I’ve seen the posts going around in Tumblr and Facebook about the supposed changes this coming school year. I also noticed that the reaction — particularly in Tumblr — is of stunned surprise mixed with disappointment over the ‘elementary school’ type of changes that are about to happen.
Allow me to quote one Tumblr post I saw.
We won’t have to go from one room to the next. We’ll have a permanent classroom, and it’s the teachers who will go from room to room. (Just like elementary)
Lockers will be inside the classroom.
We will have two breaks. Sometime before lunch, and lunch break itself.
We will have a “study period” where we should be in the classroom/library doing assignments.(So less work pag uwi daw)
Flag Ceremony will start at 7:30 (it was 7:10 before right?)
We will have one day every week where will have early dismissal.
Here’s what I have to say.
1. I cannot confirm the schedule changes yet because there are possible last minute revisions to be made. The unit heads will be meeting with the academic chief on May 30 to go through the schedules one more time so nothing is set in stone as of yet.
2. I think the posts are mostly overreacting, but I understand that this is mostly a function of not knowing. I’ve seen the schedules. I’ve seen the changes and additions being made. It really isn’t that big a change, but there is a conscious effort to make things easier and lighter for the students. But sure, I’ll confirm this: you have short breaks from 9:10 to 9:30 and 2:30 to 2:50 every day (except on Monday; FlagCem takes the place of the 9:10 break). The reason? So you guys (and us teachers too) can breathe, take a quick snack if you need to, and pull things together in between classes. Here’s a newsflash: We know we put our students through a lot of stress, so we’re finding ways to make it a little easier.
3. The admin is actively finding ways to give you guys more time for outreach, field trips, intrams, and extracurricular activities. See which ‘rumor’ this may be compatible with.
4. Yes, Flag Cem is at 7:30 now but I’ll be assembling everyone a good 10 minutes before that. I’ll be coordinating with the SA and CAT soon so that we can begin the spot check around late June or first week of July. I’ll give you guys enough time to get yourselves ready and acclimated to some of my new rules which I will debut during your orientations.
5. There will be study periods throughout the week where each section gets to have exclusive library, lab, or even auditorium time depending on their need. I find this beneficial, given the amount of research, discussions, and rehearsals you guys have to do. If before you had to scrap together loose minutes to practice for, say, Ramayana (3rd years), well you won’t have to do that now.
6. And last, about the stationary classrooms. Truth be told, this has always been the idea especially for the 1st and 2nd years. There will still be movement when you go from your ‘home room’ to a lab or lecture room. Moreover, we teachers have always been the ones moving from classroom to classroom ever since. This year, there has been a conscious effort to avoid excessive movement. I’ve had a section last year who had a class at SHB-317 then went to third floor ASTB for the next period and then back to SHB-317 for my class. The schedulers have done their best to minimize and avoid that kind of arrangement, hence the image of ‘stationary classrooms’. But let’s be realistic. It’s not like you’ll be doing lab experiments or using computers in the third floor SHB so don’t sweat it.
A NOTE ON CHANGE
Guys, all I have to say is that Pisay is in a period of transition. You’re lucky to be in the middle of it all. In the past years, we’ve taken a good hard look at ourselves and are now changing what we can in the most practical and feasible way. We have a mandate to meet, and that is to form and educate the most excellent scholars possible. We are committed to finding the best ways to do that.
I hope you understand if I can’t say a clear ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ to each piece of information floating around. I’d say that we’re about 95% to the finish line, but I would want those making the big decisions to have the final say as to what the remaining 5% will be. Who knows? Someone might hit a big idea and things change drastically. I wouldn’t want to say one thing now, and say another thing later. Let the new things come at the start of the new school year.
All I can assure you now is that none of these changes are random. They’re all well-thought out and have their own reasons and justifications. What I promise to do, once we hit 100%, is to communicate this as clearly and as effectively to every single one of you. And if ever you feel that things can still be done better, we will listen to you. Just promise me to give things a shot. Many times before the school has been accused of being stuck in the past. Well, we’re moving forward now. Make sure you keep up.
Enjoy your last few vacation days! You’ll hear what’s new with the DO very, very soon.
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” — Barack Obama
A lot have chimed in on what the debates have been missing: sobriety, moderation, charity, humility, peace, a basket of cookies, a litter of kittens, etc. But I’d like to point out one thing which I personally find a little lacking: leadership.
I am looking at you, President Noynoy Aquino.
For the debates have become very contentious now. Public opinion is being created and assaulted on so many fronts. You have the pro, the anti, the pro-pro, the anti-anti, the anti-pro, the pro-anti, and those sitting on the fence, pro-sitting on the fence, anti-sitting on the fence, etc etc. I can go on and on, and it wouldn’t change the fact that all this name calling is both preposterous, pretentious, and infantile.
I find that because of these debates, we’re losing track of what the issue is all about. It’s about people. And yet your silence, Mr. President, has allowed everyone to make this about religion, civilization, sex, promiscuity, the Jesuits, the Opus Dei, the Dominicans, freethinkers, unfreethinkers, atheists, secularists, quasi-intellectuals, journalists, bloggers, paid-bloggers, the Americans, the Chinese, the Singaporeans, the Thais, the Africans, the Vatican, and what have you. Everyone is an expert on reproductive health all of a sudden. Everyone is intelligent now, complete with their repertoire of irrefutable HTML links, dated references, biased research, unscientific polls, divinely inspired texts, and an artful confluence of words.
What am I expecting, you ask?
That every now and then — for example before Congress began their circus — you speak on air and remind everyone what the proposed bill hopes to do. You acknowledge the poisonous tenor of the debate, remind us that it isn’t helpful, and that while we can’t agree on everything, we can agree on something. Perhaps the biggest falsehood going around which I can firmly blame you for allowing to fester is that the bill has no designs on economic development and that overpopulation isn’t a problem. That the debate has come to a point where opponents can deny this fundamental reality is incredibly alarming and a stark reminder of how surreal this is all turning out to be.
We all know you support the bill, but I also understand why you want — need – to pussyfoot around it. It’s tough politically. But Mr. President, please grow a pair. You speak strongly of following the straight path. Let it not be a narrow one as well. And while the tuwid na daan symbolizes your aspirations for integrity and honesty in government, don’t misconstrue this as you being infallible or untouchable. Take a gamble. Stand up for what you believe in. Play to win, but lose honorably.
If only I could write your speech, Mr. President.
I’d open it with the words of Matthew 25:40. “‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”
Talk about how the Philippines is a developing nation, and that while we’ve seen economic growth in recent years, we’ve also seen growing inequity. The gap between rich and poor is widening, but we shouldn’t take this as mere fact but as a challenge. Hence, reaching out to the poorest among us and elevating their lot in life is your priority as President, and that ‘as a nation blessed by God’ we are charged with looking after each other. That notion is inherent in the belief of our country’s Catholic majority. That too is inherent in all Christian faiths, in Islam, and in the universal human aspiration for a better life. Then discuss the malaise of poverty, its many causes and challenges, and explain how reproductive health is a part of the problem.
Talk about what the government has done so far for women and children, acknowledge that existing programs there haven’t been enough, and that the government can take an extra step to provide better services and care to young mothers, expectant ones, and those who have become a mother a dozen times over. Outline the key principles of a reasonable RH bill, and talk about the role you intend for government to play.
Then emphasize that the government shall forever respect religious freedom, making it clear that no one is forced to avail of methods that they may deem unconscionable and that health workers outside the state system will not be penalized for not providing unconscionable contraceptive methods. Moreover, those who go into the government health service must know what they’re getting into and should willfully choose to do so. It’s like joining the military; they’ll have a professional and civic duty to fulfill their patient’s needs regardless of their own ethical stances. Nonetheless, emphasize that abortion will forever be taboo, and that any bill that will begin our country down the slippery slope to legalizing abortion will be automatically vetoed.
Ultimately you’ll have to do politics, and talk about how the goals of the RH Bill are modest and do not allow for the creation of a culture of promiscuity, sex, and death. This is so because culture is still the domain of people and cannot be simply legislated by law. Call on the Church and other religious groups to continue on their good work of educating couples to be responsible and reassure them that whether one avails of artificial contraception or not will always be the domain of conscience and hence beyond the control of the state. But remind them that you are the President of the Philippines. And that for some people there are methods which are conscionable and appropriate, and hence the state should provide what it can where it can. Conclude that the RH Bill will never encroach on religious belief and practice for it does not undermine or replace conscience, the bedrock of Catholic spirituality. And if ever they do collide, there will always be a case for government reviewing the legislation they make and for the Church reviewing the formation they provide.
In the end, when the dust settles, remind all of us that we are at a decisive moment in history and that how we conduct ourselves now will determine what it is we get to do ‘for the least of our brothers’. Admit that the RH Bill, in its current form, isn’t perfect. No bill ever is. But that’s why we debate. And if ever the debates turn out that such a bill isn’t necessary, then so be it. You’ll accept it. But what you won’t accept is that we do nothing for those who remain poor, uneducated, and powerless. What you won’t accept is that there continues to be children born into families that can’t provide, homes that cannot house dreams, and communities that can’t raise good families. Failing to act now is simply unacceptable to you, Mr. President. And while you will always welcome other proposals and alternatives, there is no doubt that Congress can do something now. Hence our failure to act won’t just be a failing in the eyes of man; it will be a tragedy in the eyes of God.
End by affirming that while the constitution speaks about a separation of Church and State, the best moments in our history have come when everyone works together. It was, after all, with the Church and the Filipino people behind her that your mother became President, deposed a dictator, and restored our liberty. However, make it clear that winning democracy is one thing and working at it is another. We may find ourselves on divergent paths and opposing sides, but in being honorable and honest to each other we enhance our democracy and become the people worthy of the freedom we’ve won. “The Filipino is worth dying for.” Your father once said. So let’s live well. Let us be the people our heroes once fought for.
I didn’t vote for you, Mr. President. But I don’t want to use that as a source of comfort in case you fail. I want you to succeed. And if you need any help, you know where to reach me.
Think you know everything there is to know and seen everything there is to see? Let’s see how many of these ten items you know.
1. AKSIS is actually a rehabilitated club. Before I took over, it was called the S-Club — ‘S’ for SocSci — but the changes I introduced practically created a new club from scratch. It was a job I volunteered for as well, and specifically asked my unit head then to allow me to fix it up.
2. In my initial presentation to the SocSci unit for a new name, I only had two: YSCA and Kapatiran. I forget now what YSCA stands for, and later on I discovered that Kapatiran is actually a religious-conservative political party here in the country! I came up with AKSIS completely randomly while thinking of a scientific/mathematical concept that is simple enough while capturing the central theme of change. The unit loved AKSIS the moment I brought it up. I traded the X for KS to give it a more Filipino feel.
3. AKSIS isn’t an acronym, but the all caps make it look cool and awesome. Haha! At one point it became Aksyon Iskolar, but that didn’t really stick and it wasn’t really needed. HOWEVER, there was a time when it wasn’t all-caps! Read on.
4. While the club was officially born on 18 July 2007, I was busy promoting it even in March of that year. I really had my heart into it and made these nifty promotional blog posters using images I just got off deviant art and what not. But these give you a pretty good idea of my initial vision for the club.
But of all the graphics I made for AKSIS, the one I feel most proud of is this:
5. The first AKSIS meeting was on March 9, 2007. The ‘AKSIS babies’ were Batch 2010. They were the youngest members when AKSIS started out. And before the arms were named as AE, AL, and AS, they were simply Programs Committee, Members Committee, and Communications Committee respectively. Here is the first-ever official roster:
6. The one and only AKSIS shirt we have was produced during the term of Criselle David (’09). It made its big debut in the first ever Sigaw. Nonetheless, shirts have become central in our events and fundraising strategies.
7. Our first project ever was Kamalayan in August 24, 2007. It also introduced us to Bantayog ng mga Bayani, a venue we’d return to again and again. We also worked on the program with Maskara, and the idea of collaborating with other clubs has been a big idea since. This tradition continued under Criselle David (Sigaw) and Joker Asis (Tugon).
8. The project I am most personally fulfilled with is the outreach to Sitio Target in December 2007. It is the only AKSIS project I consider myself to have personally worked on as adviser and have since encouraged my team to create and develop their own. I could have always done it again, but I would love for my team to find their own way back to Sitio Target.
9. AKSIS has enchanced my teaching incredibly. I’ve had projects where I handled my classes like organizations (ex. Mock Trials, Amazing Race, ASEAN) and this is something I picked up working with AKSIS.
10. The AKSIS election I was most excited for was the transition from Batch 2010 to 2011. It was the graduation of the ‘baby batch’ of AKSIS and I was excited to see how the generational shift would work out. True to form, Sarah Yangco broke new ground immediately. The shift to 2012 was even bigger. The club’s current leaders come from a generation farther from the club’s beginnings, and are now inspired not so much by the creation of the club but by the examples set by the leaders who have come before.
AFTERWORD
AKSIS has been a tremendous part of my professional life for the past four years and I have never really thought about the day that I would have to let it go. But with a new responsibility placed before me this coming year, I’ll have to trust that the hard work I’ve put into the club will bear fruit. If the recently concluded Blueprints is any indication though, my hard work may already have. I am now looking forward to what’s next for me, and I am not really thinking about the day that I come back to AKSIS as their adviser. I’ve always said that I don’t want AKSIS to be the Sir Martin club. I think we’ve finally succeeded in that.
It’s been an honor, guys. There is still so much we can do together, but I am beginning to feel that there is even more we can do now. For the energy I used to devote to AKSIS, I can use to build up new things. And the passion you have, the passion not even I can take away, can only multiply the more it is used. You have a great new adviser coming up, and an even more epic team. There is literally no limit to what you guys can do.
Now, I am overpowered by a sense of pride for as I look back at the past five years and see how far the club has grown, I can’t help but remember the words I’ve been writing since all of this began –
“Ideas change the world, but people make the difference.”
Thank you, AKSIS. Thank you for helping me believe.
Now let me tease some of the new methods I intend to employ. There will be small yet significant changes in the FlagCem. I won’t detail them now, but this form should give some clues. Implementation details will remain secret for now.
I’m actually staring at my yellow pad right now, scribbling idea after idea. Now let’s put some order and see what we have.
We’ll begin the year by talking about this year’s events in the Middle East, from the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to the death of Osama bin Laden. They’ll be reconstructing a timeline of events and I’ll be testing them to see how well they can narrate and pay attention to detail. My central question will be, “Why does all this matter?” Then I’ll shift into the social sciences and mindblast them a bit at the different fields of socsci and how each one approaches history and current events. This is basically my intro to the course and a demonstration of what we do.
Then I unravel things a bit and introduce the notion of Clash of Civilizations that became so popular after 9/11. This will be my connecting bridge to the first topic on What is Civilization? This time around, I’ll be starting with the band, tribe, chiefdom, state typology and use that as the organizing framework for everything else. I’ve already written some new essay questions and think twice items for this.
I’m improving the front end of SS2 this year by launching a two-class game called GAME OF EMPIRES. Basic idea is that each class is divided into bands, and each band earns points based on their quiz, recitation, and even LT scores. They will then use these points until… nah. Too spoilery.
To launch my lesson on the Axial Age and Rise of Religions, my classes will be having a cosplay activity where they’ll reenact the lives of key Axial Age figures, but with a twist.
I haven’t locked down how I’ll be teaching the Age of Empires. Every year, I get to emphasize the interconnectedness of the three core civilizations more and more, and I intend to push towards that direction in a big way.
The mock trials will be returning, but I’ll be pushing the topics a little bit more forward on the timeline.
The Middle East summit will be returning and I don’t foresee shaking things up too much. I hope my being the DO will stop them from fighting and taking the metagame too seriously. NAH.
I plan to rebuild Model ASEAN from scratch to accommodate the fact that I just have two sections. Maybe: Why stop with ASEAN?
That’s it for preliminary thoughts. Not so much yet but they’re coming.
Weeks ago, I invited everyone to listen to a talk by Barry Schwartz for a glimpse into my philosophy as Discipline Officer. Now I’d like to present that talk again with my notes and reflections, giving you a clear look into how I intend to approach things. Included in this post is a transcript of his speech. I will highlight sentences I find incredibly noteworthy.
My comments are in block quotes.
In his inaugural address, Barack Obama appealed to each of us to give our best as we try to extricate ourselves from this current financial crisis. But what did he appeal to? He did not, happily, follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, and tell us to just go shopping. Nor did he tell us, “Trust us. Trust your country. Invest, invest, invest.” Instead, what he told us was to put aside childish things. And he appealed to virtue. Virtue is an old-fashioned word. It seems a little out of place in a cutting-edge environment like this one. And besides, some of you might be wondering, what the hell does it mean?
By alluding to virtue, Barry Schwartz summons the spirit of Aristotle. You can read more about the philosophical roots of ‘virtue’ here.
Let me begin with an example. This is the job description of a hospital janitor that is scrolling up on the screen. And all of the items on it are unremarkable. They’re the things you would expect: mop the floors, sweep them, empty the trash, restock the cabinets. It may be a little surprising how many things there are, but it’s not surprising what they are. But the one thing I want you to notice about them is this: Even though this is a very long list, there isn’t a single thing on it that involves other human beings. Not one. The janitor’s job could just as well be done in a mortuary as in a hospital.
And yet, when some psychologists interviewed hospital janitors to get a sense of what they thought their jobs were like, they encountered Mike, who told them about how he stopped mopping the floor because Mr. Jones was out of his bed getting a little exercise, trying to build up his strength, walking slowly up and down the hall. And Charlene told them about how she ignored her supervisor’s admonition and didn’t vacuum the visitor’s lounge because there were some family members who were there all day, every day who, at this moment, happened to be taking a nap. And then there was Luke, who washed the floor in a comatose young man’s room twice because the man’s father, who had been keeping a vigil for six months, didn’t see Luke do it the first time, and his father was angry. And behavior like this from janitors, from technicians, from nurses and, if we’re lucky now and then, from doctors, doesn’t just make people feel a little better, it actually improves the quality of patient care and enables hospitals to run well.
I’ve seen similar acts of kindness from our janitors and security guards in Pisay. I recommend everyone to take the time to get to know them, and extend a helping hand in whatever way you can. We’ll need to work together if we want to make our community the best it can be.
Now, not all janitors are like this, of course. But the ones who are think that these sorts of human interactions involving kindness, care and empathy are an essential part of the job. And yet their job description contains not one word about other human beings. These janitors have the moral will to do right by other people. And beyond this, they have the moral skill to figure out what “doing right” means.
“Practical wisdom,” Aristotle told us, “is the combination of moral will and moral skill.” A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule, as the janitors knew when to ignore the job duties in the service of other objectives. A wise person knows how to improvise, as Luke did when he re-washed the floor. Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined and the context is always changing. A wise person is like a jazz musician — using the notes on the page, but dancing around them, inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand. A wise person knows how to use these moral skills in the service of the right aims. To serve other people, not to manipulate other people. And finally, perhaps most important, a wise person is made, not born. Wisdom depends on experience, and not just any experience. You need the time to get to know the people that you’re serving. You need permission to be allowed to improvise, try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures. And you need to be mentored by wise teachers.
I love that jazz musician metaphor. It captures exactly how I feel about rules: they should guide us, not dictate upon us. But I’d like to point out something Barry Schwartz doesn’t deliberately say: It takes a heck of a lot of experience, practice, and skill to be a jazz musician. Before you can improvise, you must master the basics. Mastery leads to a higher state of knowledge and awareness of who we really are, and hence how to act appropriately.
Schwartz also talks about working to service the right aims. In Aristotelian philosophy, that concept is called “telos“. I’ll talk more about telos soon.
When you ask the janitors who behaved like the ones I described how hard it is to learn to do their job, they tell you that it takes lots of experience. And they don’t mean it takes lots of experience to learn how to mop floors and empty trash cans. It takes lots of experience to learn how to care for people. At TED, brilliance is rampant. It’s scary. The good news is you don’t need to be brilliant to be wise. The bad news is that without wisdom, brilliance isn’t enough. It’s as likely to get you and other people into trouble as anything else.
Replace TED with Pisay and the statement still applies. Note the simple truth in the last three sentences.
Now, I hope that we all know this. There’s a sense in which it’s obvious, and yet, let me tell you a little story. It’s a story about lemonade. A dad and his seven-year-old son were watching a Detroit Tigers game at the ballpark. His son asked him for some lemonade and dad went to the concession stand to buy it. All they had was Mike’s Hard Lemonade, which was five percent alcohol. Dad, being an academic, had no idea that Mike’s Hard Lemonade contained alcohol. So he brought it back. And the kid was drinking it, and a security guard spotted it, and called the police, who called an ambulance that rushed to the ballpark, whisked the kid to the hospital. The emergency room ascertained that the kid had no alcohol in his blood. And they were ready to let the kid go.
But not so fast. The Wayne County Child Welfare Protection Agency said no. And the child was sent to a foster home for three days. At that point, can the child go home? Well, a judge said yes, but only if the dad leaves the house and checks into a motel. After two weeks, I’m happy to report, the family was reunited. But the welfare workers and the ambulance people and the judge all said the same thing: “We hate to do it but we have to follow procedure.”
Don’t we hear that often? It’s sad how often we do. A lot of us, I’m sure, have thought and felt the same way. Let’s work at creating an environment where we don’t feel we have to say that.
How do things like this happen? Scott Simon, who told this story on NPR, said, “Rules and procedures may be dumb, but they spare you from thinking.” And, to be fair, rules are often imposed because previous officials have been lax and they let a child go back to an abusive household. Fair enough. When things go wrong, as of course they do, we reach for two tools to try to fix them.
Funny line, but true. The next paragraph is epic. Pay attention.
One tool we reach for is rules. Better ones, more of them. The second tool we reach for is incentives. Better ones, more of them. What else, after all, is there? We can certainly see this in response to the current financial crisis. Regulate, regulate, regulate. Fix the incentives, fix the incentives, fix the incentives … The truth is that neither rules nor incentives are enough to do the job. How could you even write a rule that go the janitors to do what they did? And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic? It’s preposterous on its face. And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules, rules and incentives may make things better in the short run, but they create a downward spiral that makes them worse in the long run. Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprives us of the opportunity to improvise and learn from our improvisations. And moral will is undermined by an incessant appeal to incentives that destroy our desire to do the right thing. And without intending it, by appealing to rules and incentives, we are engaging in a war on wisdom.
Let’s be honest here. We know what Schwartz is talking about. We see it happen all the time. In trying to resolve discipline problems in Pisay, a lot of what we’ve done was to stack new rules on top of each other. A matter of fact, I’ve been part of a lot of discussions that went nowhere because of a fixation on trying to create new and better rules. All it takes is for someone to spot a loophole and the process begins again. But is it at all possible to create perfect rules? For that matter, is it at all possible to create perfect incentives?
When I was a younger teacher, I was bonus-happy. I gave my students as much as I could. Now I hardly give bonus points; if I do I don’t call them that. Somewhere along the way I realized that while we intend for them to learn more or do more, they only end up working for the points. More on this soon.
Let me just give you a few examples, first of rules and the war on moral skill. The lemonade story is one. Second, no doubt more familiar to you, is the nature of modern American education: scripted, lock-step curricula. Here’s an example from Chicago kindergarten. Reading and enjoying literature and words that begin with ‘B.’ The bath: Assemble students on a rug and give students a warning about the dangers of hot water. Say 75 items in this script to teach a 25-page picture book. All over Chicago in every kindergarten class in the city, every teacher is saying the same words in the same way on the same day. We know why these scripts are there. We don’t trust the judgment of teachers enough to let them loose on their own. Scripts like these are insurance policies against disaster. And they prevent disaster. But what they assure in its place is mediocrity.
Amazing line. I don’t like mediocrity.
Don’t get me wrong. We need rules! Jazz musicians need some notes — most of them need some notes on the page. We need more rules for the bankers, God knows. But too many rules prevent accomplished jazz musicians from improvising. And as a result, they lose their gifts, or worse, they stop playing altogether.
Now, how about incentives? They seem cleverer. If you have one reason for doing something and I give you a second reason for doing the same thing it seems only logical that two reasons are better than one and you’re more likely to do it. Right? Well, not always. Sometimes two reasons to do the same thing seem to compete with one another instead of complimenting and they make people less likely to do it.
I’ll just give you one example because time is racing. In Switzerland back about 15 years ago they were trying to decide where to site nuclear waste dumps. There was going to be a national referendum. Some psychologists went around and polled citizens who were very well informed. And they said, “Would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?” Astonishingly, 50 percent of the citizens said yes. They knew it was dangerous. They thought it would reduce their property values. But it had to go somewhere and they had responsibilities as citizens. The psychologists asked other people a slightly different question. They said, “If we paid you six weeks’ salary every year would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?” Two reasons. It’s my responsibility and I’m getting paid. Instead of 50 percent saying yes, 25 percent said yes. What happens is that the second this introduction of incentive gets us so that instead of asking, “What is my responsibility?” all we ask is, “What serves my interests?” When incentives don’t work, when CEOs ignore the long-term health of their companies in pursuit of short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses the response is always the same. Get smarter incentives.
The truth is that there are no incentives that you can devise that are ever going to be smart enough. Any incentive system can be subverted by bad will. We need incentives. People have to make a living. But excessive reliance on incentives demoralizes professional activity in two senses of that word. It causes people who engage in that activity to lose morale and it causes the activity itself to lose morality.
This explains the problem with giving too many bonus points away. This should also make us think before we start rewarding our students for picking up the trash, clearing the black board, organizing their things, and doing the right thing.
This analysis also sheds light into why the House System had a luke warm reception. The way I see it, the incentives it provided didn’t matter. In an intense environment such as Pisay where students have to do so many things, every single subject dangles it owns sticks (rules) and carrots (incentives). To get students to do other things, the easiest route many take is to dangle even more rules and incentives. I can imagine that keeping all that in line can be absolutely tiring and there comes a point where we do some sort of accounting and just stick to doing the things that reward us more. That’s the problem when our environment relies on too many incentives. But as a school, do we have another choice?
Barack Obama said, before he was inaugurated, “We must ask not just ‘Is it profitable?’ but ‘Is it right?’” And when professions are demoralized everyone in them becomes dependent on — addicted to — incentives and they stop asking “Is it right?” We see this in medicine. (“Although it’s nothing serious, let’s keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn’t turn into a major lawsuit.”) And we certainly see it in the world of business. (“In order to remain competitive in today’s marketplace, I’m afraid we’re going to have to replace you with a sleezeball.”) (“I sold my soul for about a tenth of what the damn things are going for now.”) It is obvious that this is not the way people want to do their work.
Now we look at solutions.
So what can we do? A few sources of hope: We ought to try to re-moralize work. One way not to do it: teach more ethics courses. There is no better way to show people that you’re not serious than to tie up everything you have to say about ethics into a little package with a bow and consign it to the margins as an ethics course.
All this means is that classes, seminars, and talks have a limit to their usefulness. But they should just be the first step. It’s one thing to inspire, another thing to empower.
What to do instead? One: Celebrate moral exemplars. Acknowledge, when you go to law school, that a little voice is whispering in your ear about Atticus Finch. No ten-year-old goes to law school to do mergers and acquisitions. People are inspired by moral heroes. But we learn that, with sophistication comes the understanding that you can’t acknowledge that you have moral heroes. Well, acknowledge them. Be proud that you have them. Celebrate them. And demand that the people who teach you acknowledge them and celebrate them too. That’s one thing we can do.
In an AKSIS talk last January 29, we invited some of our alumni who have gone on to become student leaders and public servants. It was incredibly inspiring and I hope we could highlight more people like them. When I first came to Pisay almost seven years ago, the first thing I asked was, “Who are the prominent graduates of Pisay?” Because realistically, your best says a lot about the school, the students, and their potential.
I don’t know how many of you remember this: another moral hero, fifteen years ago, Aaron Feuerstein, who was the head of Malden Mills in Massachussetts — they made Polartec — The factory burned down. 3,000 employees. He kept every one of them on the payroll. Why? Because it would have been a disaster for them and for the community if he had let them go. “Maybe on paper our company is worth less to Wall Street, but I can tell you it’s worth more. We’re doing fine.”
Just at this TED we heard talks from several moral heroes. Two were particularly inspiring to me. One was Ray Anderson, who turned a part of the evil empire into a zero-footprint, or almost zero-footprint business. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. And a bonus he’s discovering is he’s actually going to make even more money. His employees are inspired by the effort. Why? Because there happy to be doing something that’s the right thing to do. Yesterday we heard Willie Smits talk about re-foresting in Indonesia.
In many ways this is the perfect example. Because it took the will to do the right thing. God knows it took a huge amount of technical skill. I’m boggled at how much he and his associates needed to know in order to plot this out. But most important to make it work — and he emphasized this — is that it took knowing the people in the communities. Unless the people you’re working with are behind you this will fail. And there isn’t a formula to tell you how to get the people behind you because different people in different communities organize their lives in different ways.
So there’s a lot here at TED, and at other places, to celebrate. And you don’t have to be a mega-hero. There are ordinary heroes. Ordinary heroes like the janitors who are worth celebrating too. As practitioners each and everyone of us should strive to be ordinary, if not extraordinary heroes. As heads of organizations, we should strive to create environments that encourage and nurture both moral skill and moral will. Even the wisest and most well-meaning people will give up if they have to swim against the current in the organizations in which they work.
If you run an organization you should be sure that none of the jobs — none of the jobs — have job descriptions like the job descriptions of the janitors. Because the truth is that any work that you do that involves interaction with other people is moral work. And any moral work depends upon practical wisdom.
Let me repeat: Any work you do that involves interaction with other people is moral work.
Now he talks directly to us teachers.
And, perhaps most important, as teachers, we should strive to be the ordinary heroes, the moral exemplars, to the people we mentor. And there are a few things that we have to remember as teachers. One is that we are always teaching. Someone is always watching. The camera is always on. Bill Gates talked about the importance of education and, in particular, the model that KIPP was providing. “Knowledge is power.” And he talked about a lot of the wonderful things that KIPP is doing to take inner-city kids and turn them in the direction of college.
Especially with the Internet these days, we are always, always teaching.
I want to focus on one particular thing KIPP is doing that Bill didn’t mention. That is that they have come to the realization that the single most important thing kids need to learn is character. They need to learn to respect themselves. They need to learn to respect their schoolmates. They need to learn to respect their teachers. And, most important, they need to learn to respect learning. That’s the principle objective. If you do that, the rest is just pretty much a coast downhill. And the teachers: the way you teach these things to the kids is by having the teachers and all the other staff embody it every minute of every day.
In this sense, every single teacher in Pisay is an officer of the day, every minute of ever day. I hope we don’t reach a point where we have to compel teachers to implore our students to do the right thing. We’re all teachers for a reason. Let us remember why we are here.
Obama appealed to virtue. And I think he was right. And the virtue I think we need above all others is practical wisdom, because it’s what allows other virtues — honesty, kindness, courage and so on — to be displayed at the right time and in the right way. He also appealed to hope. Right again. I think there is reason for hope. I think people want to be allowed to be virtuous.
In many ways, it’s what TED is all about. Wanting to do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. This kind of wisdom is within the grasp of each and every one of us if only we start paying attention. Paying attention to what we do, to how we do it, and, perhaps most importantly, to the structure of the organizations in which we work, so as to make sure that it enables us and other people to develop wisdom rather than having it suppressed.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
AN AFTERWORD
Our world actually consists of two realities: the systems world and the human world.
The systems world is mechanical, fixed, efficient. It is premised on the very idea that there must be an order in the universe, and so we build our cities, our roads, bridges, and buildings. We establish governments, contest ideologies, and wage wars for the sake of peace. The systems world is what we have created to regulate human existence.
The human world on the other hand, defies order. It is premised not on ideas, but on actions. It thrives on spontaneity, spirit, and creativity. The human world is also about the relationships we form and the choices we make. And since it cannot be contained — our bodies are mere vessels of this creative font — we can be like that tree which breaks through the wall.
I’ve always seen us as living in the tension of the two. At times we want to be free, at times we just want to be left alone and surrender to the whims of the world. I never developed the language to sort out the two in my own life until I encountered the ideas of Barry Schwartz. He has found recluse in the ideas of Aristotle, and encourages us to have a more practical kind of wisdom as we navigate the labyrinth of rules and bureaucracies created by modernity.
These ideas are even more potent now, given my new assignment. I feel that over the past years we’ve become too ensconced in the systems world, though that isn’t entirely a bad thing. There are a lot of rules and procedures that need to be developed and polished in Pisay, but I feel that something has gotten lost or is being neglected in this quest for order. I have ideas what that is, and I have Schwartz and Aristotle to thank for pointing me in the right direction.
Last week, I sent out a call for questions and I got some very sincere and honest letters. In terms of frequency, an appeal to be more lax in the hair cut rule topped the list. But a handful of letters relating to PDA (public displays of affection) conveyed the most confusion and even disappointment. There are other issues, of course, but I’d like to start with these two.
You can continue to write me. Please do. Feel free to react to what I have to say in the post. If you wish to be anonymous so that you feel more comfortable writing to me, that will be fine as well. Just leave a working alternative e-mail (that masks your real name) so at least I can respond to you.
ON HAIR CUT
In the letters I received, I noticed two major trains of thought: (1) We agree with the justification of cleanliness and grooming as stated in the handbook but (2) we just want clarity on what 2×3 really means. On the second, the confusion arises because there is an inconsistency in implementation: some are fine with the hair simply not touching the brows, ears, and nape (BEN), but others require a clean shave two inches/fingers above the ear and three fingers/inches above the nape.
Where did this confusion come from? I’m not too sure myself but here’s what I know. One, the ‘clean shave’ style or what is technically called white side wall is the standard for CAT. That only applies to the 4th years (sorry, guys) and the CAT officers, in most schools, require stricter limits (4×5, 5×10) among themselves as their ranks increase (for the standard cadet it’s 2×3).
For the undergraduates, I don’t see why they too have to go white side wall. Even the stricter Catholic schools (where rules are non-negotiable) stop at hair not touching the BEN. To offset this and make sure that students don’t cheat the rule, monitoring is more frequent and consistent. You have more freedom to adopt the style you want as long as you’re never caught with hair long enough to touch the BEN. Supplementing this is a guideline against excessive hair gel that will literally keep your hair from touching the brows.
I am pointing this out to illustrate that I know where the confusion is and that I intend to set this straight. What the final policy will look like remains to be seen as I’m currently streamlining the system of how NCRs are filed and used. I’ll announce whatever clarifications there will be during the enrollment orientation or soon after that. Stay tuned.
ON PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION (PDA)
I can end discussion right here and echo what someone (a student) told me: “We are a school. Not a whore-house or mall.” That’s pretty much it, right? So keep your hands to yourselves, kids.
But I feel that the letters I received merit a better answer. While I will not quote them, their words had a general tone of confusion and disappointment. Confusion as to why it is wrong to show someone they care, and disappointment that they feel they can’t show someone they care. Mind you, they’re not looking for an excuse to indulge their passions. They just feel that there’s nothing wrong with hugging a friend in need or sitting with someone as they pour their heart out. They pretty much draw the line against full on exhibitions that have no place in school.
Personally, I would be more disturbed if none of you showed any care for each other. If you all just went about completely unattached and distant, now that would make the case for Pisay students being robots and grade-churning machines. There are acceptable limits to how we demonstrate our affection without being scandalous, and this is reflected in what is normally acceptable in Philippine society at large. Compared to other cultures (as you can glimpse in foreign media), we are relatively more conservative and private, and our school rules reflect that.
But where do we draw the line?
First, I suggest that we don’t see the rule against PDA as a restriction but a safeguard. Professional offices and settings have very strict PDA rules, and there are numerous accounts of people being terminated for being too public with what they feel. The logic behind this is to safeguard employees against sexual harassment, which can become real contentious and problematic. Emotional expressions can be mixed up with sexual advances (especially when two people are not in a relationship), and distinguishing the two when troubles arise can become a complicated, legal, painful affair. The rule is there to make sure you don’t cross the line and end up with something worse.
How do we apply that in a school setting?
The logic is the same, but with the added dimension of considering the various emotional development levels of students. I fully understand that as teenagers, you are in a period of self-discovery. You’re willing to do new things and explore new feelings, not so much out of curiosity but out of a genuine impulse telling you that embracing change can lead you to your fuller self. Among the many notions you’re exploring is love, and I know very well how it can suspend logic and sweep you off your feet. I know very well how gravity can pull you towards another person, seize you, and never let you go.
However, I also know — as you will eventually — that love isn’t just all that. Eventually (and sometimes painfully), you’ll realize that it is about respect, patience, and hard work. And that if your love is real, you will extend these virtues to the entire world and not just keep it between you and your beloved.
The real danger among students is emotional abuse, but sadly not all know when they’re a victim of it. Knowing requires you have a clear sense of self and self-respect. I’m speaking in abstractions so let me give some examples.
Affection becomes abuse the moment you’re being blackmailed into doing something out of ‘love’. I’ve encountered students who have come to me seeking guidance about what to do with a partner who forced them to do things ‘to prove they care’ or ‘to show their love’. I’ve seen cases where the partner would threaten to stop studying or to even commit suicide unless ‘they concretize their love’. You’re being blackmailed when you feel you have no choice but to do as the other says, or you think (tragically) that you’re showing your love by bearing with everything even as you suffer through the guilt and heartache.
Such relationships can be very unhealthy, and I say that not as a judgment but as a fact. Suffering emotionally often leads to suffering academically. Motivation becomes difficult; inspiration becomes impossible. I’ve seen students make poor college and career choices because of this. I’ve seen students get kicked out. And none of us want this.
Definitely, good relationships exist. There are those who are respectful of each other and hence respectful of the school that they are in. Starting with this respect, this rule against PDA should be no problem, and the safeguard exists to protect those who may be unaware they’re falling into an emotionally abusive relationship. To give you students some perspective, realize that PDA rules are actually heavier and stricter towards adults in the workplace; there is no reason we shouldn’t expect the same standard of propriety from you. You have teachers who are married, the ultimate sign of commitment, and you can see how they respect each other’s boundaries and allow each other to grow.
At the bottom of all this however, is implementation. Realize that your teachers are unique individuals and come to this issue with their own perspectives. Some may be conservative, some may be liberal. But what we all have in common is an emphasis on respect. As the DO, I’ll look at each PDA case filed to my desk individually and, in the spirit of respect, hear you students out first. I just want everyone to realize that ultimately, in enforcing the rule on PDA, we want you to respect yourselves and each other.
I’m in the process of reflecting and assessing a lot of the rules and practices we have in Pisay. I know that a lot of you seek some changes in the way we do things, particularly when it comes to discipline concerns. Over the course of next week, I’ll be talking with the incoming administration about our various policies, with the intent of introducing changes where they are needed, fixing what’s broken, and building on the things we’re already doing well. That said, I’ll need to hear from you.
I’d like to know your concerns — any concern at all — about our rules, regulations, and the DO. I will value your comments, as well as any hopes and expectations you’d like to share. All you have to do is click WRITE ME and the message you write will be sent to my e-mail.
I will appreciate if you leave your real name and section (so I can get back to you if I have something), and I promise to keep you and your message to me absolutely confidential. I’ll be watching my e-mail throughout this entire week.
Your inputs have the potential to directly impact the way things are done. As the year nears I’ll also be meeting with the SA to present ways students can more actively participate in making the PSHS community the best it can. Let this be our first step.
For Year 6, this blog has been primarily an SS2 resource but it doesn’t mean I haven’t written about other things elsewhere. They’re all over the place actually, and this blog’s new format allows me to centralize everything once again. So I did some sifting through my Facebook notes, my Tumblr, and my other two semi-public WordPress blogs (which are inaccessible now) and picked out the best reads of the past year. Here they are now, properly indexed for future reference.
An Apology to Our Students, posted 26 November 2010 — a response to a student’s posted entitled An Apology to Pisay. I actually enjoy writing back and forth with Arizza.
The Day the Year Turned, posted 5 November 2010 — a reflection on an event that pushed, tried, and reminded me of my limits
Ninoy Aquino’s Place in History: People Power’s Final Act, posted 11 May 2010 — my definitive political piece on last year’s elections. I actually wrote a lot of political pieces over the course of last year’s elections, but I’d like to remember just this one.
