A Letter to the Friends School Community

Below is a letter that I sent to all families (and subsequently to alumni) in the days after November's presidential election.

From the Head of School's Office     Saturday, November 12, 2016 Dear Friends Families, The days since the presidential election have been weighty ones for all of us.  You should know that our primary concern this week has, of course, been the well-being of your children.  The care our teachers have shown for our children, even as they themselves have been sorting out their own complicated responses to recent developments, has been admirable, though not surprising.  Knowing this extraordinary group of educators as I do, I was certain that their nurturing instincts and their generosity of spirit would lead them to put our children at the forefront, as they invariably do. Friends School, as an institution, does not and should not take positions on strictly political matters. To do so would diminish our critical ability to be a forum within which ideas - political and otherwise- can flow freely and students can learn to decide for themselves how they should feel, act, and live in the world.  We do, though - and always will - take firm and unequivocal stands in the realm of morals and values.  Implicitly, through our identity as a Quaker school, and explicitly, in our public statements and materials, we have made the promise to you that your children’s experiences at Friends will be guided by our fundamental beliefs; chief among them that there is that of God in everyone.  Living out this conviction makes it impossible to steer entirely clear of the political sphere, especially when particular political policies, positions or rhetoric contradict our values.  In such instances, we reflect upon the events around us from a moral standpoint that honors and acknowledges our values, independent of political or partisan affiliations.  In striving to maintain this distinction, we have made frequent reference before and since the election to our Statement of Respect, in which we express those core values and what they demand of us when faced with behavior and language that is incompatible with them.  We have used this objective set of standards to clarify for ourselves and for our students what respectful words and actions do and don’t look like, independent of party affiliations or political beliefs. Our Statement of Respect reads, At Friends School of Baltimore, our Quaker values and commitment to being an inclusive and constructive learning environment compel us to uphold the dignity of all individuals at all times. We practice George Fox’s belief that there is “that of God in everyone,” and hold ourselves accountable for the intention and impact of our behavior and speech. Friends School opposes and actively addresses hurtful language and behavior, especially that which demeans or discriminates based on race, ethnicity, ability, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or any attributes of identity. We believe that such acts are harmful to individuals, divisive within our community and corrosive to society. Friends School engages in open dialogue, embraces diverse perspectives, and celebrates difference. We also insist that all discourse, however controversial or well-intended, must always be respectful in tone, in content and, ultimately, must support the Quaker value of inclusivity. The presidential campaign that recently closed has, for more months than most of us would care to remember, been rife with words and actions that have flagrantly violated these expectations.  We have seen innumerable instances of hurtful language and behavior that was plainly designed to do exactly what we have pledged in this statement to oppose and actively address.  Needless to say, that which is unacceptable within our community is no less so when it occurs on a larger stage.  And sadly we have already seen evidence that these appeals to the lesser angels of our nature - the calls for violence, the vehement intolerance, the demeaning comments, and the language and proposals that operate on assumptions of the unworthiness of entire groups based on race, ethnicity, ability, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or … attributes of identity - have proven themselves harmful to individuals … and corrosive to society.  The campaign itself and the results of the election appear to have normalized and legitimized some beliefs that are anathema to the values we espouse as a community.  In such circumstances, we are led to reaffirm those core values in unequivocal terms. Every member of our community deserves to know that even as the words and actions of prominent figures pull us in a different direction, we as a school stand firmly behind our commitment to uphold the dignity of all individuals at all times.  It is particularly critical, we believe, to provide this reassurance to those who have been the focus of the most caustic rhetoric in recent months - people of color, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ individuals, the disabled, women, and others - and are therefore fearful of what lies ahead.   To the extent that any person, whether a member of our community or a national political figure, speaks or acts in a manner that fails to live up to these standards, we reserve the right to oppose and actively address that behavior.  To do so is not to take sides in a partisan political struggle, but merely to remain true to the values our school has espoused for more than 230 years.  To do otherwise is an abrogation of the commitment we have made to our students, our families, and ourselves that Friends School will, in the words of our Mission Statement, strive in all (our) programs, policies and affairs to be an institution that exemplifies the ideals of the Religious Society of Friends.  Should these standards render our community unique or run counter to the prevailing political culture, we will be proudly unique and countercultural and will seek to remain so. At the same time, we will continue to engage in open dialogue, embrace diverse perspectives, and celebrate difference, all while insisting that the discourse… must always be respectful in tone, in content and, ultimately, must support the Quaker value of inclusivity.  We reject the notion that living by these expectations will somehow silence certain voices or stifle the free flow of ideas.  Our insistence upon discourse that is both vigorous and civil is in keeping with the beliefs stated in our School Philosophy, namely that, (t)he search for truth requires a willingness to listen openly to the ideas of others, even in fields of controversy.  We remain passionately committed to this practice of careful and respectful listening across political and social divides, a practice that is more essential than ever before in these fractious times.   I have heard many comments from colleagues and parents who are grateful to have had the firm grounding of our community's values under their feet in the midst of these events.  I was heartened, throughout the week, to see the care and concern that our students have consistently demonstrated for each other.  In these small acts of kindness, your children drew upon the qualities that we, together with you, have tried so hard to foster in them; compassion, resilience, and a genuine desire to understand one another across the divides that sometimes separate us.  During these past few days, I have found myself feeling deeply appreciative that I am part of such a thoughtful and reflective community, one that strives so earnestly to live up to its beliefs and commitments.   My colleagues and I thank you for entrusting your children to our care and welcome your comments, questions, and partnership as we move forward. Best wishes,  Matt Micciche Head of School

7 Questions (in no particular order)

7 Questions (in no particular order)

·        Why, in an age of increased customization and choice are schools still shoe-horning kids into an essentially uniform experience rather than finding innovative ways to allow them to make their programs more of a reflection of their passions?  

·        Why is the overwhelming majority of students’ time still spent in seats in classrooms?  

·        Why do we maintain a system of siloed academic departments that creates artificial divides between realms of knowledge that are inherently interconnected?  

·        Why is the preponderance of the assessments that determine students' grades (and, to some extent, their fates) conducted in more or less the same way that students were assessed fifty or more years ago?  

·        Why are we so utterly beholden to an 8-3:30 Monday-Friday schedule?  

·        Why, when we know that enormous losses happen for every student during a 2 ½ month annual break, do we adhere to a school calendar that was designed to ensure an ample supply of child farm labor during the summer months?  

·        Why are so many of our choices driven by the fear that our students will miss out on particular and discrete nuggets of knowledge, when what we hear over and over from those in the collegiate and professional domains is that they want their students/employees to be adaptive learners and thinkers rather than walking fact containers?  

The Dangers of Liberal Intolerance

Nicholas Kristoff's op-ed article, "A Confession of Liberal Intolerance" from Sunday, May 8, was surprising in its source (Kristoff is a proud liberal) and its message (that intolerance - seemingly the antithesis of all that progressives stand for - is a powerful presence in liberal spheres).  He takes particular aim in his column at the delegitimization of conservative views, and those who hold them, on college campuses.  If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that a similar ostracization has come to predominate in secondary schools, a tendency that we here at Friends have hardly been immune to.  In describing the threat that the writing off of any group of people poses to society as a whole, Kristoff states that,

The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

I've always thought that Walt Whitman's words from Song of Myself capture the ultimate goals of a first-class education - “You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books. You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, you shall listen to all sides and filter them from yourself.”  For all who aspire to this outcome for their students, Kristoff's warning is an important and a timely one.  It has been much-noted in recent years that the proliferation of media has allowed and encouraged people of all political stripes to surround themselves by news and analysis that merely affirms their pre-existing views.  In such an environment, it becomes all the more important that our schools be one of the places where divergent viewpoints are shared, honored, and threshed.  

In his article, Kristoff quotes Jonathan Haidt, a New York University professor who advocates for better ideological balance on college campuses.

'Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,' he says. 'If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.'

If we want to provide the kind of education that will prepare our students to be informed and engaged citizens, we must take the threat of homogenous thought seriously, and commit ourselves to cultivating an environment where intellectual diversity is given the same weight as the other aspects of diversity that we have so rightly and passionately sought to nurture.

Recently, a parent at our school sent me an email passing along a report from the National Instiutes of Health entitled, "FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE 'COSTS OF PRIVILEGE': PERFECTIONISM IN HIGH-ACHIEVING YOUTH AT SOCIOECONOMIC EXTREMES."  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559285/

An excerpt from the summary of this report states that:

The low-income students showed some areas of relative vulnerability, but when large group differences were found, it was the affluent youth who were at a disadvantage, with substantially higher substance use and peer envy. Affluent girls seemed particularly vulnerable, with pronounced elevations in perfectionistic tendencies, peer envy, as well as body dissatisfaction. Examination of risk and protective processes showed that relationships with mothers were associated with students’ distress as well as positive adjustment. Additionally, findings showed links between (a) envy of peers and multiple outcomes (among high SES girls in particular), (b) dimensions of perfectionism in relation to internalizing symptoms, and (c) high extrinsic versus intrinsic values in relation to externalizing symptoms.

And its conclusion is that:

Our findings show that family wealth does not indicate parallel advantages in personal or family functioning; the largest group differences we found were on substance use and dimensions of envy, and on each of these, the affluent sample (particularly girls) fared more poorly. Together, our results point to the need for continued research on the confluence of familial, community, and individual-level factors that are potent “risk-modifiers” within the context of high pressures to achieve. In schools that are predominated by high achievers, educators and parents alike must remain cognizant that strivings for perfectionism can become unhealthy, indeed inimical, to the overall well-being of today's youth.

The parent's email ended with: "I would love to hear your thoughts on this!"

My thoughts on this report, as I responded to this parent, are that, like the researchers, I am not terribly surprised to see a correlation between high affluence and achievement and self-harm and other symptoms of distress.  It is the dark side of a culture that expects/demands excellence and accomplishment from children.  In my mind, this phenomenon has been sharpened by the dawning realization that the rising generation may well be the first in our country's history to have lower levels of material wealth than their parents.  This fear of a coming scarcity is what causes some parents to do everything possible to try to ensure that their children will remain upwardly mobile.  The manifestations of this anxiety (expecting/accepting only A's, intolerance for the "bumps in the road" that we all know are an inevitable and valuable part of the coming of age process, etc.) can certainly be damaging for the children on the receiving end of it.

I will say that one of the things I love about Friends is that our students routinely report that there is a feeling of support and mutual uplift among their peers that runs contrary to the stereotypical high-pressure, win-at-all-costs environment in many other academically strong independent and public schools.  Being a Quaker school unquestionably takes a considerable amount of the edge off the societal/parental pressure on children from high-achieving families to replicate or surpass the material success of the previous generation.  The young women's 'perfectionism' described in this report is often a function of the belief - unwittingly instilled by parents - that any lack of perfection will prevent students from access to the 'right college,' the 'right profession,' and other aspects of the golden ring they perceive their children to be in competition for.  The nature of our community also tends to broaden families' conceptions far beyond what - in my mind - is an unhealthy focus on a one-dimensional definition of success.  We do that, I believe, by emphasizing the variety of ways in which success can be defined (beyond the common societal default to wealth and status), including the contribution that one makes to the betterment of the wider community.

We take other steps as well towards discouraging this culture of perfectionism and excessive competition, both of which lead to the corrosive 'envy' described in the report.  So, for example, we do not publicize class rank among our Upper School students.  We do provide this information to colleges if they require it, but we don't share the rankings with anyone else.  As a result, students aren't implicitly pitted against each other in the way they are at many schools.  This may seem like a small matter, but it contributes to the healthy understanding among our students that their achievement does not have to come at the expense of others, but rather that success of all kinds can best be seen as a win-win situation that most often emerges as a result of enthusiastic cooperation rather than cut-throat competition.

Ultimately, the consistent emphasis in our community on treating others with kindness, respect, and dignity makes our students more likely to treat themselves in that same way, which helps to dull the pernicious tendencies among affluent high-achievers that this report describes.  That's not to say that we have completely eliminated all aspects of this phenomenon, but I truly believe that our students are less prone to this kind of unhealthy dynamic because of the unique qualities of the environment at Friends.

What Is the Purpose of Education?

As we prepare to launch another school year, this excellent article by Wesleyan University President Michael Roth is a welcome invitation to consider a most elemental question; what is the purpose of education?

With anxiety levels understandably rising among students and parents, fueled by an uncertain economic future and the ever-increasing cost of education, there has been a predictable movement towards a more utilitarian view of education and an increased emphasis on learning as a tool for economic advancement.

Roth articulates several strong arguments against adopting this narrower conception of the purpose of learning.  Some of these arguments are high-minded (and, I think, deeply compelling) abstractions such as the need to prepare critical thinkers who will be active and contemplative citizens, or the added richness that such an education brings to the very experience of living.  Others, though, are every bit as pragmatic as the "more you learn the more you earn" hard-liners could ask for.  In short, and with no small dose of irony, this more practical line of reasoning holds that a liberal education is the best remedy for the very uncertainty that has propelled us towards the vocational emphasis so much in vogue these days.

The logic is clear; vocationalism requires that we know what a student's work is likely to look like in both the near and distant future (and, therefore, the knowledge they will need to do that work).  With the exponential acceleration of change, though, one thing we know for certain is that we truly can't imagine what jobs and skills will be in demand even in 2025 and certainly not in 2050.  Futurists are fond of citing the fact that of the 10 fastest-growing professional fields today, a majority didn't even exist a decade ago.  Therefore, the classical education model - which focuses on learning how to learn rather than absorbing a discrete and fixed body of knowledge - is the best preparation for the many and varied jobs and skills our students will assume over the course of their lifetimes.

At Friends, we certainly believe in this approach, which is why our Teaching and Learning Paradigm focuses on the timeless qualities we seek to develop in our students so that they will be prepared to thrive in and help to shape a future we can't yet fully conceptualize.

See the link below to a funny bit from Key and Peele that imagines what the world would be like if we gave teachers the respect and attention we give to athletes.

http://huff.to/1H2wBXD

If only!

One Vision of the Future of Classroom Learning

In this thought-provoking blog post, John Katzman, founder and CEO of Noodle, 2U, and the Princeton Review, gives a somewhat unconventional prediction of what the classroom of the future might look like.  Rather than a technology-laden "mission control" type of atmosphere, he predicts that there may actually be less technology in classrooms in the years ahead, as asynchronous learning is enhanced outside of class and the time when students are gathered together in one place becomes more focused on in-depth human interaction.  This remarkably old-school vision for new schools seems like an utterly logical prediction to me.  It puts technology in its proper role, as an aide to rather than a replacement for the most timeless quality of a truly transformative education; the face-to-face exchange of ideas.  It imagines technology as a tool that facilitates this exchange by allowing for more efficient and effective use of students' time beyond the classroom, so that the time spent in community can be richer and more productive.  This not-so-radical vision of the future grows from an abiding belief in the value of social learning, and elevates the classroom to an arena for the shared process of reflection and discernment that is so valuable to the making of meaning. A brave new world indeed!

A Wonderful Article by Friends School Teacher Josh Valle

I’m always amazed by the multiple talents that my colleagues possess.  In addition to the many gifts they bring to their day-to-day work here at school, many members of our professional community are talented artists, musicians, woodworkers, etc.  And, of course, many of our employees are also brilliant writers.  I came across fresh evidence of this fact recently when I read this article on "Spiritual Nurture and Young Children," written by Pre-Kindergarten teacher, Josh Valle, and published in Friends Journal, a highly-respected publication serving the Quaker community.

 

For those of you who know of Josh’s thoughtful and insightful work with our youngest students, it will be no surprise to you that he so powerfully articulates in this piece the delicate balancing act of the teacher’s craft between guidance and openness, between the inherent desire to direct our students’ experiences and the educational benefits of relinquishing that  control.  And he does it all through the metaphor of a stink bug!

 

I hope you enjoy this thought-provoking article as much as I did!

Playing with Fire (and Nails, and Tools, and Mud)

This article from NPR Ed includes an interview with Erin Davis, a documentary director whose latest film The Land traces the development of the adventure playground movement.  Her film focuses in particular on a playground in Wales known as "The Land" that features all the elements we modern parents spend so much time and energy keeping out of our children's lives; fire, tools, nails, and lots of sharp edges.  It's important to note that, especially in Europe (where these facilities have become increasingly common) there are "playworkers" who staff the playgrounds and monitor the safety of children, but are trained to intervene only if absolutely necessary.

I am eager to see the film when it is released, as this phenomenon seems to me to speak to the natural impulse all children have to take risks and the benefits of allowing them to do so.  As Davis says in the article, "(Children) have the play drive. It's up to us to kind of provide the kinds of opportunities for them to really follow through on it."  Personally, I know hardly anyone of my generation who did not occasionally play in unsafe spaces like construction sites, or, for that matter, woods, at great length  and entirely unsupervised in their childhood.  And yet I know almost no parent of my generation who will admit to allowing their children to do the same.   In Davis's mind, "...what's really happening at the heart of The Land is child-directed play and loose parts. So kids have time, space and stuff. I think the very first baby steps we can do is provide kids with loose parts that are simple, and follow their lead in what they are interested in."

While I don't anticipate the students at Friends playing with fire (with or without playworker supervision!) anytime soon, this documentary and the movement it chronicles raise some much-needed questions about the way we conceive of play, freedom, and risk in modern times, and whether, in our quest for maximum safety we've forfeited valuable opportunities for our children's growth.

The Case for a Dose of Benign Neglect

While reading the "It's About Learning" blog from Bo Adams, an educator at Mount Vernon Presbyterian School in Atlanta, I came across this article from the Deseret News in Utah.  Entitled "When Kids Were Breakable," it does far more than, as the title might suggest, look back wistfully to a vanished and idyllic past (a practice for which I generally have extremely limited patience).  Instead, it explores the slow but relentless process we have been engaged in as a society for the past 30 or so years; namely, attempting to "bubble wrap" our children and prevent them from experiencing any danger, frustration, or disappointment as they make their way through childhood.

As an increasing anecdotal and quantitative body of evidence suggests, such an attempt is not merely futile, a vain effort at an utterly unrealistic goal.  It actually has significant pernicious effects on the children on whom it is practiced, stunting emotional and psychological growth and denying young people the powerful learning experiences (positive and negative) that come from being free to make bad decisions outside adult supervision.  The article cites one of the fundamental paradoxes that I believe does so much to fuel the perceived need for (over)protecting our children. "Parents today," the author writes, "operate under the assumption that society is more dangerous than when we were kids, when in fact the opposite is true. Crime rates in the United States are at an all-time low." This incontrovertible fact is constantly undermined by the ubiquitous coverage of the most gruesome and salacious events in the relentless media news cycle. But the statistics speak for themselves and demonstrate a huge drop-off in all categories of major crimes nationwide.

I have come to believe that a healthy dose of benign neglect would do our children a world of good.  Bad things can and will happen to children, and a reasonable amount of caution is, of course, essential.  But we're beginning to understand that there is a real and lasting cost to harboring the illusion that we can and should shield our children from every possible danger.  And a willingness to expand our tolerance for risk and freedom seems a logical reaction against the irrational trend towards over-protection that has been so prominent among our generation of parents.