Measuring students citizenship, character, and life skills...

[Cruentus]

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not you can measure "Character" in your martial arts students when considering them for promotion. Some have argued that there is no logical link between character developement and martial arts skill progression. Well, sometimes I wonder what is going on in peoples heads when they talk or type

It would appear that this school board would disagree with a statement that implies that there is no logical link between character developement and skill progression. Here is exerpts from a school board document:

Measuring Student Citizenship, Character and Life Skills

Although many districts stress the importance of student citizenship, character and life skills - in addition to academic achievement - just as many struggle with how to measure these goals. It is understandable. Far less work has been done in this area. What indicators can boards use to measure these important charactaristics and abilities?

In Fargo, North Dakota, the school board has given a lot of thought to this question. Board members, with the help of district staff, have identified how to measure whether the district is successfully addressing these goals. Here's how they have done it.

I will skip down to the section on "character":

Character: Students will possess sound character and self-esteem that allows them to accept and respect themselves and others.

Subgoals:
Students will accept and respect the diversity of gender, cultural, and age differences.
Students will be able to cooperate and collaborate to achieve common goals.
Students will work independently and compete as necessary.

Indicators of Achievement:
Student behavior data (discipline referrals) and survay data (school improvement survays) will demonstrate annual decline or absense of harassment, bullying, or discriminatory behaviors.

Student portfolios will contain evidence of projects accomplished through collaborative efforts.

Opportunities for involvement in, and evidence of engagement in extra-curricular activities will increase annually, with a goal of 90-percent or more high school students engaged.

The percentage of teachers trained in collaborative learning, diversity, expectations and character education will increase annually

The full link is here, but you need PDF: http://www.schoolboarddata.org/chapter_four/case_student.pdf

As someone who worked in the public schools for 5 years, I can say that most school systems have a quantifiable means of measuring character in their students, especially at the younger ages. Part of the job of a teacher in the schools is to teach life skills such as character, along with the academics.

So, the public school systems seem to think that you can teach and measure character along with an academic curriculum, so why wouldn't the same hold true for a martial arts program?

You can teach martial arts skill, but much more can come with that package. In fact, most people who stick with martial arts are not in it for skill only...they are in it for other reasons such as fellowship, health, and a simple betterment of the oneself. Things like self-control, humility, courtesy, integrity, perserverance, and CHARACTER go with this package.

There are quantifiable means of measuring this stuff, and most of it occurs when the instructor gets to know there students on a personal level. The instructor can gauge if the person is more balanced and has better character on the day of a black belt test then when they first walked in the door.

This is especially true with kids. Many success stories are made from the martial arts. I used to teach kids programs after school, and I can tell you from personal experience that many parents came to me after a few month session to tell me how much their child had improved in school and at home because of the martial arts class. Even I was one of these success stories when I started martial arts at the age of 7 years old. I would like to see naysayers tell these parents with a straight face that character can't be taught or measure in a martial arts program.

I don't teach kids anymore, and I have focused my instruction only to those adults who are serious about their own personal safety, and those who are serious about the martial craft. With this, I know that I cannot be all things to all people; so I will refer people to another instructor if I feel that what I do is not appropriate for them. However, even though this is the case, I still don't think that the martial craft is all about seeing how many different ways you can kick @$$. I don't think it is all about and only about physical skill. I think that it is about bettering ourselves, and being better people.

Wouldn't character go right along with this?

PJMOD

 

[dubljay]

Once again Tulisan, I would like to commend you on an excellent post. I was trying to find a reference for public schools evaluation of citizenship (I remember when that was a category on my report card back in elementary school).

"The ultimate aim of karate lies not in victory or defeat but in the perfection of the character of its participants." -- Gichin Funakoshi (taken from kenponet.com)

I believe as an instructor in martial arts, not only is it possible to measure and teach citizenship, character and life skills, it is a RESPONSIBILITY. To teach people how to effectively inflict bodily harm without teaching and measuring a student's morals and ethics, is akin to giving a serial arsonist a lighter and a can of gasoline.

But that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

-Josh-

[font=helvetica, arial, verdana, sans serif][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, sans serif][/font][/font]

 

[Tgace]

I dont think the debate was so much about martial arts NOT imparting Character Components as much as the belief that "character progresses in proportion to rank". In other words, a black belt will be of better character or is a better person than a white belt. Should you expect less of a white belt as a person?

It looks like the aim in this example is to have everybody adhere to the same standard of "character" rather than to "improve" everybody. I would think that some students are going to come in the door already meeting these standards, they arent going to need "instruction" in how develop character like others are. Not that the experience wouldnt be good for them nonetheless.

Some improvement will probably be seen in a general sense, but its probably going to be dependent on the student. Some will "progress" farther or faster than others while others imprvements may be slow or slight. As far as the MA goes, as long as the person isnt breaking any rules, regulations or standards do you not promote because they aren't showing enough progression on the "character development" track?

Ive read some interesting posts here and found some interesting sources on the topic. I refrenced a study the JROTC program put out about the measuring and development of character, an important point they made is that the improvement generally revolved around the student willingly accepting the rules/regulations of the program and agreeing to submit to the authority of the people running the program.

I also think MUCH of this topic depends on the age of the student.

Cross link to the thread/study I mentioned...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17521&page=2

 

[loki09789]

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not you can measure "Character" in your martial arts students when considering them for promotion. Some have argued that there is no logical link between character developement and martial arts skill progression. Well, sometimes I wonder what is going on in peoples heads when they talk or type

However, even though this is the case, I still don't think that the martial craft is all about seeing how many different ways you can kick @$$. I don't think it is all about and only about physical skill. I think that it is about bettering ourselves, and being better people.

Wouldn't character go right along with this?

PJMOD

Going along side with yes. But that does not mean that you can revoke, remove, reduce 'rank' or even promote that is outlined in your curriculum as a list of techniques, applications, forms... basically physical skills and not clearly linked to 'character requirements.'

I don't really see a link other than the fact that by reducing disruptions (either personal or institutional) that it provides a more productive environment for skill development/practice, but there is no direct link between having good skill at something equating to good character.

Some of the most skilled athletes, artists, performers... have been revealed to be capable of some serious 'character' problems.

If you notice how most report cards are set up and how most 'promotions to the next grade' are set up, there are separate categories for how students are assessed. One are is devoted to academic performance (tests, homework, projects...) and the other is the 'comment section' or 'conduct' section (at least in El Ed report cards) where students are assessed and scored based on "cooperation, waiting your turn..." and other indicators of 'character.'

Every teacher I was trained with and worked or work with understand that we have a responsibility to teach a 'liberal' education to create a well rounded student - including 'character', but that does not mean that you either demote or promote someone academically 'because they are a nice/bad guy.'

I set up my grading system so that the students that show up on time, work hard, cooperate and are generally pleasant and positive get recognition for that good behavior and effort along side their academic skills.

But, there is no way that if Johnny English student can't form a simple sentence or articulate a thought well that I am going to promote that student to the next grade.

Conversely, if I have a student who is a disruption, disrespectful or outright a threat to the safety and performance of the class can I fail them academically because of that.

That is abuse of my powers as a grader/evaluator if I let my 'character observation' create a bias in my evaluation of his/her performance academically. Same in martial arts 'rank' testing. If they perform well and I grade them badly because of some character problem, I am being very wrong.

Now, I can write up a student, call the parents, send them up the administrative chain with referral slips and they will be held accountable for their behavior - damn straight. But, they are still expected to make up their work and meet the same academic standards that everyone else does (unless there is a special educational modification of somekind, but there still is a separate and distinct academic and 'character' track).

This issue comes up regularly in schools. In the "is Rank Revokable thread", I basically took my philosophical stance on "social promotion" of middle school age children and adjusted it to 'rank promotion in martial arts'.

Yes, it is part of the development philosophy of education, but you can not reasonably 'pass' a student who has failed academic standards because of 'socialization' needs. If they are 'socially' promoted to avoid the stigma of being held back, they will only suffer a 'false assumption' that they don't have to meet standards. On the other hand, if we started 'socially failing' students they may get the impression that no matter how well they perform someone can gig them because the school/principal/teacher 'has it out for them.'

One is not automatically linked to the other. They both need to be developed but are not joined.

Same for martial arts. People are not promoted because of 'character' but because of 'performance.' Teachers of any discipline that make promotion/demotion decisions that are academic/performance based because of 'socializaiton' or 'character' reasons are IMO throwing away the assessment tools and letting their 'labels' decide how the promotion will go.


I have had students that were little "angels" (he says through clenched teeth) that passed academically, but were held accountable for their 'character' demonstration as well. Two separate tracks.

I, as a person who was/is a 'some people' person on this issue never said that their was not a character element to training or that character wasn't an important element. I did say that rank earning based on skill and performance can't be demoted/revoked based on character issues. IMO it is illogical and sometimes immoral abuse.

Suspension, expulsions, disavowment .... all those yes, because character and good conduct is expected of everyone, regardless of rank and are adminstrative/punitive actions that hold people accountable for 'character issues'.

Children and adults should not be set in the same program requirements either. Children are expected to learn from socialization as part of the educational requirements. If you are dealing with adults, you are expecting them to act adult and the instructor should reinforce or promote growth in character by establishing and maintianing expectations in the environment, but you aren't going to set up the same outlines and requirements as you would for an elementary age child. I would never say that I am 'teaching character' to another adult in my program as much as expecting 'character behavior' from them.

It would be aweful arrogant of me to assume that I am a superior judge of 'character' than the person in and of his own understanding and that I have the right or qualifications to 'teach character' to an adult in my program.

 

[Tgace]

I would also say IMHO, that we should be careful with how far we take the "Better Person through Martial Arts" theory. MA can/should be a part of a "character building" program (along with school, parents,counseling,Boy Scouts, Religious Groups etc.) but I dont know if we should buy into the "were better people than those who dont study MA" fantasy either. There have been some threads here where people have been accused of thinking they are "better people" because of their careers, experience, training etc. Their "experience" DOESN'T give them the right to claim "higher character" than anybody else. I dont think a BB should either.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I belive that people will be people and by that measure there will be differences in behavior toward fellow human beings. That being said I fell that we should try to instill repect for fellow human beings but at the same time realise that things such as war, politics, religion, and even sexual tendencies may at times influence the way one sees another human being.
I do not want to see a world of clons where all belive, act and think the same

 

[loki09789]

I think one of the confusions/carry overs/assumptions from the other threads is that I am saying that a martial arts school program will not/does not promote/teach character.

I am not saying that at all.

I was making the point that IMO, rank can't be taken (and given) because of 'character issues' because rank is defined and outlined with skill/performance requirements not with 'character evaluations'.

That does not mean that you can't do things to outline character expectations or consequences if someone falls short or rejects those expectations/standards. It just means that touching rank because of character issues is not logically linked.

 

[dubljay]

I think one of the confusions/carry overs/assumptions from the other threads is that I am saying that a martial arts school program will not/does not promote/teach character.

I am not saying that at all.

I was making the point that IMO, rank can't be taken (and given) because of 'character issues' because rank is defined and outlined with skill/performance requirements not with 'character evaluations'.

That does not mean that you can't do things to outline character expectations or consequences if someone falls short or rejects those expectations/standards. It just means that touching rank because of character issues is not logically linked.

I understand where you are comming from loki that rank is defined by skill and erformance requirements. That is true, however IMO teaching someone with bad citizenship/ethics is irresponsible. Would you teach a guy how to fight even though he has a history of beating his wife and kids? I sure wouldn't, because if he continued to abuse his family using the skills I taught him... I would feel responsible. Even though their ready to learn the next level, doesnt mean they are ready to respect what those skills mean they are ready to continue their training.

Again this is just my opinion and I could be wrong

-Josh-

 

[Tgace]

I understand where you are comming from loki that rank is defined by skill and erformance requirements. That is true, however IMO teaching someone with bad citizenship/ethics is irresponsible. Would you teach a guy how to fight even though he has a history of beating his wife and kids? I sure wouldn't, because if he continued to abuse his family using the skills I taught him... I would feel responsible. Even though their ready to learn the next level, doesnt mean they are ready to respect what those skills mean they are ready to continue their training.

Again this is just my opinion and I could be wrong

-Josh-

I "think" that by Pauls standards that student would be booted out of the program. Character is on another track from rank and could mean the difference between staying, staying with conditions or being asked to leave. It just isnt "in the curriculum" so to speak. Its a general expectation. You may have more patients with those who can be "worked with", but you dont expect to change Mansons into Ghandis.

 

[dubljay]

Manson's into Ghandi's... yeah no kidding. Most instructors I know screen their students before letting them begin to prevent that problem.

 

[SenseiBear]

Since it is in my signature, I feel I should speak up at least once on these threads. Now, I can't speak for others here, so understand as I go through these that when I say "I" or "we" or "us", relate to rules, standards, or expectations, I am speaking of the art I study)

... a black belt will be of better character or is a better person than a white belt. Should you expect less of a white belt as a person?

No. A black belt should be of better character, or a better person, than when HE or SHE was a white belt. There is no hard and fast quantity of "character" (2 ounces of character by yellow; 6 ounces of character by green; 10 ounces of character by brown; 1 pound of character required for black) - everyone is different, and you measure them against themselves. What is important is that they (we, I) are on a path to becoming better... There is no destination, it's the path that counts. Constantly improving. Like your technique. In my opinion, there is no destination in training either. It's the path; the goals we have,the signposts we've set are artificial markers - sometimes the goal becomes a barrier too.

... As far as the MA goes, as long as the person isnt breaking any rules, regulations or standards do you not promote because they aren't showing enough progression on the "character development" track?

Progession is "enough progression on the character developtment track". But if they are regressing, then yes. I would not promote them, because they ARE breaking rules and standards. Becoming a better person is the mission statement of our art. If they aren't, something is wrong.

... But that does not mean that you can revoke, remove, reduce 'rank' or even promote that is outlined in your curriculum as a list of techniques, applications, forms...

I agree. When we award rank that is in recognition that the student has demostrated mastery of the requirements for that level, including their personal development. If I was wrong, or for some reason they falter or regress, then I can suspend them, remove them from the program, refuse to associate with them and advise others to do the same, place a restriction on advancement into their record (depending on what is appropriate), but I cannot take away their rank any more than I can take away yesterday.

... That is abuse of my powers as a grader/evaluator if I let my 'character observation' create a bias in my evaluation of his/her performance academically. Same in martial arts 'rank' testing. If they perform well and I grade them badly because of some character problem, I am being very wrong...

And here I disagree. The skills I am teaching people will enable them to hurt, injure, damage, or kill other people. If I continue to train and promote them, regardless of a character problem, THEN I am being very wrong.

... It would be aweful arrogant of me to assume that I am a superior judge of 'character' than the person in and of his own understanding and that I have the right or qualifications to 'teach character' to an adult in my program...

Do you assume you are a better fighter? Have better stances, punches and kicks? Is that arrogant? Now, I know that character is a different animal - and I have adult students who in many ways started the art as a "better person" than I am. The ways in which I exceed them are usually because I was trained, through Martial Art, to be that way. I DO have the right and the qualifications... they are the same ones that allow me to teach them martial skills. I have been in classes with technical and philosophical components, studying them, meditating on my philosophies and beliefs as well as my techniques, and striving for improvement for 15 years, under the guidance and tutelage of people who have been doing the same for far longer. I don't assume that I am superior - I study and get to know my students; different people will get different things out of the philosophy lessons - for some it will be reinforcement, some it will cause awakenings. During the philosophy portion of tests, especially when the student is an upper ranking candidate - I learn things too. Because I am not necessarily a more ethical, moral person than the student. But I have goals, I have guidelines, and I know that my task is to constantly improve, and to help my students do the same.

... we should be careful with how far we take the "Better Person through Martial Arts" theory. MA can/should be a part of a "character building" program (along with school, parents,counseling,Boy Scouts, Religious Groups etc.) but I dont know if we should buy into the "were better people than those who dont study MA...

That is certainly not what I mean by it, nor do I believe any of other instructors I work with mean that. Again, it means that I am a better person than I was as a white belt, and that in 5, 10, 20 years, I will be a better person than I am now. I'll never be perfect; but I intend to try to keep getting better, both in my philosophy and my technique (it is easier for me philosophically, as I used to be really shi%$y, and am none to good now. Those students I have that were better as white belts than I am now - THEY are gonna have a tough time continually improving)

...I "think" that by Pauls standards that student would be booted out of the program. Character is on another track from rank and could mean the difference between staying, staying with conditions or being asked to leave. It just isnt "in the curriculum" so to speak. ...

They would certainly be removed from MY program. But we do have it in the curriculum - We are a philosophy driven art. We put right out front that we strive for truth; want to develop an impeccable attitude; that our mission is to become a better person through dedication to the martial arts. Every class has a philosophy component, and every test starts with the panel questioning the student on their philosophical beliefs and understandings. And they look for a stronger foundation and a deeper understanding at each belt level. The first few years, up to about green belt, usually screens the students, and hopefully, as an instructor, you can get a feel for what kind of person they are after you have worked with them for those years...

-SB

 

[loki09789]

1. No. A black belt should be of better character, or a better person, than when HE or SHE was a white belt. Constantly improving. Like your technique. In my opinion, there is no destination in training either. It's the path; the goals we have,the signposts we've set are artificial markers - sometimes the goal becomes a barrier too.


2. Progession is "enough progression on the character developtment track". But if they are regressing, then yes. I would not promote them, because they ARE breaking rules and standards. Becoming a better person is the mission statement of our art. If they aren't, something is wrong.


3. I agree. I can suspend them, remove them from the program, refuse to associate with them and advise others to do the same, place a restriction on advancement into their record (depending on what is appropriate), but I cannot take away their rank any more than I can take away yesterday.


4. And here I disagree. The skills I am teaching people will enable them to hurt, injure, damage, or kill other people. If I continue to train and promote them, regardless of a character problem, THEN I am being very wrong.


5. Do you assume you are a better fighter? Have better stances, punches and kicks? Is that arrogant? Now, I know that character is a different animal - and I have adult students who in many ways started the art as a "better person" than I am. The ways in which I exceed them are usually because I was trained, through Martial Art, to be that way. I DO have the right and the qualifications... they are the same ones that allow me to teach them martial skills. I have been in classes with technical and philosophical components, studying them, meditating on my philosophies and beliefs as well as my techniques, and striving for improvement for 15 years, under the guidance and tutelage of people who have been doing the same for far longer.


-SB

First off, well said. Here are where I think we differ and I want to clarify my point>

1. I agree that time in the school and regular reinforcement of expectations of character will help people grow over time, but I think that it is a time/exposure issue more than a rank promotion issue.

A 20 year green belt in your system would probably have more growth from white belt level 'character education' than a black belt with 10 years, if you are equating the idea of 'being better than you were yesterday' as the goal. It is not IMO directly linked to rank.

For me the challenge/growth through experience is a matter of time and repetition (like technique) more than promotion/rank.

2. If someone is demonstrating such poor character that I would have misgivings about promoting them, I would have the same misgivings about letting them through the door anymore and would, hopefully, have dealt with 'character' problems based on my 'code of conduct' standards and they would be suspended, expeld... the other option is to not allow them to test for that promotion. I wouldn't even let them test, because they would be 'suspended from promotion opportunities' because of breach of conduct standards with an outlined period that gave them time to demonstrate a positive change. If they didn't...GONE.

That is not the same as taking away existing rank and demonstrates that promotion is a priviledge/opportunity afforded those with good character.

Character standards and learning opportunities HAVE to be built into any good program, but I don't link them to the RANK component of the overall program.

If they test and are promoted, my point is that they will not suddenly "get the glow" (ala "Who da Master" movie fame)

3. agreed there.

4. I am not saying that we don't hold people accountable or that we do not make sure that we are responsible with who we do and don't teach/promote. Refer to #3 for how I would deal with someone with 'questionable' character and promotability. Skill assessments are and should be about skill and any 'character issues' that you let creep into the skill assessment is personal bias, prejudice and destroys the standardization of expectations. I don't think you are the type of guy who would let some one pass because the student was a 'good person' even if they didn't pass the skill assessment. Why would it be okay to fail someone who passed because they were a "bad person" (at least at that moment before they change)? Just deny them promotion opportunities with a 'rank freeze' or a 'suspension of promotion priviledges' until they demonstrate some better character. Even then you have to make sure you can see the difference between someone who is doing it just so they can get tested and someone who sincerely is changing.

5. I am 'qualified' to teach martial arts because I have demonstrated the skill and abilities as well as my systematic knowledge AND my instructor training and demonstrated ability to produce quality students. I don't assume to be a 'character educator' through martial arts RANKING. They are different tracks and experiences. In martial arts, I don't so much see me as "teaching" character as in "Here is HONESTY, can you say HONESTY" and then having lessons built around the good and bad consequences of honesty.

I do set up expectations, much like a legal system would in the general citizenry, where there are parameters and expectations. I explain and communicate them to prospective students. They acknowledge that they know them and understand them - and if they don't they are responsible for clarification (ignorance of the law is no excuse so to speak).

But, again, even with my ed psych training in my teacher training, military leadership and the counselling section of that, personal research into philosophies, raising a child and just life experience I don't presume to 'teach' character so much as to be qualified to set up a code of conduct that has reasonable and positive 'character expectations' along with an accountability process that is fair and reasonable and eliminates as much of the personal bias stuff as possible.

If there is a 'minor' violation:

1. The expectations are restated and the student is told what they did wrong, what the 'right thing to do' was and asked if they understand.
2. If they do express understanding (notice that I am not assuming that they do understand but working from their observable behavior - they could be lying and I can't assume to be able to know that all the time.), then we leave it at 'lesson's learned' and move on. If not, we talk it over until they do say they understand.
3. If there is a repeat of the same type or similarly motivated type of 'minor violation' then I (along with my fellow instructors) will decide if suspension, expulsion, 'suspension of promotability', or some other action needs to be taken. The underlying ideas that motivate that decision are:
1. Safety of the class
2. Educating students and helping them learn from mistakes.
Based on those goals, we decide the best action to take and impliment it.
4. Third strike your out. The end.

NOTE: This is a 'minor' violation (constant rudeness, argumentativeness, using the school as a 'pick up joint' during training time, ..... general disruptions to the 'flow' of the class).

'Major' violations are dealt with more quickly and more severely obviously, but are motivated by the same two goals as mentioned above. Safety of the class and teaching students to learn from mistakes.

I think the difference between our approaches is that I see myself as a "Facilitator" of learning because I lay out the guidelines, expectations and progression and it is up to you to do your best to grow in that environment
I also maintain and enforce those standards with class management techniques and communication. The student is essentially 'in the driver's seat' of learning because they make or break their success.
(basically "I built the 'facility', it is up to you what you do in it...but I will be watching to praise you or punish/retrain you when appropriate").



You seem to see yourself as a 'transmitter' of learning and set up your learning environment around that idea. This puts you in the 'driver's seat' so to speak of how the learning goes.

These outlines are not 'absolutes' but just general structural outlines. OF COURSE your students still 'own' part of their development, but it is not as 'student centered' (in the language of edumacational jargon - there is so much of it) as they are in my set up.

In the end it is a potato/potahto difference. No matter what structure you are using, making sure that your decisions are based on ethical, philosophical and educational goals and not personal grudges, favoratism and pettiness are the most important element to this stuff.

 

[Tgace]

Good article about martial arts and character development...
http://www.kimsookarate.com/articles/poison.html

Brings up the point that maybe were confusing "Martial Arts" as character building with "Martial Arts Instructors" as character builders.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"Instead of choosing a training hall by comparing tuition prices and convenience of location, be most concerned with the qualifications, teaching methods, personal style, and life values of the teacher who will be influencing the students."

[/font]