steps - I have paraphrased in my explanation below.

1. Clarify
2. Value 
3. Offer concerns
4. Suggest

Now when you read it like this it sounds oh so simple. But really it involves a change in the way of thinking. I found that this took more time than the traditional approach to feedback, but I became aware that my students were actually reading and thinking about it. It is even

As proposed in the positive psychology mantra, we all have character strengths that we use, although some are used more and with greater skill than others. So the ladder of feedback looks for the positives or strengths before offering constructive improvement strategies. Everyone does something well and deserves praise and being valued. This is the central theme. Clarifying offers the opportunity to begin to communicate. But it is imperative to use terms that are as non-judgemental as possible. Posing a question as "I wonder .... starts the conversation off in a positive way. If we follow that with praise (or what we value in their work, action, etc.), we set the tone for meaningful dialogue. Both parties in the conversation are now talking and listening! Offering concerns in a positive way will now be more easily accepted and hopefully adopted by your child. The final step is to make some positive suggestions.

I bring this up because I feel that it could also offer a change in the tenor of conversations in the home as well. It is far too easy (as a teacher or a parent) to slip into the "elevator of feedback" and go straight to the top levels and denigrating the efforts of our students/children.

I think that the key to the whole process is effective communication. Far too often we are all guilty of focussing and concentrating on the results rather than the process. It tend to force our focus on the negatives and forgetting the positives that are there. It is explained by our busy lives but the damage that is done to the self image and resilience of your child can lead to other problems.

It makes me wonder if:

• I use the elevator of feedback more than I should?
• I could ensure that I value (the effort) as much as the result?
• I could take the time to find the positives and praise the strengths?

The fallacy that is League Tables

It seems that many governments need the idea of league tables to measure education. I find this most interesting considering the underlying aims and objectives of education systems. I think if schools are to be 'judged' (or offer some form of indication) then surely we need to examine the aims and objectives (or if you prefer, rules) they operate under. In the last few decades the emphasis has been more holistic in nature and looks at the overall development of the student, not just the academic progress. If you read the pre-amble and/or mission statements for curriculum documents, you will find these documents I have included one from the IB Middle Years Program as a focus for the blog. If you don't know these for your school system, my advice is to simply ask!


Admittedly one of the main objectives involves the assessment of course skills and objectives. This seems to be the one that helps in the formation of the league tables, and cause so much conjecture and debate. But, as you can see it offers a simplistic view of a school. Seeing the results of one (series) examination session is only providing a snapshot of that particular day. It fails to take into the account the other less tangible, but by no means less important other functions of your school - social development and emotional intelligence to name but two.

I simply look at the statistical point of view, it seems that making a fair comparison is not as valid as the makers have on us all. The number of variables that exist between any two schools mean that you might just as well be comparing "apples and oranges". I think that statisticians would agree that you really can make statistics tell you anything if you choose (or cherry pick) them.

The most disturbing push then comes to compare country with country. Now considering that we start with different objectives, assessments, curriculum and of course cultures. I was most interested and amazed by a recent article about why countries such at England and Australia should follow the example of the Chinese education system. Please take the time to read the link. I am in no way trying to degenerate China's education system, but wonder again how with all of the cultural and historical factors considered, a fair judgement or comparison can possibly be made.

Disturbingly I found that people in both mentioned (and other) countries wanted to embrace the notion on face value! This was particularly evident in certain sections of the media and politicians. I wonder how many of the children or grandchildren of these people would be asked to be part of the system they propose? It is important to note that any change that is proposed or made in these political discussions will effect the state-run or public system, without having any major impact at all on the private system that operates within that society. So utmost care must be taken. I'm sure that you would be totally outraged if I tried to make decisions for you that don't affect me! So when the "boot is on the other foot" we must also take care. The old adage "things must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair" must take some priority in our thoughts.

A simple "knee jerk reaction" to one factor involved in education is often far to easy to make. On the surface it seems a really promising idea until you take the time to delve deeper and consider what you really want from your education system. I suppose it really goes back to the question I previously proposed, what do you actually want for your child? 

I simply put to you the questions: 

• "what will happen to creativity, imagination and other factors in our society if we simply value recall?" 
• "Would you really want the same system for your child?" 

Parent Decisions & Choices

I thought this might shed a bit more light on what parents want. They seem to vary and there are so much depending upon cultural, socio-economic and other factors that apply. The variation is neither surprising or breaking news to educationalists, but I suppose that certain pushes indicate the likelihood of becoming a "helicopter parent" and having the resultant impact on the self-actualisation and the resilience level of your child. I suppose the question is where does the concern & your child's end and the living the child's life by making all decisions for them start? An interesting point, and I wonder where the "borderline" lies!

Figure1: How K-12 Parent prioritise attributes

So lets have a closer look at a study done in the US, I feel that the results would be similar in most developed countries. According to Liz Wimmer* in the Getting Smart blog series, parents want:

1. acceptance into a top-tier college
2. creativity programs (including music and arts)
3. high test scores
4. leadership skills
5. the ability to work with individuals from a variety of cultural backgrounds
6. individual attention for their child as needed

* Liz Wimmer is a parent and writer with the National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning at the University of Washington. The article is based upon the study done by the Thomas B Fordham Institute, and a more complete examination of this study & its results are available here. The study summary is shown in figure 1. #Figure 1 shows parent high priorities in green, desirable are shown in yellow and less desirable (or so called expendable) characteristics in red. 

She goes on to give some details on percentage of parents giving importance to these areas based upon a 2013 survey. Again these are not really revolutionary or breaking news but they do point towards what parents want. They do provide a really good framework for your child and there is nothing particularly wrong with making these choices, considering the decision is usually made when the child is pre-teen. But if we follow on from the resilience blog, then I think this can be a negative impact on your child if they keep going. Once the initial are in place it is imperative that you gradually allow them the opportunities to make decisions. Even if they are initially under 'guidance mode' it will help.

I was asked (as part of my head of year role) to sit in on a seminar where students explained to parents what they wanted in terms of colleges. The students basically spoke to their parents and offered detailed explanations to support their choices. It proved an interesting evening with a few eye opening moments, but the key factor was the communication about what the student want. I really think this was the icing on the cake and perhaps even the main purpose of the seminar. This activity was a peripheral "desire of parents" at best, but the importance to the student and their development of resilience, priceless!

I still find it rather amusing at the number of students who have their day fully mapped out for them by their parents, fully understanding the reasons for this, but wondering if in the long term it is the best option. I think that giving them the opportunity to make decisions for themselves (or at least) talking through decision-making is missed in these situations. In the effort to leave no time to make mistakes, parents are really depriving their children of valuable learning experiences and true bonding time that comes with the discussion that follow. But, by the same token, if the parent-child communication is overly critical then more damage can be done than good. I wonder if that is also part of the reason for the over commitment of students by their parents?

The desire and ability of teens to make sound decisions is obvious. But there are times when parents step in and take away the 'right' to make decisions. Again the overall reason behind doing this is often sound and would appear to be based on Maslow's hierarchy. We want to do what 'we think' is best, but in doing so we lose a golden opportunity to help further develop resilience strategies. I think the opportunity to sometimes use these situations as a learning exercise is missed. Is it that difficult to sit and communicate with a teen about the reasoning behind a decision? That would depend on whether you had already begun the process of "teaching" them about decision making and resilience.

I find it amazing in many ways that we find it so hard to "let go"! The idea of allowing them to make their own choices seems foreign, that is until they leave the "nest" to go to college. Part of gaining self-actualisation and build resilience strategies and skills is to practice. Gradually weaning off of dependency will help and is a good strategy for parents to remember. The last thing you really need (as a parent) is the phone call about a decision that should be made on site. Confidence and having the ability to make good decisions or at least be able to minimise damage if a decision goes wrong is what we all hope our children have. But do we do enough before they leave to make sure that it is so?

I wonder if:

• I have prepared my children well enough to make decisions?
• enough of my students have been given the opportunity to fine tune their decision making skills?
• we concentrate far too much on the more tangible aspects of Maslow's hierarchy at the expense of the self-actualisation of our children?