The Good Project’s Value Sort: Then and Now

by Danny Mucinskas

The Good Project is excited to announce that the Value Sort activity, which has for many years been our most popular reflection tool, has been revamped with the inclusion of a new values list, as well as new formatting that allows for easy sorting and event code creation on web and mobile. View and take the new Value Sort yourself here.

The Value Sort activity is an exercise that asks users to sort a set of unique values, such as “Honesty,” “Power,” and “Faith,” according to their relative importance to one another, similar to a q-sort methodology used in the social sciences. The user must make forced choices between the significance of the values to them personally by limiting the number of items that can be placed under five headings: Most Important (limited to four values), More Important (six values), Neutral, Less Important (six values), and Least Important (four values).

Then: A Research Tool

During The Good Project’s initial investigation of the meaning of “good work” across various professional and working domains, which began during the late 1990s, the Value Sort was developed by Dr. Jeanne Nakamura (Claremont Graduate University). She developed a comprehensive set of 30 value items that she found in a survey of the literature to be important to American employees and professionals in their working lives. The Value Sort was then provided as a reflection prompt to research interviewees, including doctors, lawyers, educators, actors, and journalists, as a way for them to identify the most significant guiding principles in their working lives. These interviews ultimately led to the creation of The Good Project’s framework of “good work” consisting of excellence (technical proficiency), ethics (social responsibility), and engagement (meaning, enjoyment, and purpose).

Interviewees in the original investigation of “good work” overwhelmingly reported that they appreciated the chance to pause and consider their personal values. In subsequent years, the Value Sort became an integral part of the educational and curricular materials created by The Good Project for use by teachers and adolescents. As the focus of The Good Project shifted from qualitative interviews with workers to pedagogical practices that could share the ideals of “good work” with an audience of diverse young people, preparing them for the complex decisions they would make in their work, the Value Sort remained a key exercise. Both the original GoodWork Toolkit (The Good Project’s first foray into the creation of educational materials) and the project’s more recent comprehensive lesson plans have included the Value Sort as a key way to prompt learners to consider their underlying guiding ideals, with over 125,000 individual completions of the older online Value Sort that was active from December 2019. People have also used the Value Sort comparatively to consider the values important to their colleagues and organizations, looking at areas of alignment and misalignment.

Review and Updates

Yet in 2022, as we embarked on a study of the impact of our lesson plans on teaching and student learning, particularly how ideas of “good work” might affect student character growth, we realized that the Value Sort was in need of an update. Our Community of Practice, made of around 100 international educators, remarked that the values list may not have been entirely representative of the full range of values important to their students. Wide cultural differences were apparent between the population that the Value Sort was originally intended to be used with (American professionals taking part in a research study at the turn of the millennium) and the learners that the tool was now being used with (adolescents in many countries over 20 years later). In particular, we observed that the list of 30 values included on the original value sort were individualistic, Western values, and primarily related to professional environments (e.g., “professional accomplishment”) as opposed to more general circumstances. We therefore decided to adapt the Value Sort to be more current to our needs and constituencies.

From 2023-2024, our team spent time reviewing a variety of values taxonomies and lists, with a particular focus on identifying possible values that had not been represented in the original items on the Value Sort. We compiled a set of 58 synthesized values from non-academic and academic sources, and using the list, we then performed a survey with an international population of nearly 300 respondents from 13 countries, with the largest groups coming from Argentina, Australia, India, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States. Respondents were asked to complete the Value Sort exercise, to define each of their top and bottom values in their own words, and then to recommend values that should be added to or eliminated from the exercise in open-ended responses.

Our survey results showed that:

• The values most often chosen as among respondents’ four “Most Important” values were as follows (all of which have been preserved in the updated version of the Value Sort):

• Confidence

• Creativity

• Honesty

• Balance

• The values most often chosen as among respondents’ four “Least Important” values were as follows:

• Power

• Wealth

• Frugality

• Tradition

While Power remains on the value sort, Wealth, Frugality, and Tradition were subsumed by other new items (namely Security and Loyalty).

Based on our analyses of the survey results, we pared down further and edited the grouping and phrasing of each of the values in our list, ultimately landing on a set of 35 values for inclusion in the updated version of the Value Sort that has now been made public. The values within the new set are now more representative of collective or relational aspects (e.g., Love, Loyalty) that were absent from the original list, as well as values that may be more common to personal or non-work circumstances (e.g., Achievement, Fairness), which will help people consider how their values cross multiple aspects of their lives. Each value now also includes a brief explanation or connotation (which users can toggle on or off) to help users understand the meaning of each of the value items. We found that this would be particularly helpful for non-native English speakers or for translation of the Value Sort into other languages, since single English words may not have exact or similar translations into other (even closely-related) languages. 

The New Value Sort

The new set of values and their definitions is visible in the list below.

• Achievement: reaching goals, gaining recognition from peers, supervisors, or field

• Balance: in life, in work, between the two

• Collaboration: working with others in depth

• The Common Good: working towards the benefit of all

• Confidence: belief in oneself

• Creativity: thinking outside the box, beyond or transcending the “norm,” originality

• Curiosity: a strong desire to know or to learn

• Diligence: being hardworking, stick-to-itiveness, constant effort, persistence

• Diversity: difference or variety of opinions, of perspectives, of backgrounds

• Efficiency: accomplishment with minimal amount of effort or time

• Enjoyment: pleasure, satisfaction, engagement

• Fairness: freedom from bias, justness

• Faith: belief or trust in something, not based in proven fact

• Forgiveness: willingness to pardon someone or something

• Gratitude: being grateful or thankful

• Growth: not stagnant, the process of growing

• Health & Wellbeing: physical, emotional and mental well-being

• Helping Others: doing for other people

• Honesty: truthfulness, sincerity

• Hope: belief in positive possibilities

• Humility: modesty

• Independence: freedom to act, think, etc. on one’s own

• Introspection: looking inward, examining one’s own thoughts, beliefs, or emotions

• Kindness: goodness, benevolence, thoughtfulness towards others

• Knowledge: well-versed familiarity with a particular subject

• Love: presence of deep, affectionate relationships

• Loyalty: being faithful to someone or something

• Openness: receptive to new ideas, experiences

• Patience: meeting difficulties or obstacles with calm and resilience

• Peace: a state of harmony, tranquility, and absence of aggression, hostility

• Positive Relationships: healthy, sustaining relationships with friends, family, coworkers

• Power: strength, control, authority, ability to get things done

• Respect: to hold in high regard, esteem

• Security: freedom from anxiety, such as about finances, safety, etc.

• Trust: belief in reliability, truth, or abilities of someone or something

It is our hope that the current Value Sort will allow people of all ages to engage with an expanded set of value items that is more representative of the full set of possible life values across the world and that the tool remains a popular way of reflecting on what is important to each of us. In this way, the Value Sort continues to fulfill its original research purpose: to help people think about where we each derive meaning and how we understand the standards that drive our thoughts and actions.

Please visit our Value Sort landing page for more information and complementary materials that will guide you in using the Value Sort and reflecting upon your answers. We welcome our readers’ thoughts and reactions to the updated Value Sort.

It Takes a Village to Raise a Good Child

By Yvonne Liu-Constant

In August, 2024, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued Parents Under Pressure: The U.S. Surgeon General Advisory on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Parents declaring that parenting stress has escalated to a crisis level. Parents have always worried about their children’s health and safety as well as their family’s financial stability, so what makes their stress particularly high today? There are new challenges, such as managing technology and social media, a youth mental health epidemic, as well as heightened expectations to invest more time and money to ensure their children thrive in a competitive society. However, the core of the issue, as stated in The New York Times, may lie in

“the American belief that parenting is an individual task, not a societal one.”

The saying, “It takes a village to raise a child” stands in contrast to parenting as an individual pursuit. Although this saying, made famous in the US by Hillary Clinton’s book, is an indirect translation and combination of proverbs from several African languages, it nonetheless captures the shared value of raising children as a community. In a focus group discussion with students from different African countries at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, “it takes a village” came up frequently. They explained that child-rearing as a collective pursuit is rooted in a treasured cultural value: we are interconnected and interdependent with each other, the community, and the world. This sense of “I am because we are” is shared by various communities, known as Ubuntu in South Africa, Paluku in Liberia, Opiatoha in the Idoma language in Nigeria, among other languages.

The saying also comes from the cultural context of “the village.” It reflects and acknowledges close-knit communities where extended families live in the same compound, and grown children build houses near their parents. In the village—at least in the ideal—all adults take responsibility for all children in order to ensure they grow up to be good people. In Yoruba, there is the proverb, “A good name is better than riches.” Good names are attached to heritage, reputation, and value; adults work hard to teach children who are omo luabi—children with good character who represent the family well. 

Another frequently mentioned proverb (loosely translated) was, “Help me discipline my child.” Discipline can range from verbal reprimanding to physical punishment. While it may appear harsh, it comes from a place of concern and care. A student explained:

“The concept is a community-based concept in Nigeria. We believe that when I see your child outside, not from my family, going astray, it is my responsibility to tell that child: ‘What you are doing is very wrong’… When a child is misbehaving, we want you to correct that child. Your child is my child.”

While parents in the US often long for a village to help raise their children, the idea of neighbors disciplining their children is virtually unimaginable. One could attribute this to cultural differences—we don’t live in close-knit villages, consisting of extended families with shared values protecting the family reputation. However, there is a village that many of us do trust to help raise our children—the school. Saying that we “trust” schools might be an oversimplification, given the tensions present in various areas—for example, discipline affected by systemic racism. Although we can broadly agree on the importance of teaching children right from wrong, defining what constitutes a “good child” and who gets to decide that for our child raises complex questions.

What is a “good” child? How do different communities foster children’s developing sense of I, we, and they, so they grow up to be adults who uphold shared cultural values? Who are the people in our village, or the “we,” whom we trust to raise our children, and the “they,” whom we do not trust? These are some of the issues we are exploring at the Good Starts project.

One might argue that individualistic cultures lack a true sense of “village” where values are aligned, especially in today's sharply divided atmosphere in the U.S., where many school-related issues, from book selections to curriculum choices, have become highly politicized. Yet parents do try to create their own village when they can: they choose schools with a shared educational philosophy; connect with like-minded families through their children’s friends or playgroups; and may even relocate to be near grandparents or in neighborhoods where they feel a sense of belonging. We all need a village, whether it is the one we grew up in or one that we create—or recreate—for our children. Both individualistic and collectivistic cultures require a sense of “we”—a collective to support child-rearing. While boundaries may vary—such as preferences about who should discipline children or how schools handle misbehavior, we all rely on people outside our families to help care for our children.

What might a community with aligned values look like? What happens when parents, teachers, school leaders, and the government all agree about the crucial role that schools play in raising children? In China, the One Child policy (in place 1979-2015) created a shared national concern about the “Little Emperor Syndrome”: according to this characterization, the single child in each family is likely to grow up pampered by two parents and four grandparents, lacking opportunities to interact with siblings. Preschool was seen as the best—if not the only—place to socialize children and teach them how to be “good”—to share with peers, be independent and not rely on adults for all tasks, and respect others.

Jing Xu, professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, conducted an in-depth study at an early childhood center in Shanghai in 2011-2012. She detailed the findings in her book, The Good Child. Xu found that families and educators wanted children to learn to be good at school. But they encountered conflicting values between traditional Confucian ethics and the competitiveness in modern society. This tension led many persons—particularly parents employed in modern industries—to worry about children who are “too good,” or perhaps “too nice,” to thrive in the world. Teachers tended to disapprove of students who are “fake good”—doing the right thing solely for rewards, and preferred those who acted kindly in a genuine nature and authentically. These educators often associated students’ behaviors with their parents, concluding that insincere parenting produced insincere children. Meanwhile, adults themselves often engaged in disingenuous behaviors to gain advantages, such as parents giving teachers expensive gifts to secure prominent roles for their children in performances, thereby perpetuating the competitive culture and revealing the harsh realities of success in Shanghai. Even with a clear, shared goal of childrearing in a country supported by educational policy, how to raise good children collectively is complex when examined more closely.

It takes a village to raise a good child. As religious service attendance declines among many faith groups in the U.S., schools are one of the few remaining places with the potential to serve as a “village,” where educators and families form a community to teach and care for children. At the Good Starts project, we are launching a pilot study focused on schools with community building as their founding mission. What do various members of this village—children, families, teachers, and school leaders—think school is for? What do they consider to be a “good” child? How do they create a sense of community with diverse and sometimes conflicting family and school values? How do children develop their sense of “I,” “we,” and “they” within this village, and grow up to be “good”? 
As we research these questions at Good Starts, we would love to hear from you: Who are the people in your village? What does being a good child mean to you?

The Good Starts Project is generously funded by the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation.

I’d like to thank Vika Dotsenko, Wendy Fischman, Shinri Furuzawa, Howard Gardner, and Mara Krechevsky for their valuable comments on an earlier draft.

The Emergence and Evaluation of “They”

© Howard Gardner  2024

 “They” or “Them” or “Those guys”

In the early 1950s, with his wife Carolyn and other colleagues, social psychologist Muzafer Sherif carried out an intriguing “real-life” experiment. It was an experiment, because he wanted to test a hypothesis in his area of expertise. It was “real life” because—in the days when “human subjects/studies committees” were not yet mandated—researchers were pretty much free to do what they wanted—so long as they did not violate their own ethical standards. (Stanley Milgram’s “obedience to authority” studies (1974) were the most famous—and notorious—example of the looser norms of that time.)

The Sherif team took over a summer camp for boys called “Robbers Cave” (1961). Upon their arrival, the 24 boys—all sharing similar social-economic backgrounds—drew straws. Thereafter they were placed in one of two gangs—the Eagles or the Rattlers. For several weeks, the teams competed very aggressively with one another in games and other challenges that yielded clear winners and losers. As the end of the camp season approached, most Rattlers could not abide most Eagles—and vice versa.

Since this was an experiment (and not preparation for a life in the military!), the Sherif team did not want campers to disperse while they still despised half of their peers. Accordingly, a few final “manipulations:” the group was posed challenges—or presented with superordinate goals—that could only be met if the Eagles and Rattlers were to join forces. Examples: fixing a truck that had broken down; repairing the water system; or extinguishing a fire. Even if there was lingering resistance to converting former “enemies” into “friends,” these restorative manipulations worked sufficiently well. By the time they packed their bags to return home, the campers were on reasonable terms with one another.

We live in a stressful time. Certainly, in the United States (note the name, which seems almost taunting) and likely as well in many other countries, there is an excessive focus—if not an obsession—with the “I.” Accordingly, along with many other scholars and commentators, our research group has been examining the factors—experimental manipulations or levers in “real life”—that might help to nudge the needle from “I” to “we.” Indeed, as I drafted this blog during the summer of 2024, political scientist Robert Putnam (2024) has yet again chronicled the damage to any society when so many of its citizens feel alone, isolated, and not part of a group.

To be sure, there’s a big difference between feeling lonely and isolated, on the one hand—that might yield a neutral “they”—as opposed to feeling clearly hostile to others—yielding instead an alien and despised “they.” In our investigations, it’s important to consider what it means to have or to create an “out group,” the costs attendant thereto, and the ways that the situation might be alleviated—or even dissolved.

Stepping back from the researcher’s clipboard, let me draw on my own experience. I endeavor to do so in a way that yields insight, rather than engenders discomfort. As someone raised as a reform Jew, but essentially areligious for decades, I was surprised—if not shocked—to discover that, as I reflected on this topic, the term “goy” readily popped up. As conventionally defined, “goy” simply means “not Jewish;” it can be used in a completely neutral way—like the term “visitor” might be used in contrast to the permanent residents of a town. And indeed, I think that for many, if not for most Jewish persons, “goy” or “goyim” does not contain much of an affective punch. (Note: I could well have thought of the term “gentile” instead of “goy” but I am trying to be faithful to my own thought processes.)

As described, the situation could well be different. Both within the Jewish community (however defined or delineated) and outside the Jewish community (in the contemporary United States, Jews account for fewer than 3 % of the population), the term “goy” can be considerably more loaded. For some Jews, it may mean “someone who is completely different from us and should be shunned,” or “someone who does not and will never understand our way of being.” And for some “goyim”—or, if you prefer, “gentiles,” —the concept of “not Jewish” can be used as a way of promoting one’s own (typically Christian) background and/or of disrespecting or disparaging anyone who harbors any “Jewish blood.”

No need to elaborate on this point—alas, it will be anathema to most readers. And of course, analogous conceptualization would likely exist even if there were no Jews. Whether “in group” vs “out group,” citizens vs interlopers or immigrants, or true-blooded vs aliens, the capacity of human beings to dislike, disdain, disparage, or simply “diss” others seems to be a basic–albeit not praiseworthy—trait, one easily incentivized and captured vividly by the Sherifs and their research team.

When does this begin? How does this begin? Need it begin? And if indeed it’s begun, how can it be defused, diffused, countered, or even ended? There’s significant literature on the creation and maintenance of “in groups” and “out groups.” While most of the literature deals with children of school age, the origins of such groupings can be discerned much earlier. Indeed, thanks to researchers like Yarrow Dunham, we know that within the first year or two of life, children already distinguish between members of their own racial/ethnic groups and those from visibly distinctive groups. There need not be any particular valence on this distinction—it can be difference without disdain—but there’s no question that it can be pushed (perhaps all too easily) into an in-group/out-group contrast or even clash.

Above, in introducing the notion of “we” vs “they” it was easy—and perhaps even natural— for me to think of religious groups. Dating back to Biblical times, and no doubt earlier, individuals aligned as Hebrews (Israelites) or as Philistines. And in subsequent eras, there are Christians vs Non-believers (agnostics, atheists), or—within Christianity—Catholics vs Protestants; and outside the faith, Christians vs Muslims or (within Islam) Sunnis vs Shiites.

But from a contemporary vantage point, religions are just one form of divider, one variety of “we” vs “they.” Individuals within our country divide along political lines (Democrat vs Republican), financial (wealthy vs getting-by vs poverty-stricken), and along racial lines, though there are many distinctions within and across sub-populations. A 900-page history of the Muslim World (Cook, 2024) chronicles numerous tensions and conflicts—as well as occasional cooperation— among subgroups of the followers and the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (c. 570-632 AD).

In short, while our compelling interest has been in helping individuals move the needle from “I“ to “we” we cannot simply ignore the inevitable presence and the often powerful shadow of “they.”

Where can we begin to counteract these tendencies? A few words about our current enterprises:

Our Good Starts group has recently launched two prongs of research:

1. With young children (roughly 3 to 6): we have created scenarios where these youngsters have the opportunity to show us, among other things, who they like to play with and why, and whether outgroups are distinguished (no “they”), whether outgroups are neutral (neutral “they”), or if the outgroup is to be excluded (negative “they”) and in what circumstances.

   To be schematic: No “they”; Neutral “they”; Negative “they.”

2. With adults having a stake in early childhood education—ranging from the parents of children enrolled in preschool, to the teachers and other personnel on campus, to the local administrators who set policy: We are posing analogous questions to the ones we are asking children and soliciting thoughts about the relationship between “I,” “we,” and “they” in different contexts.
   

At present this is clearly an academic undertaking—perhaps even an academic exercise. That said, the questions explored are important and timely. In a country, and indeed a world, where discrimination, intolerance, hatred, and even genocide are patent—and where the mediating or moderating forces are all too often feeble or evanescent—any effort to help all persons feel part of the same world, having similar stakes, and having an impetus to work together—has become absolutely crucial.

And it can’t start young enough!

The Good Starts Project is generously funded by the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation.

REFERENCES

Cook, M. (2024). A history of the Muslim world : from its origins to the dawn of modernity. Princeton University Press.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority; an experimental view ([1st ed.]). Harper & Row.

Garcia-Navarro, L. (2024). Robert Putnam Knows Why You’re Lonely: The Interview. New York Times (Online).

University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

“Your child’s education is not an individual pursuit.” Challenging Me before We in Early Childhood Classrooms

BY MARA KRECHEVSKY

The world of early childhood education is filled with unhelpful dichotomies. For example, 

• You are either talking about the group or the individual.

• Learning is either teacher- or child-directed.

• You are either supporting project-based learning or basic skills.

• It’s either the learning process or the product that matters.

• Teaching and learning are either cognitive or emotional endeavors

These dichotomies are not necessary, though many people may assume they are. Many school mission statements separate academic excellence and the ability to contribute to a democratic society into two distinct sets of expectations. Yet learning is an ongoing activity that begins at birth and continues over a lifetime. Current rhetoric about the importance of collaborative learning notwithstanding, most schools in the U.S. (and other individualist cultures) emphasize individual progress and achievement. In early childhood, a common curricular sequence begins with “all about me,” and then branches out to consider the family, classroom, school, and larger communities. In many ways, this sequence makes sense. Yet what would it mean to see the relationship between individual and group as mutually constitutive, so that from the very beginning of formal education, individual learning occurs with the world or community in mind?

Could schools become places where children are both supported in developing knowledge, skills, and understanding, and feel like they are contributing to something larger than themselves? When children and adults learn from and with each other, they become capable of understanding and accomplishing more than they would as individuals. In this view, children both advance their own knowledge and understanding and contribute to a more shared and public body of knowledge. They also learn how to learn from and with others—how to listen, how to build on and modify ideas, and how to negotiate disparate viewpoints.

Ron Berger of EL Education

The Good Starts Project is interested in supporting teachers of young children in creating communities of learners in their classrooms that embrace we as well as me. According to educator Ron Berger, schools make a mistake in thinking that children are necessarily oriented toward “me” or “we.” How do young children see themselves in relation to others? How do preschool and other early childhood settings shape adults’ and children’s perceptions of the relationship between the individual and the group? What do the cultural and political contexts contribute to the mix? We would like to help schools, from the very beginning, support the creation of communities of learners who see themselves as both independent and interdependent learners and members of a community.

We suspect there are at least four dimensions of the problem space:

1. What view of the child informs and shapes child-rearing and schooling?

Adult beliefs about children’s capacities shape how they interact with them. At one extreme, children are considered empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Others see children as powerful, competent protagonists with the capacity and motivation to learn and understand the world around them. Jin Li, our colleague at Brown University, suggests that many individualist cultures tend to view the self as a stable entity with fixed attributes, whereas more collectivist cultures tend to see the self as relational and connected to others—in a constant process of becoming. (There is a saying, “In the West, if children don’t do well, they give up; in the East, they double their effort.”) If we see children as capable, strong, resourceful, and able and eager to learn from and with others, our approach to teaching and learning will reflect those beliefs and shape children’s sense of self and other.

2. What do children, teachers, families, and other stakeholders think learning looks like?

Is learning considered a private and individual activity, with children seen as independent discoverers and constructors of their own meanings, or a social and communicative act? In individualist cultures, educators often take an inherently group setting—school—and try to individualize it. Each child works on an individual product. Yet the types of activities, available materials, and time frame are often the same for all children. There is no collective goal, yet all individuals in the group are working[2] on the same things. Our PZ colleague, David Perkins, says learning is a consequence of thinking. If we also believe that thinking and learning are fundamentally social endeavors, children need the opportunity to build understanding, solve problems, and make meaning together.

3. What do children, teachers, families, and other stakeholders believe is the purpose of schooling?

Some months ago an educator who was starting a public charter school in Hawai’i told me that in her school, you would never hear the term “child-centered.” People might say “child-led” or “child-directed,” but not child-centered. To her and her colleagues, the center of education was not the child, but the land, the earth, and all living things. “Child-centered” is a common value in progressive education, particularly in early childhood. Yet the term is steeped in the Western culture of individualism, consumption, and capitalism. “Child-centered” implies education that is focused on the individual. What might an alternative look like?

In a civics and arts collaboration with the Columbus Museum of Art, teachers asked their students, “Why do you go to school?” Not a single student talked about the role of school in society. One high school student responded, “If the pandemic has taught me anything, it’s that school is not about education, but about government-sponsored babysitting.” This points to a need to better understand children’s beliefs about school and why societies (as well as individuals) might need schools.

4. What is the role of the teacher?

Loris Malaguzzi, founder of the Reggio Emilia approach to education

Many people continue to see teachers as deliverers—and children as receivers—of knowledge (the teachers teach and the children learn). In many US classrooms, teachers tell children what to do. Courtney Cazden, among others, has observed that group discussions in classrooms often look like a wheel in which the comments of children on the outer rim are directed toward the teacher at the center of the wheel, who then responds back to the individual child. Opportunities for children to learn from and with each other are scarce. Conflict is typically something to be avoided or resolved quickly.[3] However a different conception of the teacher’s role is possible. In the words of Loris Malaguzzi, the founder of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education, “The aim of teaching is not to produce learning, but to produce the conditions for learning” (and we would add “…for learning from and with others).”

 It is time to challenge the idea that in focusing on the group as a context for learning, the individual somehow gets lost; rather, the group helps individuals find their identity in a more nuanced and multifaceted way. There is no need to choose between the two, just an ongoing need to design and revisit the balance of individual and group learning. From the first days of school (and earlier!), it behooves us to remember that learning is an expressive and communicative act where knowledge and culture are both created and transmitted.

The Good Starts Project is generously funded by the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation.

I’d like to thank Carin Aquiline, Wendy Fischman, Shinri Furuzawa, Howard Gardner, and Yvonne Liu-Constant for their valuable comments on an earlier draft.

[1] “Your child’s education is not an individual pursuit.” This is a statement kindergarten teacher Melissa Tonachel used to share with parents at child-teacher-parent conferences.

[2] Note that getting work done is not necessarily the same thing as learning.

[3] One exception is the Opal School, a public charter school in Portland, OR, that was recently closed due to the pandemic. At Opal, conflict was embraced. Children engaged in playful inquiry with many low-stakes opportunities to explore ideas, make mistakes, and take risks (see, e.g., Do-Over, Making Friends with Conflict, and Snapping Ideas Together). 

Educator Spotlight - Shafaq Irshad

Shafaq Irshad

Beaconhouse Jauhar Campus Karachi

Karachi, Pakistan

About Shafaq Irshad                                                               

I am Shafaq Irshad, an experienced educator specializing in O & A levels Global Perspectives and Research. My career bridges both the IT and educational sectors, granting me a comprehensive understanding of technology and pedagogy. I hold an MPhil in Educational Leadership and Management, which has equipped me with the expertise to lead and innovate within the educational landscape. For the past seven years, I have been associated with the Beaconhouse School System.

Throughout my professional journey, I have had the privilege of working in all provincial capitals of Pakistan, gaining a wealth of diverse experiences and insights into the nation's educational dynamics. I am deeply passionate about making a positive societal impact, as reflected in my dedicated work on projects for acid burn survivors, visually impaired students, environmental concerns, and advocating for street children. These initiatives are particularly close to my heart and underscore my commitment to fostering inclusive and supportive educational environments.

With a profound passion for education and advocacy, I strive to inspire and empower my students, encouraging them to embrace a global perspective and engage in meaningful research. My goal is to nurture thoughtful, informed individuals who are prepared to make a difference in the world.     

How did you learn about The Good Project lesson plans? 

Beaconhouse School System, known for its pioneering initiatives in the educational sector in both Pakistan and internationally, decided to engage in a research program. They offered an equal opportunity to all teachers within their network to participate. Among numerous applicants, I was one of the ten teachers selected from across Pakistan to take part in this research endeavor. Our school showed its support by announcing our selection on its official website.

Tell us about the students with whom you are teaching the lesson plans. In which class are you using them? What makes them a good fit for your learners?

Together with my Principal, Dr. Nadia, we decided to introduce lesson plans in the Grade 9 Global Perspectives classroom. A group of 15-17 students enthusiastically participated in this research, demonstrating their commitment to the project.

As the research progressed, the students began to find enjoyment in exploring topics related to their values and beliefs. They started to distinguish between mere work and impactful work, delved into concepts like the 3Es, Rings of Responsibilities, and Dilemmas, and actively engaged in selecting their mentors. Most importantly, they grasped the profound significance of ethical responsibilities on a deeper level.

What has been a memorable moment from your teaching of the lesson plans?

Several memorable moments unfolded in the classroom during our project. The dilemma discussions stand out as some of the most profound conversations the students engaged in. Another impactful activity was the "Value Sort" exercise conducted in the computer lab. Initially perceived as a quick task, it turned into a reflective journey for the students as they earnestly evaluated their values, prioritizing which ones were most significant to them.

The "Mentor and Mirror" activity was equally thought-provoking. Through this exercise, students identified the attributes of their mentors and contemplated how they could embody those qualities themselves. These moments sparked deep reflection and introspection among the students, fostering personal growth and development.

Finally, students began to reflect on whether their efforts in the classroom constituted "good work" or if they were merely going through the motions of completing tasks. They pondered whether their work aligned with the principles of the 3Es - excellence, ethics, and engagement. This introspection encouraged them to strive for meaningful contributions and to understand the significance of ethical responsibility in their academic endeavors.

What do you think are the main things your students are gaining or learning from their experiences with the lesson plans?

From their experiences with the lesson plans, my students are gaining a multitude of valuable insights and skills. Firstly, they are developing a deeper understanding of their own values, beliefs, and ethical responsibilities. Through activities such as dilemma discussions and the value sort exercise, they are learning to critically evaluate their priorities and make informed decisions based on ethical considerations.

The lesson plans are fostering a sense of empathy and social responsibility among the students. Activities like the mentor and mirror exercise prompt them to consider the attributes of exemplary individuals and reflect on how they can embody those qualities themselves, thereby nurturing their capacity for empathy and leadership.

Overall, the lesson plans are providing my students with a holistic educational experience that goes beyond academic knowledge, equipping them with essential life skills, ethical principles, and a sense of social responsibility that will serve them well in their future endeavors. 

What do you think other teachers should know before they begin teaching the lesson plans? 

Before other teachers begin teaching the lesson plans, it's essential for them to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the curriculum and objectives of the Good Project Lesson Plans. This includes understanding the key themes, concepts, and learning outcomes that the lesson plans aim to address.

Additionally, teachers should be prepared to create a supportive and inclusive classroom environment that encourages open dialogue and critical thinking. The lesson plans often involve discussions on complex topics such as ethics, values, and social responsibility, so it's crucial for teachers to facilitate these discussions respectfully and effectively.

I would advise teachers to join the Community of Practice on Slack and thoroughly review all supplementary materials provided there. Teachers can connect with fellow educators who have successfully implemented these lesson plans in their classrooms. Additionally, the Good Project team offers exceptional support and guidance, both collectively and on an individual basis, ensuring teachers have the necessary assistance to effectively implement the lesson plans.

What are students learning that you feel will stick with them? What changes, if any, do you see in the way they approach certain choices or situations in school or life?

The students are learning valuable lessons that I believe will stay with them long after they leave the classroom. One significant change I observe is in the way they approach choices and situations, both in school and in their personal lives. Through discussions and activities focused on ethical responsibilities, values, and critical thinking, students are developing a heightened awareness of the impact of their decisions on themselves and others.

I see them becoming more thoughtful and deliberate in their actions, considering not only the immediate consequences but also the broader ethical implications. This newfound awareness influences their behavior in various aspects of school life, from how they interact with classmates and teachers to the choices they make in their academic pursuits.

Furthermore, I notice a shift in their approach to challenges and dilemmas. They are more inclined to engage in constructive dialogue, seek multiple perspectives, and consider ethical considerations when confronted with complex situations. This enhanced critical thinking and ethical reasoning not only benefit them academically but also equip them with valuable life skills that they can apply in their future endeavors and contribute positively to society.

What is good work for students?

Understanding the concept of "good work" is crucial for my learners both now and in the future for several reasons. Firstly, it fosters a sense of personal responsibility and accountability. By discerning what constitutes "good work" and striving to achieve it, students learn to take ownership of their actions and understand the importance of integrity and excellence in everything they do.

Moreover, grasping the meaning of "good work" helps students develop a strong work ethic and a commitment to quality and excellence. Rather than merely completing tasks for the sake of completion, they learn to approach their work with diligence, intentionality, and a desire to make a meaningful contribution.

Understanding the concept of "good work" also cultivates a sense of purpose and fulfillment. When students recognize the value of their efforts and the positive impact they can have through their work, they are motivated to pursue endeavors that align with their values and passions, leading to greater satisfaction and fulfillment in their personal and professional lives.

Furthermore, in an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the ability to discern "good work" becomes essential for navigating ethical dilemmas and making responsible decisions. By internalizing the principles of ethics, integrity, and excellence, students are better equipped to address challenges and make ethical choices in both their personal and professional lives.

Overall, understanding the meaning of "good work" empowers my learners to lead purposeful and ethical lives, make meaningful contributions to their communities, and thrive in an ever-changing world.